Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?

In essence, ID is a statistical study in which the product is unlikely to occur by naturalistic process alone. For many things, especially in the arena of biology, it is difficult or impossible at this time to generate any kind of statistical model to even do the test. However, this will not always be the case. The biological model for ID will stand or fall on the basis of genetics. There is a certain statistical probability for mutations, which is absolutely known. There are also known genetic sequences that differ from one another. Evolution claims that all life is descended from previous life, and the fossil record gives us the approximate time at which species appeared. Statistical calculations can be made on the basis of divergence. Complete genomic sequences are just beginning to be completed. There will always be some unknowns or uncertainties, so the level of ID will have to be pretty good to be accepted by the general scientific community.

1. No model has been presented; 2. Since there is no model, there are no predictions from the theory; 3. No refinement of the theory is possible

A nebulous theory can never be tested. The Designer must be proposed or there will be no model to test. Most of the potential Designers are described in religious works that contain statements about the natural world that can be tested against the record of the natural world. For this reason, it is necessary to identify the Designer. Because of the failure to reject the poor "science" of young earth creationism, ID has been labeled as a repackaging of scientific creationism. Deceptive or unsupported "science" cannot be allowed to be part of ID or the entire concept will be discredited.

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design? Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings? Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances? SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

ID is already used in many areas of science. In archeology, we know that stones don't naturally occur in square shapes piled on top of each other. They show signs of intelligent design (although the designer is not supernatural). A recent example is an underwater rock formation off the coast of Cuba. According to the discoverers, the formation consist of smooth, geometrically shaped, granite-like rocks that are laid out in structures resembling pyramids, roads and other structures at more than 2,000 feet in a 7-3/4 mile-square area. How does it exhibit intelligent design? Natural formations of rocks do not have geometric shapes arranged in recognizable structures.

Likewise, rocks do not naturally have pointed ends with patterns of chips along the sides. This pattern is extremely unlikely through natural processes, so we say that it exhibits intelligent design. In the science of forensics, scientists examine patterns of trauma, for example, to determine if it has a natural or intelligent cause. ID is already used in many areas of science.

Probably the best example is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Radio waves can be produced by a variety of natural and "intelligent" processes. Naturally-produced radio waves exhibit patterns of changes in wavelength that are due to random or periodic variation over time. There is no pattern that would indicate any kind of intelligence designed the signal. However, over short periods of time, the pattern could occur by chance with the probability inversely related to the length of time that the signal demonstrates a pattern. Therefore, by examining the signal statistically, scientists can determine if its cause is intelligent or natural. Thus far, intelligent design theory has eliminated (falsified) all extraterrestrial examples of radio waves monitored as being the product of intelligent design.

1. The intelligent Designer is identified; 2. The model is detailed; 3. The model can be refined; 4. The model is testable and falsifiable; 5. The model can make predictions

How does the biblical ID model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible. The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence. Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world. The model can be refined by putting together all the biblical creation passages into a coherent, detailed model. Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways! A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA.

Because of the nature of the laws of physics, it seems likely that none of the characteristics in the above table can be absolutely known. However, there are a number of predictions that each theory makes, which can be tested by further study of the universe and life on the earth.

1 There is no evidence for more than one universe or one creation event. 2 Examples of fine tuning continue to increase. Some parameters designed to within a part in 10120. 3 No other rocky planets have been found. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars. 4 No other life found. SETI has been completely unsuccessful. 5 It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for any living system. 6 Neither the biochemical nor replicative pathways have been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means. 7 Contrary to the expectations of evolutionary theory, the fossil record is replete with complex transitions and new designs whereas simple transitions (intermediates) are rare. Evolutionary theory would expect the opposite to be true and to be reflected in the fossil record. 8 Evolution predicts slow recovery following extinctions and that those recoveries will be filled by the species surviving the extinction event. However, the fossil record indicates rapid recovery with completely different designs and species appearing within a period of tens of thousands of years or less.

Some thoughts:

1 There is no evidence for more than one universe or one creation event.

Now they like to talk about parallel universes that just have to be out there, so our nicely tuned one is not a one-off anomoly. Can't see them, but they just got to be there. . .

2 Examples of fine tuning continue to increase. Some parameters designed to within a part in 10120.

You mean 10E120, right?

3 No other rocky planets have been found. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars.

to small to see, so far. Doesn't mean they aren't there.

No other life found.

We haven't really yet gotten anywhere where we could find any.

SETI has been completely unsuccessful.

The Fermi Paradox. Much more telling, in my opinion. We've gone from thinking this galaxy must be jam packed, edge to edge, with intelligent aliens waiting to chitchat if we could only get the radio tuned in, to thinking that, yeah, we just might be it.

Thanks. Yes, I had theistic evolutionists in mind.

Evolution stands vulnerable to falsification because God could get very public and declare evolution false.

But no evidence can falsify the idea that God(s) designed the Cosmos.

It seems to me that the method for detecting design is really a seperate part of IDT than the application of it to biology.

Can/has anyone tested IDT for validity in detecting design or not?

Couldnt one take organized sets, mask them in simple ways and then test to see if IDT can distinguish between truly random and the masked sets of charactrs?

This would have a huge impact on detecting encryption hidden among random sets of chars, could it not?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.