While traveling the world on the good ship Lolly Pop, we stopped at the Galloping Islands. There I came across a primitive form of artificial intelligence known as a pencil. While pondering the meaning of the pencil, I realized that, with adequate dreaming, imagination, and other such stupidity, I could create the Theory of Evolution for Artificial Intelligence. Then I could become famous, write a book, go on the lecture circuit, get a proffessorship, become wealthy, and die unhappy.
I decided,"Why not, what have I got to lose?" So I decided to build my theory on the precedences set by biological evolution. That way, it would have just as much scientific validity and be just as likely to be accepted by the evolution biased scientific community and media. Therefore, I have developed the following Theory of Evolution for Artificial Intelligence.
Bazillions of years ago, long before Santa Claus, in a primordial swamp, by the weirdest of miracles, lightning struck a tree and the resultant energy release and molecular activity accidently created the very first PENCIL! Whole box of them. With rubber erasers too. It was the first form of computer or artificial intelligence.
Hey, why not? Evolutionists say that something similar created the first living organism which had at least a trillion molecules and was at least a trillion times more complex than a pencil. If a living cell can accidently happen, then it is at least a trillion times more likely that something as simple as a pencil could accidently happen. After all, a pencil is just wood, carbon, and a rubber eraser. (It was a rubber tree, OK.) Besides, this is my fantasy. You have yours called the evolution of life.
For about only one bazillion years (we know this from carbon dating, yuk, yuk, yuk) these pencils swam around our primordial swamp breading and reproducing with no change. (We don't know how they got out of the box. Go figure! Wiley little rascals.) Then suddenly, for some reason that we don't understand, they all simultaneously evolved into slide rules. (Punctuational Equalibria for artificial intelligence.) We have absolutely no idea how this happened but it is a scientific fact because I said so. After all, the simplest living organism is at least hundreds of billions of times more complex than a slide rule. Therefore, it is hundreds of billions of times more likely that a slide rule could accidently happen than the simplest living organism.
We know the pencil came first because it is more primitive by our definition of primitive. We also know that it is a fact because they are similar (they are both forms of computers) and we know that similarity proves evolution because things could not possibly have been created similar. At least that is what biological evolution is based on and, therefore, has set the precedence for the Theory of Evolution for Artificial Intelligence. Therefore, our simple minded logic tells us that it is another scientific fact.
About half a bazillion years later (more carbon dating, they were wooden slide rules, OK), the now amphibious slide rules, crawled up on land and, for some reason we don't know, miraculously and simultaneously evolved into the first adding machines. We can't explain how this happened either but it is another scientific fact. We theorize that it was some kinda, sorta miraculous molecular activity we still don't understand but know that science will someday be able to explain. Or, at least, come up with an acceptable lie. Once again, the simplest living organism is at least a hundred billion times more complex than an adding machine. So it is at least a hundred billion times more likely that an adding machine could accidently happen than the simplest living organism. That makes sense.
Some time later (adding machines are made out of metal so we couldn't do carbon dating), the adding machines evolved into calculators. This is also reasonable because the simplest living organism is at least tens of billions times more complex than the simplest calculator. Therefore, it is tens of billions of times more likely that a calculator could accidently happen than the simplest living organism.
For another very long, long, long, long, long, long, long time, the calculators did not evolve. Then (another "miraculously" but we don't believe in miracles) the calculators all suddenly evolved at exactly the same time into PC's. Well, some evolved into MacIntoshes and we call that macro evolution. Finally, the simplest living organism is at least billions of times more complex than a PC or Mac. Therefore, it is billions of times more likely that a PC or Mac could accidently happen than the simplest living organism. In a nut shell, that is how artificial life evolved.
You might say that I could not possibly consider this a scientific theory because there is no supporting scientific evidence. Therefore, I rely on another precedence set by evolutionists. Decades ago, evolution had been proved to be wrong and, under the definitions for scientific criteria, evolution couldn't be considered a scientific theory. As a matter of fact, it couldn't even be considered a scientific postulate. The best it could be considered was an idea. So the evolutionists changed the definitions for scientific criteria so evolution could be called a scientific fact. They didn't prove anything, they just changed the definitions. None of the three levels for scientific criteria now require any supporting scientific evidence.
The lowest level for scientific criteria is the hypothesis. To be a scientific hypothesis, all that is required is that it be an idea. You know, like evolution. I am a scientists and it is my idea. Therefore, by the definition set by evolutionists, my Theory of Evolution for Artificial Intelligence is a legitimate scientific hypothesis. But it gets better.
A scientific theory only has to be an idea and to have been tested. It does not have to be proved correct. It can even be proved wrong and remain a scientific theory. Just like evolution. So let's test my hypothesis.
Since all of these things are forms of computers and are, therefore, similar, then we know they had to evolve because evolution is built on and proved by the concept that things which are similar cannot be created and must have evolved. This means that similarity proves evolution and all these forms of computers must have evolved. They could not possibly have been created similar.
There, I just tested my idea and, unlike evolution of life, it passed the test. Now my idea is a legitimate scientific theory. But it gets even better.
Under the new definition, for an idea to be a fact, it has to be an idea, have been tested, and must be accepted by the majority of the scientific community in that field of science because they want to believe it. It doesn't have to have anything to do with scientific evidence. It can also change and remain a fact so I can change my theory any time I want and it will still be a fact. Just like evolution which changes all of the time but is still a scientific fact.
Well, we already know that my idea is an idea (admittedly stupid but still an idea) and you saw me test it SUCCESSFULLY! Since I am the only scientist in the field of evolution of artificial intelligence by miraculous accidents and coincidence and I have decided to believe my idea no matter how stupid, it is a legitimate scientific fact. (If you think I am exaggerating these scientific definitions, you can find them in your children's high school science books.)
My theory on the Evolution of Artificial Intelligence must now be taught in public schools as a scientific fact. To teach that an intelligent life form intentionally created artificial intelligence by design is a religion because it would require believing in the possible existence of an intelligent life form. We know that is ridiculous. Who would believe that an intelligent life form could possibly exist? Yeah, right!
But hold it, we have a problem with this. It is obvious that some form of intelligence was required to make all of this happen. Since we don't want to admit that an intelligent being who could make all of this stuff might actually exist, then we need to create another story. I will use another precedence set by evolutionists. I will pretend that this stupid rock we are flying through space on, Planet Earth, has the intelligence required to make all of this stuff accidently happen and evolve. Then I will use the same religious deities the evolutionists are using to give credence to that stupid idea. I will say that I believe in Gaia, Mother Earth, Mother Nature, or what ever you want to call this stupid planet and pretend that it is really an intelligent entity. That is inspite of the fact that I have studied geology and know that this stupid chunk of dirt doesn't even have a brain with which to have intelligence. After all, the evolutionists have set the precedence which gives my doing the same thing the same validity.
But this creates another problem. My Theory of Evolution for Artificial Intelligence has just become a religion. I know, I will follow another precedence set by evolutionists. I will organize a front organization called something about the separation of church and state to make it look like I am against religion being taught in public schools when I am actually pushing to have my religion set up to be the official state church mascarading as a science. Besides, the evolution and anti God scientists, media, and politicians wont dare expose me for doing the same thing they are doing and we will both be promoting the same deity. They don't dare argue against their own goddess. But then, they have done dumber things, haven't they? Like dreaming all that evolution stuff up in the first place and expecting intelligent people to buy it without question.
Besides, on Galloping Island, I found a pencil in the mud following a mud slide and it was further down in the mud than the slide rule I found which was further down in the mud than the calculator I found (I wont tell you that the calculator was further down in the mud than the adding machine because it will disprove my theory and since evolutionists do this all of the time, I can do it too) and the calculator was further down in the mud than the PC and Mac I found. Therefore, I have proved my Theory of Evolution for Artificial Intelligence to be a scientific fact based on the precedences and scientific definitions set by biological evolution. I can now become famous and die unhappy.
Sounds about as stupid as you can get doesn't it. But when you consider the extreme complexity, organization, and structure required for life and the mathematical probability of it accidently happening, this foolish little story is tame. Not one of my computers even approaches the complexity of the simplest living organism. Yet the story is so obviously stupid.
On top of all of this, there are those among us who persist in believing that the simplest living organism just accidently happened because they WANT to believe that a certain intelligent being does not exist. Irrational, isn't it? And we call ourselves the intelligent species. But that is another story.
Consider this. If this being, God, really does exist and did create our existence, we have to look at least as stupid to Him as this story does to you. Think about it.
You have my permission to copy and paste this story any where on the internet you so desire or to print it and hand it out as long as it is kept intact down to this statement and my byline following this statement. Let all glory be to God. It is obvious that He is the only intelligent being in existence. :-)