A system of any particular kind may be said to symbolically and functionally represent a general or particular solution to a certain kind of problem that exists in the world. From the standpoint of information theory, a systems provides a finite solution to what can be called an information bottleneck, or the explosion of informational possibilities in the occurrence of a system at any particular instance that is so complex that it becomes impossible to resolve, and the limited means by which this information can be simultaneously organized and handled in a semi-non-random manner. We may conclude that all natural or real systems represent certain specific kinds of solutions to certain kinds of problem sets, and that multiple alternative systems may represent alternative solutions to the same or similar problem sets. This is not to say that all alternative systems are equal to the solution, or that there might not be a single most-optimal or best system to a particular kind of system. 

Furthermore, in the articulation of any kind of system, it is observable that there are in the complexities of the organization of such systems trade-offs between determinants or limiting factors, which may have an important influence in the developmental trajectories of such systems. For any given kind of problem set, there is a hypothetical range of alternative solutions that vary upon multiple dimensions, and there might be multiple optimal states that satisfy alternative configurations or instances of the same or similar kind of problem set.

This is of course a rationalistic human understanding of systems. Natural systems in and of themselves lack any sense of predetermined purpose or arbitrary design in their informational organization or transactional articulation. It is the fallacy of human rationalization that we project upon systems said to be "self-organizing" such a sense of purpose and predetermined order. The logic of relationships that occur in natural systems is not a priori formal, but functional and embedded in the relationships and interactions that occur in all systems. To call "Divine Will" a projection of the human imagination upon natural order is not to play down the near miraculous wonderment and sublime beauty inherent to the organizational patterning of natural systems at all levels. The fact that we may rationally and logically deduce that all energy transactions in the universe, when considered in terms of net inputs and net outputs, will always sum exactly to zero is itself an amazing aspect of the natural world. But the true amazement is the human capacity to be aware of these facets of natural ordering, and to make sense of them in terms that are relevant to ourselves in multiple ways. In my humble opinion then, "Intelligent Design," especially as this is used to suggest the idea of predetermination or intervention or original intention in the organization of nature, represents a common fallacy of pragmatic human logic, an extension of the fallacies of naturalization and reification, that confuses simply our capacity to apprehended in a rational and intelligent manner the organization of the patterning of nature, with the relational patterning implicit to nature itself.

Developmental differentiation is the process of natural change that accompanies the developmental trajectory of any system. Change is one of the most fundamental principles of reality. We can attempt to explain change from a purely physical standpoint in terms of energy transactions, but this form of systematic accounting, that always in the net equation balances to zero, is only one dimension of a larger problem that involves information and pattern organization. This change is inherent to any real system, and has its sources in the underdetermined nature of cause and effect relationships both internally to a system and externally between a system and its environment, either directly or indirectly. The inherent variability of systems and the interplay between internal and external factors permit the cross-system realization of its developmental paradigm among a range of alternative state-path trajectories, and which define such a system therefore as not just complex, but chaotically so.

The concept of developmental differentiation from the standpoint of general systems theory seems to stand diametrically opposed to the idea of equi-finality of systems development that leads to a common-type solution from a range of alternative starting points. The question of equi-finality of systems really is at the center of the problem of synergistic integration of systems and the notion of dynamic equilibrium and self-organizational stability that integrated systems achieve. Given an initial set of alternative starting variables, there exists only a limited number of possible solutions to the problem of systems integration between these variables that are capable of yielding a stable configuration exhibiting properties of synergism and dynamic equilibrium.

Developmental differentiation of a single system, from one state or stage of its state-path trajectory, to some alternative stage or state of its history, or of a single system into multiple alternative systems, refers to the idea of the simultaneous co-occurrence of multiple systems that are upon a basic level independent of one another in terms of their internal state configurations. Invariably it is observed in nature that systems interact with one another within a larger meta-systems context and that no system occurs in complete isolation or independence from the influence of other related systems.

Developmental differentiation describes therefore the process of continuous divergence from what can be relatively considered to be a common "proto-type" form, or a base-line type, into multiple alternative forms. For purely a-biotic physical systems, the pattern of differentiation seems to be based largely on random or chance factors that occur early on in the developmental sequence--determinants in early starting systems may come to play a strong role in subsequent "iterations" of the system that may in the long run result in the emergence of different kinds of systems.

Physical systems are not self-propagating or self reproducing as systems--they do not in themselves carry the information that leads to the replication of their design. They arise as a natural consequence of recurrent conditions that lead to expectable outcomes. Biological systems have solved the problem of self-replication of design as systems, containing the information necessary for their replication at the core of their basic structure. The natural concatenation of events that resulted in the emergence of biological systems were so complex and, statistically speaking, so unusual, that it is apparent that life seems relatively rare and sparsely distributed in the universe. Because they arose from and were based on non-self-replicating physical systems, the chances for their arising become relatively small and events that may interrupt this process could arise at almost any time in the process.

For biotic or living systems, the organization of systems and their state-path trajectory appear to be non-random, even if the basic mechanism for change in successive transmission of information remains randomizing and therefore essentially "blind" in its occurrence. The point of the non-random determination of the alternative state-path trajectories of biotic systems lies in part within their meta-biotic context of interaction with other living systems, and in the resulting selection regimes that follow from such interaction.

The basis for the non-random selection and developmental differentiation of living systems seems to me to be rooted in the challenges of such systems in achieving adaptive and reproductive survival. The model that has been developed and effectively deployed in computer simulations is that of the genetic algorithm. We may say that, based on what we know about systems development as optimal solutions to implicit problem sets, living systems tend, on average, towards selection to greater meta-biotic fitness. It has been found that very specific key features may critically effect the net-fitness of a species in a specific context, based upon a law of limiting factors, all other features being equal.

There is no telling beforehand what these key factors of evolutionary development for a species in any particular period of its taxon cycle may be--the greater number of known extinct species attests to the fact that in the long run individual species lose out in playing the game of life, but that the continuity of life overall has been preserved through its broad developmental differentiation into multiple kingdoms and multiple sub-forms. I will hypothesize that developmental differentiation occurs and results in the differentiation of species into multiple sub-forms, and in the rise of new species, because, all other things being, equal, the most optimal form for a given evolutionary problem set, will on average, have a non-random chance of winning the game of life over the less optimal solutions. This kind of functional explanation may be regarded by some as tautological--we only known successes on the basis of those that survive, but in theory at least, if we know enough about a given environmental context and the organisms involved in that context, we should be able to predict the key determining factors and the optimal solutions before they occur. 

When we come to the consideration of human systems, we deal with culture and symbolic realities, and the attendant consequences of these in the world. We find that these consequences are often violent and destructive. We must understand therefore that willpower and determination that are a function of the capacity of humans to construct themselves in their world, and to manipulate the world in deliberate ways, are also fraught with problems of projection and ideological superstition. These may be truly called non-random systems, but they often tend to unintended consequences that are due in large measure to random circumstances and factors that are beyond anyone's capacity to control. So, what comes off as "Intelligent Design" from a human point of view, ends up being in the structure of the long run something far less than "Divinely Intelligent" and often, more often than not, downright misguided if not completely dangerous in its outcomes.

If we observe the natural spectrum of traditional human cultures and languages, we find a process of developmental divergence occurring in every instance. But this developmental divergence, though it has been analogically correlated with the speciation of biological populations, through the concept of gene-culture co-evolution, has been different in form and character because the transmission mechanisms of cultural, linguistic and technological information has been largely environmental and "horizontal" in its occurrence, with acculturation and trans-culturation occurring with trade and the exchange of cultural information. There has been nothing biological or genetic about this kind of exchange. People learn from their environment, explore their environment, and are capable of adjusting their behavior and their environment to suit their needs. 

At each level of stratification in natural systems, we will find that developmental differentiation is a inherent outcome of the internal and extrinsic variability of complex systems that may lead to a paradigm of alternative possible outcomes. Some sets of outcomes are more likely than others, and some types of trajectories may be said to be more optimal than others--stable configurations of systems arise along optimal pathways because non-stable systems do not last as long and soon become replaced by other systems. Developmental differentiation may be said to be a complementary property of natural systems in an extrinsic sense, and are a function of the fact that the synergistic integration of systems is never closed, complete or completely determined. 

General Systems Essays, Vol. II