Thus understood, we can more carefully scrutinize the logical flaws of Darwinism. Natural selection operates on entities that possess a survival drive. Inanimate matter does not have a survival drive; indeed, to even suggest otherwise would risk resorting to teleology and essences, something that mechanism strictly forbids. Until life somehow arises, natural selection has nothing to operate upon: Why would inorganic, lifeless, unorganized, randomized matter structure and contextualize itself so as to induce life and sentience and consciousness? The response of the materialist-atheist has to be some form of mechanism, i.e., the answer is somehow to be found in the laws of physics and chemistry. But mechanism states that there is no Creator to write the laws of physics and chemistry. Yet why do these laws operate as they do? Why do they have the parameters that they do? Why do they interact and manifest themselves so as to integrate themselves into a cosmos that can then in turn induce life and sentience and consciousness? The life engendering balancing of the laws and forces of nature flies in the face of the randomness required by mechanism: a stacked deck isn't random. In fact, the existence, the hierarchical ordering and meaning imposed on each card in the deck, and the rules required to give card games meaning, fly in the face of randomness. To say that life arose by "accident" or via random processes is like saying that I pulled the nine of clubs by "accident" or via random processes. The point is this: life had to have a teleological reality in which in to self-generate and then self-replicate; the deck had to exist before I could draw a card from it.
known to be the key site of information exchange and storage in the brain.
Darwinism represents neither unbiased truth nor dispassionate science, but rather the mechanization of life; Paley and Darwin are both wrong - and for the same essential reason: the cosmos is neither watch nor machine, but instead, the cosmos is more akin to a living organism (or perhaps a living super-organism). The multiverse hypothesis is the mechanization of the cosmos, and as such it protects Darwinism's exposed flanks. At no point does Darwinism permit teleology, and purportedly at no point does the multiverse hypothesis permit or require an intelligent Creator. But these are ideological, artificial constraints imposed on reality by the doctrine of mechanism and its evolutionist/multiverse tag team. Mechanism rules out teleology a priori, and anything and everything is interpreted through mechanism's unsubstantiated assertions and self-proclaimed parameters. But of course, none of this is science. None of this is following the evidence wherever it leads. None of this is unbiased, open-minded probing and searching out of truth. Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis are every bit as close-minded, doctrinaire, and dogmatic as Marxism itself: reality mustn't be allowed to interfere with the Agenda. Conform or be cast out. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, but he didn't copyright reality. Darwin recognized that change occurs over time, and he saw nature's incrementalism from the perspective of methodological naturalism. But is methodological naturalism the only perspective from which to view nature's incrementalism? The emergence of life and sentience and consciousness, the bio-friendly laws and forces of nature, as well as the progression of the cosmos from a seed-like singularity to today's visible universe, suggest that perhaps nature's incrementalism actually is goal-based teleology. Is that really so far-fetched? Why should the Darwinian patina of metaphysical nihilism be the final word concerning nature's incrementalism? Why is the statement: "Ultimately, everything is an accident" any more or less scientific than the statement: "Ultimately, everything is goal-oriented"? Why must the brain be viewed exclusively as a piece of electrified meat? Perhaps the brain is an organ, a portal to higher dimensions, to disembodied Consciousness, but we, still with primordial mud on our boots, are unable to perceive this supra-dimensional bioelectrical teleology of the matter-body-brain-mind-consciousness-spirit continuum. As Aristotle's teleology demonstrates, thinking is godlike: abstract contemplation is the highest end. Plato's Republic and Myth of Er, St. Augustine's notion of evil as distance from God, Aristotle's view on biological reproduction as somehow participating in the divine - none of these thinkers or their ideas would dispute evolution understood as change over time, or perhaps even as common ancestry, but to deny teleology?
At this point in history there really is no way to know - in an ultimate sense - if reality, as we are capable of perceiving it, is the result of randomness or purposefulness. But as intelligent, conscious beings, we have a duty to consider all the best possible evidence and, based upon that evidence, set forth the best hypothesis that we possibly can - and this is precisely what I submit to you that Transudationism is: the best hypothesis that can be made, based upon all the best possible evidence. The seed is somehow impelled to become the plant; the electron is somehow brought to orbit the nucleus - and what does intelligent imagination suggest to us what the mind might somehow be induced to do and become? Who's to say that everything - reality - is a happenstance confluence of blind mechanism, sifting through an eternity of randomized ripples? Perhaps rather reality is the sprouting of Beauty - a symphonious cosmic garden - and not a cacophonous materialistic hellhole. Perhaps the Big Bang singularity was a seed, and not a random expansion of matter-energy space-time. Is that really so far-fetched? Cosmologists and physicists generally agree that the entire visible universe expanded from a singularity much smaller than a pea. The atoms composing your body are stardust. Consciousness has quite literally emerged from the void. No, we cannot possibly Know anything with absolute certainty - at least not at this stage in the evolution of cosmic consciousness (please see Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem). But yet we can - and indeed, we have a duty to - set forth our best hypothesis: