Thoughts on the Origin

I recently read a book called "Darwin's Black Box," by Michael Behe. This is the main work espousing Intelligent Design in the origin and development of Earth's species. Behe's argument, in essence, is that the Darwinian approach towards evolution is false: that natural selection of random mutations cannot account for many structures and methods present in a variety of advanced and simple organisms. He contends that some structures are "irreducibly complex," meaning that some structures have multiple individual parts, and if one of these parts were removed from the system, the entire system would cease to function. Examples he gives are bacterial cilia, blood clotting, and anabolism of adenosine monophosphate (AMP). His arguments are powerful, and though it goes against much of the accepted truths vis-a-vis the origin of life on this planet, Darwin's theory will have to own up to the problem of irreducible complexity.
But it got me to thinking, that maybe there are other impetuses for genetic adaptation and increased complexity beyond that of simple mutation and improved survival. Darwin's theory has always seemed a little too brutal, a little to capitalist, for me. I don't like Intelligent Design though. This isn't because I am a stalwart atheist, on the contrary I am a Believer. But science is like a game. The goal of the game is to explain natural phenomenon by observable, repeatable, empirical processes. The presence of a Designer that can alter nature at His whim throws a wrench in the gears. Plus, though you can see the irreducible complexity on a biochemical level, you don't see a Designer fiddling with the process. You see repeatability. The same proteins do the same thing. Would there be a Designer doing SUPERNATURAL things, like generating irreducibly complex biochemical machines, then when does it stop? Is it happening now? Once you open the door to a Designer, there ceases to be a logical flow and repeatability upon which scientific study seemingly rests. The other issue with Intelligent Design is a philosophy of science quandry known as argument of imperfection. If a designer would make a cell, wouldn't he make it perfect. He wouldn't include genetic redundancy or blind spots in the eye. I know, you can't assume to know the intentions of a Designer, just to recognize whether design is present (which is seems to be), but still. It doesn't sit right.
So I have another theory. I feel that there is a certain internal intelligence in all living things. Let's start with something highly intelligent: humans. Where does our intelligence stem from (leave the soul out of this please, as it is non-physical nor empirical)? We are so smart because we have such a great interconnection and communication between all those electrochemical cells in our heads; a hugely dense network, somewhere on the amount of trillions of connections, where cells can rapidly speak to each other, collaborate. So that is on a macro-scale, in a multi-celled organism. What about something smaller, like a rodent? less connections, less cells, seemingly less intelligence. Smaller still, the platyhelminthes (flatworm), it moves towards light, finds food, reproduces. Definately alive, knows what light is, moves towards it. Knows what food is. What about my pumpkin plant? It reached out its tendrils directly towards the neighboring tomato vine, wrapped around the tendril, and ignored the nice trellis I set up for it. It discerned between two objects...seemingly intelligent. Let's go down smaller: the bacteria. Single-celled. It can move around independently with its ingenious flagella. It generates toxins to poison other cells. It makes energy from sugar it eats, it expels waste. Much like us, only smaller. Those who are familiar with the complexity of the cell know that they are certainly alive, and they seem intelligent. There is great communication and feedback between the many system and compartments of the cell. There is intricate cellular machinery that reads DNA at 1000 bases per minute, accurately. There are cellular motors, there are structural elements that look like scaffolding, there are little conveyor belts that bring cargo from one area to another. The cell is filled the ingenious, perfected mechanisms that are all based around unique protein-catalyzed chemical interactions. The cell can fulfill nearly any need it may have.My theory is that "internal intelligence of the cell," corresponds directly with the amount of feedback and communication within the cell and it's neighboring cells. I feel that this intelligence drives cells to change, allows them to purposefully generate pathways that are favorable towards its survival. This explains why cells seem so adequately adapted to their environment, they purposefully generate needed changes. They mutate not randomly, but with purpose. They have inherent intelligence. All our cells do. Our brain cells have intelligence, they can tell other cells what to do, and they cooperate. They tell muscle cells to contract, they tell endocrine cells to secrete, they tell other brain cells to shoot out electrical impulses. They store information, and can recall it quickly. So if our many brain cells as a unit have intelligence, why not on a smaller level. Why not a much smaller intellect, that does not act on a level which we do, but on a cellular level commits intelligent actions. I feel that given the impetus, a cell would effect a change necessary for its survival/betterment. Human, often egotistically, think that they are the only beings with true intelligence. But we are just cells, and so is everything else alive. It has to be that other cells possess smaller levels of our very intelligence.
How does this fit into the origin of the species? Well, this is where I get a little spiritual. If cells possess this intelligence, and their intelligence is a product of protein interactions, feedback, and communication, then what about on a smaller level? When is something considered intelligent? Chemicals are not intelligent. Lipids, which make our cell walls, do not think, they do what is energetically favorable. Let's draw out a paradigm of the origin of life.

Lipid bi-layers form by micelle exclusion in a primordial mix. Lightning, UV, and heat from the sun and volcanoes form amino acids and some nucleotide precursors (See Miller-Urey Experiment). Amino acids link to each other to form the first proteins, via some localized acidity or basicity within the micelle. With millions of years to form millions of types of proteins, eventually some complex proteins are formed. These proteins, with the capability of quickening reactions, express the most basic form of intelligence. Once there is greater interaction between proteins and other molecules, cells are able to effect more change. The more proteins present, the more change can be made, because more reactions can be catalyzed. Eventually, I have no idea how, the central dogma was in place, DNA to RNA to Protein. At this point, cells express great levels of intelligence.

What interests me about this is that it jives well with a view of an omnipresent all-powerful God. It also jives well with a feeling that God is present in all beings. God is not proteins, but God is meaningful intelligence. And all living things contain that Godliness. Humans contain it to a great extent. It is an exciting prospect to think that all living things surrounding you are thinking, acting, changing deliberately. That the very things that make you think, make other organisms think. I don't know if this is true or not, but it's my latest theory.