A Brief Significant History
I am one of the few people in the world with a Ph.D. in Nonstandard Analysis. My biography indicates my extensive publication record throughout the world. I was once listed as a pioneer in the subject. But, except for this website, my major discovery is not featured, in any significant way, on the Internet. My personal testimony and this history present probable reasons for this.
During the period 1977-78, I and few other faculty members of the Mathematics Department of the U.S. Naval Academy studied some of the writings of C. S. Lewis. I considered various Lewis concepts. For example, "The other view is the religious view. According to it, what is behind the universe is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know." (From "Mere Christianity.")
I took a collection Lewis statements and mathematically modeled them. This produced the book "The G-model Applied to C. S. Lewis." The "G" means "Grundlegend." I attempted to publish the book, but the C. S. Lewis Foundation would not allow me to use most of the quotations, so the project was dropped. This project did produce the first six chapters of my mathematics book "The Theory of Ultralogics." In October 1978, I used material from these six chapters to constructed a mathematical model that predicts that the comparable theologically described attributes for the Biblical God are scientifically rational. This counters the atheistic notion that such a God is an irrational concept. But, these attributes did not include God's Biblical described creationary methods.
In August 1979 while traveling to a mathematics conference, John Wheeler presented to me portions of what I now call the General Grand Unification (GGU) problem. I mentioned to him that I might have a method that could solve the problem. At that time, I was not aware of the fact that he and members of both the mathematics and physics departments at Princeton had, in 1974, spent four months in an attempt to solve it. They failed to do so and even stated that they knew of no way that could be used to solve the problem. He encouraged me to try my method.
I returned home and actually did not know what would be my starting point. I opened the Bible and it literally fall open to the first page of Hebrews. There I noticed Hebrews 1:3. ". . . sustaining all things by His powerful word." The Greek translated as "word" is "rhema" meaning a spoken or even written declaration. It then occurred to me that I might be able to construct a model based upon the most basic foundations of a "science." I would not apply any other Biblical idea for the construction.
In 1979, I began constructing a mathematical "analogue" model that solves the General Grand Unification Problem. The model mainly employs concepts from universal logic and led to chapters 7 - 11 of The Theory of Ultralogics. The idea is that scientifically general linguistic descriptions for material events, obviously, should actually correspond to the material events. By applying modes of logical deduction, as viewed from a Nonstandard Model, an analogue model for the step-by-step rational production of the actual material physical events, the actual physical-systems, that comprise the step-by-step development of a universe was obtained. Further, the model is designed to apply to other universes not just the one in which we dwell. The model can produce our present universe in numerously many different ways. After its construction, the results were shown to satisfy more than 55 Biblical statements and the methods employed can produce a very strict Biblical form of creation. Until 2013, except for properton formations, no other mechanisms were considered relative to the substratum formation of a universe. The model remained an analogue model for creation that is characterized as the "changing of thoughts into various realities."
The original 1978 model was called "The Deductive-World (D-world) Model." The "intelligence" is the obvious intelligence it takes to make deductions using a specific set of rules. The deductions are applied to predicted entities called "ultrawords." This is its correspondence to Hebrews 1:3. Obviously, the term "design," if I had used it, would refer to the content of the detailed descriptions that correspond to the material events. There was no need for the use of the phrase "intelligent design," since it is but a rather obvious, if not trivial, phrase that combines the original D-world notions of a description and logical deduction. Apparently, I did not use the term until 2002. The model also generates other interesting results as well via nonstandard analysis.
Various aspects of these models were first formally published in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation "The reasonableness of metaphysical evidence," 34(1),(1982), 17-22. Then beginning in 1984, I published, in the Abstracts of the American Mathematic Society, the contents of a series of papers detailing individual aspects of the D-world model construction. They are 84T-03-61 in 1984 (5) No. 1, 84T-03-93 in 1984 (5) No.2, 84T-03-320 in 1984 (5) No. 3, 84T-03-374 in 1984 (5) No. 4. These were followed by Creation Research Society Quarterly articles, which include "The Word," 20(4), 226-229, "Developmental paradigms," 22(4)(1986), 189-198 and "D-world evidence," 23(2)(1986, 47-54.
I then gave the complete secular D-world model solution to the GGU-problem in a paper presented at the Mathematical Association of America meeting at Western Maryland College, 12 Nov 1994, under the title, "Solution to the General Grand Unification Problem and the questions 'How Did Our Universe Come into Being?' and 'Of what is Empty Space Composed?' " This complete paper, with an added Appendix, appears at arxiv:astro-ph/9903110. I note that there are various "scientific methods" used to "rationally analyze data" in all of its forms. The GGU-model is a cosmogony that satisfies the explanatory methods of physical cosmology.
It was in 1998 that Dembski brought out his inadequate, indeed, almost worthless concept of "intelligent design" (RID) that has no measurable mode of intelligence nor does it point to any specific intelligence. Indeed, Dembski states that, for RID, we could be the product of an alien intelligence located "somewhere out there." I point out that there is a "numerical" measure for the explicit D-world model definition for intelligence. The phrase "intelligent design" had immediate application to my D-world model. Thus, I wrote my 2002 book, "Science Declares Our Universe IS Intelligently Designed," to counter the Dembski rather worthless RID approach and termed the D-world model the General Intelligence Design (GID)-Model, which I also called "General Design Theory." The word "general" is necessary. I should have kept the title General Design Theory and not changed it to GID. But, else, this is not the case. If it is not GID, then it is not from me.
Thus, I appear to have originated the "concept" of "design" via a scientifically characterized "intelligence," although I did not immediately use the term "intelligent design." I point out that various false statements about Dembski are stated on the Internet, such as he is founder of the "intelligent design" concept. One even has him as a graduate of "Cambridge."
My analogue GID-model interpretation, for the GGU-model, sufficed until I decided, in 2013, to restructure the GGU-model into two parts. The now basic mechanisms are based entirely upon observable modes of human behavior, and these predict the described substratum mechanisms; the secular GGU-model with its schemes. This purely "ultranatural laws" portion, which does display intelligent actions that can be ignored as is done in Quantum Logic, can be coupled with the GID-model. RID has proved to be a very divisive notion. And my form of ID is almost always confused with RID, although at the time it was still called "General Design Theory."
When discussions relative to "ID" appear in the literature or on the Internet, the "R" and "G" are not used to differentiate between the two approaches. Rather, the symbols "ID" are employed and in all but one or two cases these refer only to RID. For those truly interested, this is a rather detailed paper, without mathematical proof but with symbolism, for my form of intelligent design.
Of considerable significance for a Complete GGU-model Biblical interpretation is the historical fact that nowhere in the oldest Biblical manuscripts does the Bible imply that God created from "nothing" any aspects of a universe. For various non-biblical reasons, this extra-biblical notion was strongly propagated, for a Christian audience, beginning in about the 4th century. The actual words of Paul have been altered in order to accommodate this change, a change that I must reject as being contrary to Biblically stated linguistic principles. [[See this article for additional significant information relative to such alterations as this and others.]]
The GGU-model, as theologically applied, uses the Genesis 1:1 - 26, "said" not as an auditable speaking but as a mental speaking, as an "immaterial" thinking. This mode of Divine communication is used throughout much of my writings. Further, Paul also considers this mode of Divine communication as highly significant. Further, God states in Isaiah 55:8-9 that He has "higher" thoughts than ours.
Today, I accept the Complete GGU-model. This is the combined GID and GGU-models. Relative to creationary notions, when allowed meanings for Biblical terms are employed, various aspects of the Bible can be interpreted as C. S. Lewis suggests in terms of rationally described mental procedures. The very general phrase that describes the Complete GGU-model as "thoughts are rationally transformed into various realities" is not altered but enhanced by the use of this model. Further, the Biblical notion of foreknowledge is entirely satisfied by the developmental paradigm and participator model pre-design portions of the Complete GGU-model. Relative to the "thoughts" concept, a pre-design is a created entity.