六四、馬灣公園和智慧設計

又是時近中國近代慘史的另一次天安門事件,我想起2008年是我唯一沒有去的一次,感情一困擾就是兩年,要是專心一點工作,大慨中共也可以被我推翻,我的另類能源發明也可以面世了,人類不再糾纏已經落伍的廢物,還要自身難保的廢物來平反這一次屠殺,實屬荒謬,是殺人者要求他人原諒,還是殺人者以為可以把「自己原諒自己」當成已被他人原諒?猶如是香港人接不接受中共和基督右派合謀開民主、自由及人權的倒車這種政權去統治香港,而不是由中共去決定香港何時可以有普選!要是沒有中共從中作梗,香港在1988年已是一半普選.怎麼到現在才發覺香港到2017都未必有條件普選?

每年臨近六四,總有一大堆忠心的愛國人仕大發謬論,試圖做哲學家尼采都不可能達到的是,用言論/論述去推翻客觀的史實,一如中華基督教會在支持中學教授偽科學智慧設計論的理由中把演化論由事實變成了理論,再由理論暗中變成了假說;然後把智慧設計論由假說昇華到理論,最後把兩者當成了一模一樣。道理是一樣的,六四事件因為香港(基右要求更嚴格)的淫審機制而沒有在電視畫面中播出,後來更因為政治正確提也不提,於是新一代沒有親眼見到便出現了大量一㗁,在不可能的情況下要求有客觀事實來證明六月四日天安門廣場有學生被中共畜意謀殺,否則你就是不客觀、不理性、不科學,用民主程序去罷免他竟是反民主,用言論去反駁是如梁美芬所言的言語霸權、語言暴力,卻對天天在發生的國家暴力迫害農民、下崗工人、地下教會、維權人仕、法輪功視而不見,真有關啟文的雙重標準!

同理,因為演化論是一門歷史科學,所以不可能要求每一過程都有化石支持,有某些環節不可能要實地重現(如寒武紀「大爆發」),更不可能要學生親身經歷,最多只能用數學模型在電腦模擬,然後和現實可以收集到的數據比較,於是演化論數以千計的證據,香港六十四位所謂學者都視而不見,都不及幾位神創論者的偉大理論,更不及一本內容錯漏百出的宗教經典的某一種解釋。更有趣的是,六四懷疑論要求審視所有證據,包括被中共刻意清洗的,只要一環有缺失(如不知殺人士兵有多少,各殺多少人),便推論六四其他有片段為證的事未曾發生過(如太黑看不清有什麼事發生,用意是其他人也不可能看清楚,即其他不同意者是說謊!);為什麼智慧設計論有極多環缺失:如智慧設計者是誰?他/她是不是地球人?他/她如何設計人及各生物,以什麼為藍圖?設計完又如何生產?每一項設計的原意是什麼?生產出來的東西又乎不反合設計的原意?設計者的計劃是什麼?如何乎合?如何不乎合?為什麼人的設計一定要像現在這樣子而不可以更好?為什麼被設計出來的人性又一定是像現在這樣子?什麼證據可以完全否定智慧設計論呢?

又一如六四一樣,我的私人網誌最近多了不少最近才開的網誌,有些還苦心做了學生勝利撤出天安門廣場的短片,說「位高權重」的支聯會及泛民主派掩蓋六四沒有屠殺的事實真相;再看看香港特區政府用部份公帑起的馬灣創世公園,不就是如中共般創造證據去證明挪亞方舟確有其事嗎?要不然為什麼要把列出一雙雙動物,包括依據化石證據及演化論不可能於同一時間存在的三葉蟲,及隨便一塊木頭都可以當成的方舟遺骸呢?如果不是為了宣傳力撐網絡廿三條者的年輕地球論(聖經指地球只有六千年),嚴守主題公園形如中共不準記者在中共國各暴動現場拍照,為什麼已經在聖經中公開了的東西卻不可以拍照,是不是為了不被其他有識之士(特別是外國人)恥笑,猶如中共國的報紙,中英文版的內容是不同的?另外, 更有趣的是,如果主題公園不是為了宣揚基督教原教旨的意識形態,又為什麼像中共國一樣不可帶反動印刷品(聖經有數量限制,但蘋果日報則是一份也不可以), 猶如香港在北京奧運馬術比賽時要規定觀衆不可以穿有文字/廣告的衣衫進場?為什麼同樣是主題公園,為什麼迪士尼、海洋公園又不見不準使用者穿性感的衣服, 不準穿「曾蔭權是poor guy」,甚至不準用粗言穢語?如此的規則不是擺明針對無神論及不贊同基督教原教旨主義教義的基督教徒,令他們不可以在場內進行反基督教原教旨的活動嗎? 你有見過大家樂、大快活、麥當勞可以拒絕為不滿大家樂、大快活、麥當勞剝削基層勞工的示威者提供食物嗎?人家還是正正宗宗的私人地方,但是公民活動的自由竟然比所謂的半公衆地方還大?是不是基督教的特色就是剝削公民自由,所以一但主題公園和基督教有關,公民自由不及宣揚基督教福音派的基督教原教旨教義重要?

六四不可能和解,因為它除了明刀明搶的殺人,還代表一場由中共上而下的反思想自由運動,用權力、武器為確立真理的標準,向由基督教前身天主教的黑暗時代解放歐洲竹9啟蒙精神宣戰,不單是一次的肉體殺害,還縱容中共的附庸以任何方式來向民運份子展示(物理)力量就是真理,政治就是赤裸裸的暴力,一如基右派視聖經為不可挑戰的真理權威;而懦弱無能的香港特區政府,不夠膽真正的向反共、反政府、反基人仕、左派/右派人仕動刀動搶,只好協同如基督右派的明光社,偷偷竄改人權的慨念,偷偷的把佈道會來肯定中共非理性(未經大部份香港人投票公決,一如家暴及淫審條例)佔領香港,對中華基督教會蘇穎智為親中共的梁美芬助選視而不見,偷偷的在九月生效的新學制為智慧設計論創造空間,更偷偷的用公帑為基右在馬灣製做年輕地球論/神創論/智慧設計論的教材,偷偷的把公民教育換成國民教育,用通識教育三份一為學生喂狼奶,偷偷的把淫審制度改革竄改成網絡廿三條,而當自己的道德權威來自中共的武力及絕對真理的基督教聖經。如此,香港特區政府豈不是和中共一樣,天天在行反思想自由,反理性運動呢?

我是發明家在私人網誌提出不少新科學及哲學理論,反對部份牛頓力學定律(因屬循環論證)、相對論、量子力學、電磁學,亦提出了不少實驗去證明或否定我的想法,我不明白如果香港特區政府真的主張理性分析探討,為什麼不把我提出的理論及實驗加入新學制呢?說資格,我和主張智慧設計論的人都是業餘人仕, 但我可以用實驗證明真偽,比它更勝一籌的是,還可以推導一些可以預測的自然現象,用作解決世界能源危機,例如我以為地磁和地球自轉有關,螺旋而下的物件的總動量多於直線而下的物件,地心吸力及磁場的能源可以被提取等。如果連六四都可以未曾發生,錯誤百出的聖經都可以是真理,如成報所言互聯網上的暴力、色情是社會暴力、色情的原兇,智慧設計論、年輕地球說都可以是真的,為什麼在全世界有數以千萬計的另類科學人仕的想法就不可能為真?為什麼不同時打破哲學、科學、心理學、神學(基督教有神論)、懦家思想的非理性權威,來一次香港思想大解放?

Protect the education of evolution and real sciences in Hong Kong!

Petition:

To Education Bureau, HKSAR Government,

We, the undersigned, are concerned about the future of science education in Hong Kong, strongly object to the confusion of religion and science education, and petition that immediate action is taken by the Bureau to:

1. Issue open statement to emphasize the teaching of sciences and evolution’s underpinning importance in biology, to allow students learn the best of scientific knowledge, to distinguish what is scientific theories from what is not (E.g. Creationism and Intelligent Design), and review the curriculum along this direction. Education Bureau should clarify what kind of discussions is encouraged in science class, and emphasize the purpose of such discussions is to be in accordance with the aim of science education.

2. Clarify the position of Education Bureau on the matter. On the RTHK Program “The Pulse” on April 24, 2009, the Bureau made a statement saying “Creationism is not considered as an alternative to Darwin’s theory”. To be consistent, a similar open statement that declares “Intelligent Design is not considered as an alternative to Darwin’s theory” should be issued.

3. Rectify the damaging remarks by school principals, teachers and the group of 62, which distort science and advocate the teaching of pseudo-sciences. These people are being dishonest in using Intelligent Design/Creationism proponents’ materials without disclosing the source (thus their Intelligent Design/Creationism position) to the public and legislative council.

We thank you for taking time to read this letter and will very much appreciate your prompt response. We wish to work together for the best of education in Hong Kong.

(Instructions for signers:
1. Sign with your real name in English, all caps for surname / family name (e.g. CHAN Po-Ming, TSE Johnny etc)
2. Show the district you live in, such as “Kwun Tong”, “Tai Po” or “Lantau Island” etc.
3. Provide method of contact (it will not be shown on the petition publicly, and is only for the group committee’s use to contact you if needed).
4. Sign once only — if you are not sure or a failure occurred midway, check the signatories when you revisit the site to see if you have successfully signed.
5. Invite your friends to sign this petition, to help protecting science education in Hong Kong. Thank you very much for your support.)

請願書：

致香港特區政府教育局：

我們簽署人擔心香港科學教育的未來，強烈反對將宗教和科學教育混淆，現向教育局請願，要求當局立即：

1. 發表公開聲明，強調科學教育中科學方法和演化論的重要性，使學生學習最佳的科學知識，區分什麼是科學的理論，什麼不是（如創造論和智慧設計），並沿著這的方向審查課程。教育局應明確指出在科學課鼓勵什麼樣的討論，並強調這種討論須根據科學教育的目的。

2. 澄清教育局在事件上的立場。2009年4月24日教育局在香港電台節目「The Pulse」發表聲明說：「創造論不被認為是達爾文理論外的其他解釋」。為貫徹始終，當局須發表類似的公開聲明，說明：「智慧設計論不被認為是達爾文理論外的其他解釋」。

3. 糾正一些校長，教師和62人團體的破壞性言論，因為它們歪曲科學，倡導教授偽科學。這些人不誠實地使用智慧設計/創造論支持者的材料，但從不向公眾和立法會透露其來源（從而隱瞞他們的智慧設計/創造論立場）。

我們多謝您抽出寶貴時間來閱讀這封信，也將非常感謝您的迅速反應。希望我們能共同努力，建設最優質的香港教育。

（給簽署人的指示：
1. 請用你的真實英文姓名，姓氏須全部大寫（如CHAN Po-Ming, TSE Johnny等）。
2. 顯示您所住區域，如「觀塘」， 「大埔」或「大嶼山」等。
3. 提供聯絡方法（它不會出現在公開的請願書，只用於幹事聯絡閣下（如有需要））。
4. 請只簽署一次 — 如有不肯定或中途發生故障，請重新訪問網站和檢查簽署頁，看看是否已經成功簽署。
5. 邀請您的朋友簽署這項請願書，以協助維護香港的科學教育。感謝你的支持。）

保護香港的演化論和科學教育

請願書：

致香港特區政府教育局：

我們簽署人擔心香港科學教育的未來，強烈反對將宗教和科學教育混淆，現向教育局請願，要求當局立即：

1. 發表公開聲明，強調科學教育中科學方法和演化論的重要性，使學生學習最佳的科學知識，區分什麼是科學的理論，什麼不是（如創造論和智慧設計），並沿著這的方向審查課程。教育局應明確指出在科學課鼓勵什麼樣的討論，並強調這種討論須根據科學教育的目的。

2. 澄清教育局在事件上的立場。2009年4月24日教育局在香港電台節目「The Pulse」發表聲明說：「創造論不被認為是達爾文理論外的其他解釋」。為貫徹始終，當局須發表類似的公開聲明，說明：「智慧設計論不被認為是達爾文理論外的其他解釋」。

3. 糾正一些校長，教師和62人團體的破壞性言論，因為它們歪曲科學，倡導教授偽科學。這些人不誠實地使用智慧設計/創造論支持者的材料，但從不向公眾和立法會透露其來源（從而隱瞞他們的智慧設計/創造論立場）。

我們多謝您抽出寶貴時間來閱讀這封信，也將非常感謝您的迅速反應。希望我們能共同努力，建設最優質的香港教育。

（給簽署人的指示：
1. 請用你的真實英文姓名，姓氏須全部大寫（如CHAN Po-Ming, TSE Johnny等）。
2. 顯示您所住區域，如「觀塘」， 「大埔」或「大嶼山」等。
3. 提供聯絡方法（它不會出現在公開的請願書，只用於幹事聯絡閣下（如有需要））。
4. 請只簽署一次 -- 如有不肯定或中途發生故障，請重新訪問網站和檢查簽署頁，看看是否已經成功簽署。
5. 邀請您的朋友簽署這項請願書，以協助維護香港的科學教育。感謝你的支持。）

Petition:

To Education Bureau, HKSAR Government,

We, the undersigned, are concerned about the future of science education in Hong Kong, strongly object to the confusion of religion and science education, and petition that immediate action is taken by the Bureau to:

1. Issue open statement to emphasize the teaching of sciences and evolution's underpinning importance in biology, to allow students learn the best of scientific knowledge, to distinguish what is scientific theories from what is not (E.g. Creationism and Intelligent Design), and review the curriculum along this direction. Education Bureau should clarify what kind of discussions is encouraged in science class, and emphasize the purpose of such discussions is to be in accordance with the aim of science education.

2. Clarify the position of Education Bureau on the matter. On the RTHK Program "The Pulse" on April 24, 2009, the Bureau made a statement saying "Creationism is not considered as an alternative to Darwin’s theory". To be consistent, a similar open statement that declares "Intelligent Design is not considered as an alternative to Darwin’s theory" should be issued.

3. Rectify the damaging remarks by school principals, teachers and the group of 62, which distort science and advocate the teaching of pseudo-sciences. These people are being dishonest in using Intelligent Design/Creationism proponents' materials without disclosing the source (thus their Intelligent Design/Creationism position) to the public and legislative council.

We thank you for taking time to read this letter and will very much appreciate your prompt response. We wish to work together for the best of education in Hong Kong.

(Instructions for signers:
1. Sign with your real name in English, all caps for surname / family name (e.g. CHAN Po-Ming, TSE Johnny etc)
2. Show the district you live in, such as "Kwun Tong", "Tai Po" or "Lantau Island" etc.
3. Provide method of contact (it will not be shown on the petition publicly, and is only for the group committee's use to contact you if needed).
4. Sign once only -- if you are not sure or a failure occurred midway, check the signatories when you revisit the site to see if you have successfully signed.
5. Invite your friends to sign this petition, to help protecting science education in Hong Kong. Thank you very much for your support.)

睡夢中發電郵:潛意識在演化中?

一直以來,在心理分析學說及心理學界中都會把潛意識看成是很原始和簡單的精神結構,因此不會邏緝思考,不會分辨好壞,只有慾望和最簡單的分析能力;但是睡夢中發電郵此例似乎是打破了此一共識,人類不單在意識層面會演化,會學習新能力,而且似乎在潛意識層面會演化,會學習新能力,因為發電郵要登入登出及掌握通訊理論這些頗複雜的東西。而我以為,似乎在動物中除人類之外就沒有其他物種有此能力,你不會看見老鼠可以在睡夢中走迷宮,馬在睡夢中由賽跑,狗在睡夢擔報紙,因為人類的潛意識和意識在神經系統中區間較少,所以人類的知識和能力可以較容易由意識上的行為轉化為潛意識的自動反應,令人類可花更多精力集中去更高深及更抽象的鑽研自然現象,所以人是萬物之靈,不過因為同樣原因,人類出現了其他物種都沒有的問題:精神分姴症。

The evolution of unconscious mind: Writing email during dream?

I would think the case which a woman found writing email during her sleep-walking demonstrate the unique advantage of human being compare to other species. That is I never heard of case which mice run through the maze during slept, or horse ran from place to place during dream. It appears to me that not just our conscious mind is capable to restructure itself by learning, so do our unconscious mind.
It has been traditional thought unconscious to be a more primitive mind that is incapable of performing logical operation. Human unconscious mind is richer than we once thought. I suspect it is easier for human being to 'transfer' knowledge/skills from conscious mind to unconscious. i.e. It is easier for us to form complex habit, thus make room for us to entertain even more complex and abstract thought. So logically, the next question would be how many skills that are master by unconscious mind that we don't know of?
Monkey or ape maybe able to learn as fast as human being during conscious, but I am doubtful if they can perform the same trick while they are sleeping. Since it take them relatively longer to move the same knowledge/skill from conscious mastery to unconscious automation. That maybe the unique human trait(less differentiation between conscious mind/unconscious mind led to more case of schizophrenia?)

Capitalism’s effect on evolution

My hypothesis: Because in Capitalism medical industry tend to maximize its profit by selling drugs to who is not necessary(i.e. Healthy people), United States has become an over-medicated society. And as a consequence of over production and over consumption of drugs(especially Generic Drug), bacteria and virus has higher chance to expose to these drugs and develop resistance against them. Therefore, as a result, Capitalism increase the fatality of virus!

An issue of Causality in Psychology

I remember one time I was introduced to an experiment finding that human prepection process is very good at distinguishing action and facial expression in low definition picture. i.e. We could easily identify a hostile face from a blurred pictures. My question from that time till now is: Do we develop this capability after experience of exposing to real human facial expression? Or that is an inherent capability even before we are exposed to real human facial expression?
In the case of former, then we can deduced that logically, our Cognitive faculty through comparison with original template, thus is able to accurately guess from inadequate information presented. So that is a learned capability. On the other end, if we can recognize facial expression before we are exposed to them, that means the Cognitive faculty is prepared by evolution, it is especially adapted to recognize certain set of stimulates. Thus not all of the facial expression recognization capability is coming from learning.
That remain to be answered by psychology research.

Methodology issue of Evolutionary Psychology

From my last discussion of the theoretical issues of evolution as a hypothesis to be tested, it follows that any disciple derivative from it would suffer from the same issue. This is an example I remembered from the heyday of my Psychology class in University: It is about the idea of biological preparedness for learning in Behaviorism, the central tenet is that Phobic is a sort of evolutionary ‘leftover’. Therefore it is easy to learned and difficult to unlearn. Which to me it seems to implied part of causation chain is in the genes.
How to prove this assertion? That is the part make this example so memorable. The method is to ask ‘experts’ to judge how each phobic is related to the level of danger posed to human five thousand years ago. Thus, follow this strange logic, no wonder human is so easily to acquire fear of height, fear of snake, fear of spider! Because some of our ancestor has suffer from them therefore develop an inborn preparedness to learn to fear them. It is adaptive(during that time) to born with tendency for the fear of them since they will increase your chance of survival.
Does it sound like circular logic to you? My feeling at the time is: That is certainly a circular logic. How can anyone setup an experiment to test this ‘hypothesis’? Can anyone setup a null hypothesis to test against it? How can anyone to have an experiment to falsify this hypothesis? If this hypothesis is right, you certainly can’t find another human that doesn’t have this inborn tendency.(If this hypothesis is wrong, how can you distinguish it from other?) What can five or tend ‘expert’ judge give us useful information on the past? At least, we require anthropologist to test if the native who live in a native environment who are also born with these tendencies. Otherwise, how can we know for sure? Evolution is a retrospective science, thus by nature, it is difficult to assure of its internal validity, so do Evolutionary Psychology.

More thoughts on evolutionary theory

The hypothesis of Evolutionary theory is itself a tautology, it is a statement of simple Mathematical truth: Given anything that can reproduce itself, those who is more fitted for reproduction would have more ‘children’ then those who is less fitted. How can we tell the nature of reproductive fitness? We often do so by looking at the result of reproductive fitness itself, that certainly sound like a circular argument itself. The inherent difficulty of theory of evolution as a science is similar to History: Because we can’t do any historical experiment, and the question of external validity remain a headache for theory of evolution. It is difficult to exactly reproduce the historical condition when evolution happen, nor an experiment can be used to predict what has happened in the past.
Because evolution process had already happen, we simply can’t re-run the history to see what would happen otherwise, what we can do is to suggest the pathway which it may follow. However, there is always more than one pathway to arrive at the current result, therefore even if we manage to disprove one pathway doesn’t mean there is no way to get from here to there except by supernatural means. It is analogue to the idea of naturalism would can never disprove: How can anything beyond nature happened within the realm of nature? How to draw up an hypothesis or experiment that can give definite test to the theory of evolution itself? In what way we can disprove the process of evolution? In what way we can disprove tautology?

Is evolutionary theory a better ‘explanation’?

There is a growing debate between the Creationism and Evolutionary Theory in USA as raised by Christian Right, and, of course it argue that the former is a better explanation than later, while scientist argue otherwise. Although this is the topic of my thesis paper when I was studying in a Christian College, I am not going to dwell into this issue here. There are good discussion of it on the Internet. My point here is to play Devil’s Advocate on the common sense that evolutionary theory in Biology is a better explanation.

What people often missed in the debate is what is qualified as an explanation? I would like argue for the point that although Creationism is not consider as an explanation since it replace one unknown with another, there are some issues associated with calling evolutionary theory an ‘explanation’.

Evolutionary Theory belong to realm of science, what essentially it gave is the how of the process of evolution but not the why. Some has considered that science is not suited to answer this set of questions. Although once we know the process, we can extend the theory to test its external validity(see if it can made accurate prediction), or even applied that to application in daily life (genetics); but can process be consider as ‘explanation’? Does knowing how we breath ‘explain’ what is breathing? Does knowing how our mind works means we can understand what our mind is? What I believe is that evolutionary theory is only the first layer of onion, the process of peeling the onion could go on indefinitely as we want it. Suppose we get the Physicist’s holy grail: ‘Theory of Everything’. Does it means not that we can further ask: Why is Theory of Everything is one way but not the another? Can we dig further into TOE and understand how is what it is? Therefore I could sympathy with religionists stop the investigation in the very first step, they may just know that they can’t finish peeling the onion, and they want to save time to do something else.

Evolutionary theory, in my opinion, by its nature is not really about explanation but predicting what is going to happen next, because what it said essentially is: Now is because of what is happened in the past led to this now but not the other now, follow logics from Mathematics and Statistics; plus some accidents.’ Thus Evolutionary theory, like history, suffer the same problem as it belong to ‘retrospective’ science. We can’t verify how history develop since we can’t test one hypothesis against another in the sense that the past is gone. How could we know what happen if ‘Martin Luther King is not murdered?’, or ‘Al Gore instead of George W. Bush is elected in 2004′? Similarly, although we can do experiment to test the hypothesis in the laboratory, but we can never be sure that the parameters in the laboratory is identical to the parameters of the part of evolutionary history we inquire. Therefore, the internal validity of experiments against hypothesis in evolutionary theory can never be completely ascertained (unless we have a time traveling machine to collect the sample from the past). And we also must not ignore that evolutionary process is full of accidents, since we don’t know exactly how those accidents happen, therefore the ‘explanation’ afforded by evolution theory can never be completed. It is not the fault of this theory itself, but because of the nature of object we inquire about. But it never rules out that there maybe better methods and framework (other than the scientific method) to understand the phenomenas of what evolution theory talked about.

Thus my conclusion is ‘Evolutionary theory’ is the better one at least because it could be argue against, and we can use this framework to build more powerful explanation; as compare to Creationism which can never be objectively falsify. Notice there is a philosophical bias toward intellectualism: Those which allow we to think and argue must be better than those doesn’t allow to think. Why must this be right?

甜與酸、甜與鹹及其他

甜與酸不是在化學上對立,只是在人的神經系統演化中,即人的舌頭中,甜與酸的感覺是互相排斥。甜與酸唯一算得上在某種意義上相反的地方,是的甜的東西放得 太耐變酸,而人體需要甜的東西作為能量來源,但酸的東西因為是欠缺能量或者是已經變壞,甚至對人的健康有害,因此人天生有一種喜甜厭酸的趨向。因為人的神 經系統的設計給予甜與酸一種相反的具體表現在,如果吃完甜的東西不去喝位水清清口腔(清洗味覺神經的記憶),再去吃比較不甜的東西,人就會覺得酸。
甜與鹹的相反的意義則只表現在中國人吃東西的習慣上,因為中國人通常是吃完鹹再吃鹹,又或者一餐只吃甜或鹹,較少會甜與鹹夾雜在菜式中。甜與鹹對於人的神經系統來說,只代表兩種不同的食物,本質上並無相反的關係。
其實甜與酸、甜與鹹相反與不相反,和化學性質無關,只是和人的生理需要甚至更高層次的飲食文化有關,如果人類不是人,或者又另一套演化的歷史,則甜、酸、鹹的對應關係就不同,甚至不再用甜、酸、鹹來分辦食物,甜、酸、鹹是人類演化的產物。

Biological idea: Replace the gene of human eye

One often cited argument from creationist is organ as complex as eye can’t be evolved by mere evolution, so eye must be designed from scratch. I would leave open the question how a designed eye compatible with other evolved organs. Unbeknown to most creationist is there are two ‘designs’ of eye, one which that the blood vessel is in front of the retina, another is which the blood vessel is behind the retina; it would leave to immense creativity of creationist to construe the argument why human being is endow with the later, thereby the inferior design? Why would the Almighty Christian God prefer jellyfish over human in the matter of eyesight?
My interest about eye design is not related to the enduring creationist-evolution debate, my interest is about the possibility of engineering a better eye for human being. Since we can transfer the gene from one species to another, why couldn’t we transfer the gene for manufacturing better designed eye from jellyfish to human gene pool? I don’t think anyone could find an argument against improve the eyesight of human as a species. What short term and long term disadvantage would a better eyesight confer to human being?
DNA-engineering offer human being an unique evolutionary advantage over other species: While other species have to use trial and error to find the gene most adapted to the existing environment which cost million animals their lives, human being can test-trial their idea of improvement pool in laboratory and inside computer. So what take other species a million years to develop, we as human only need to take a billion trial inside the computer(that is less than a hour in fast computer.)
So why not try this idea on human?

Evolution and Psychohistory

The disciple of Psychohistory function somewhat like Social Psychology, it is about predicting group behavior as a whole. The difference is which later doesn’t claim to have the capability of foreseeing the future, rather it is about observe and generalize from existing behavior of the mass; while the former is about extrapolating existing behavior of the mass to the future.
Evolution is, in a sense, about the future of the group by observing the changed happen in the past. Again, much like Social Psychology, it doesn’t claim to able to make sweeping generalization from its theory on the level of individual. We could only to infer result of Evolution on the group as a whole. However since Evolution is ‘intended’ to work on the level of the species as a while, however, the main vehicle which that evolution it happen is through genes of individual, therefore only manifest itself through certain behavioral tendencies on the individual level. That is also the level which Psychology
come into play, therefore it is difficult to discern the effect of Evolution at work in individual level. That is also the level which Psychohistory manifest itself, though it is too minimal to observe.