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

God and Science ^ | Sept 2002 | Richard Deem

[Ahban]

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

What is Intelligent Design (ID)?

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.

Is Intelligent Design (ID) a valid scientific theory?

ID theory has been criticized on the following basis:

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

In an attempt to be all-inclusive, most ID proponents have failed to

1. define the Intelligent Designer
2. reject young-earth creationism

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.

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. 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.

Characteristics of a successful ID model

A reasonable ID model must possess all of the following characteristics:

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 (see Evolutionary Descent of Man Theory- Disproved by Molecular Biology).

Characteristics of Christian supernaturalism

Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism

Characteristic	Anti-Supernatural	Supernatural
Cosmology	eternal multiverse	single transcendent beginning
Time	infinite space time foam	finite duration
Laws of physics	breakdown at 10-43 sec.	fixed
Fine tuning	explained by infinite # universes	extreme fine tuning is designed
Probability	only likely events will occur	creation involved miracles that could not occur by chance

The table above gives some of the characteristics of Christian supernaturalism compared to naturalism. Contrary to atheistic assertions, the Christian ID model does not claim that the universe is perfect. The idea that a perfect God would not create a universe less than "perfect" is logically flawed. The biblical model states that the universe is flawed - for the purpose of allowing humans the choice to love or reject God. The model also states that this imperfect universe will be replaced by a perfect universe once its purpose has been fulfilled. Those humans who chose to love God will be perfected by their own permission into sinless, loving creatures. Why didn't God create this perfect universe in the first place? Forcing creatures to be prefect would abrogate their free will and prevent them expressing true love, since they would have no choice. Humans who want to spend eternity with God chose now to give up their ability to sin or be unloving in the future new universe, where no such choices will exist.

Predictions of the Christian ID model compared to naturalism

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.

What are some specific predictions made by the two models?

Predictions of Naturalism vs. Christian ID

	Characteristic	Anti-Supernatural	Christian ID
1.	Single transcendent beginning	will be refuted	evidence will increase
2.	Fine tuning	"design" will be shown to be an artifact, due to incomplete knowledge	more examples of extreme fine tuning will be found, indicating true design
3.	Uniqueness of earth	many rocky planets with oceans and continents will be found	earth-like planets will be found to be rare or non-existent
4.	Existence of life in the universe	life will be found to be abundant in our galaxy, since it is simply the properties of chemistry and physics	extraterrestrial life will be rare or non-existent and advanced life will be found only on earth
5.	Prebiotic chemistry	a naturalistic scenario for the origin of all biochemical pathways and replicative molecules will be found	the universe was designed to support living systems, but their creation required ID by God
6.	Origin of Life	Life emerged late, during ideal environmental conditions. Life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria)	Life emerged early under adverse conditions. Life has always been complex
7.	New designs in nature	Complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly whereas simple transitions would be common	No restriction on designs with the possibility that new designs would be created "overnight"
8.	Mass extinction events	Slow recovery	No restrictions on "recovery" period as new species are created

What is the scorecard so far? Science tells us that:

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.

---

Home | Answers | Design | Creation | Bible | Slideshows | Theology | Cults | Tribulation | Life Issues | Discovery | God's Love | Abortion | Discussion | Links | About us | Contact | Newsletter | e-Card | Webmaster | Personal | Humor | Search

	Apologetics
		Answers for Atheists
		Design vs. Evolution
		Biblical Creation
		Bible Authenticity
		Slideshows
		Christian Theology
		Cults of Christianity
		Christian Tribulation
		Christian Life Issues
		Discovery Course
		God's Love
		Abortion
		Discussion Forum
		Links
	Ministry Info
		About us
		Contact us
		Newsletter
	General
		Send an e-Card
		Webmaster Resources
		Personal Pages
		Humor
	Search
		Advanced Search
		Site Map
		Email Page

[VadeRetro]

Neither the biochemical nor replicative pathways have been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means.

A strange mushy statement accompanied by a circular proof. The first part needs the addition of "completely, definitively, and for all time" to be correct. The second part implies that the mere existence of the Discovery Institute comedy troupe proves that the Discovery Institute comedy troupe is right.

[VadeRetro]

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.

Not telling us everything, is he?

Punctuated Equilibrium has been around for thirty years. Why is Richard Deem feigning ignorance of a major paradigm in evolutionary theory that nicely explains what he claims is unexplained?

[VadeRetro]

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.

My comments on the preceding apply. I didn't think Deem was doing all that badly on the theoretical implications, although it's incorrect to say that mainstream science has now and forever married multiple universes.

The guy's shuckin' and jivin' on the scorecard stuff, though.

[RightWhale]

Thanks for the ping. I read these threads, but not in detail, scanning for possible alignment with scientific definitions such as systematic error, random error, analytical procedure and so forth. I usually don't comment, but this article seems to be based on a possibly workable hypothesis, a twist that may bear fruit.

I wonder how the creation stories would have differed if our ancestors had known that solar system rocks were going to test out as 4.5 billion years old. Possibly the stories would not be any different, since most of them are not about the creation of the physical universe at all, but of the spiritual world.

[Gumlegs]

It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for any living system.

Powered flight is impossible. Quite true ... but only before December 17, 1903.

[Alamo-Girl]

...since most of them [Biblical Scriptures] are not about the creation of the physical universe at all, but of the spiritual world.

Great catch, RightWhale! The spiritual aspect is often overlooked. Genesis et al speak to the total creation - not just the natural realm.

As an example, both sides (young earth creationism and evolutionism) want to place Eden only on earth, when the Scriptures indicate that it is in (or is) Paradise. (Gen 2 and Rev 2 - tree of life in the center of Eden and Paradise respectively.) And there's even more support for this view in other ancient writings, i.e. the Pseudepigrapha!

One view is that items in the natural realm are likenesses of items in the spiritual realm. The Temple and the Ark of the Covenant are obvious examples.

[PatrickHenry]

Powered flight is impossible. Quite true ... but only before December 17, 1903.

A few other impossible things:

1. Understanding the nature of lightning.
2. Determining the distance to the stars.
3. Speaking over long distances.
4. Understanding why the sun shines.
5. Predicting storms.
6. Splitting the atom.
7. Flying to the moon.
8. Understanding the origin of life (oops, still being worked on.)

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm very glad to see your mentioning Carl Popper! We had a great discussion going on falsification on another thread.

On that thread, each candidate raised as subject to falsification was claimed to have already been falsified and then that claim was refutted.

Many Creationist books have printed this quote:

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable theories." Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography 1976, La Salle, IN: Open Court Press

If you read the book, Popper is actually raising the famous "natural selection is a tautology" objection. Popper recanted two years later:

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. ... The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological." Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica 32:339-355, 1978. See 344-346 for this quote.

Quotes - Popper

So that puts the question back to what the candidates might be for falsification of evolution: abiogenesis, gradual changes, length of time, etc.

Any suggestions?

[AndrewC]

Powered flight is impossible. Quite true ... but only before December 17, 1903.

Please update your references...

1857

Jean-Marie Le Bris, a French sea caption, tests a glider modeled after an albatross. This "artificial bird" makes one short glide, but on the second glide it crashes and Le Bris breaks his leg.

Felix Du Temple and his brother Louis, France, fly a model monoplane whose propellers are driven by a small steam engine. It takes of under its own power, flies a short distance, and glides to a safe landing. It is the first successful flight of a powered aircraft of any sort.

[f.Christian]

Western Science began as an effort to discern, understand and quantify God's design. I would further say that we have learned much from this effort.

629 posted on 8/29/02 9:05 PM Pacific by Phaedrus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Western (social)Science began as an effort to discern, understand and quantify God's design(laws/Truth). I would further say that we(some haven't) have learned much(anything) from this effort.

629 posted on 8/29/02 9:05 PM Pacific by Phaedrus(my additions)

My comments...

Liberalism/evolution is...

'hyper'---arrested 'development(cancer)'...

suspended reality/truthcide(murder) too!

[Ahban]

I apologize for the lack of 'mannerly restraint' in my reply. That came out with a harder edge than I meant it to. I want to limit the discussion to the facts, and leave personal animosity (not that I have any towards you) out of it.

I guess what annoyed me most was the loose rephrasing of the whole 'its not testable' thing. As in 'If you can't test for something in a manner likely to refute it, if it's wrong, it isn't generally considered a scientific thesis

The whole point of the article was to make some predictions that ARE testable. And they did, but the first third was background. As you said, you only read the first third and so never got to the meat of it.

Is is tough when any test you can give is dismissed out of hand. To me those tests are as reasonable as the ones for the evo side. They are no easier or harder to refute than the ones that postulate evolution alone is responsible for all biotic change.

[f.Christian]

Posted by f.Christian to medved
On News/Activism Sep 8 2:35 PM #107 of 176

To: Dimensio
As I see it, evolution is an ideological doctrine. If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.

488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved

Main Entry: log·ic

Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English logik, from Middle French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND

Date: 12th century

1 a

(1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

(2) : a branch or variety of logic

(3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS

(4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge

b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty

(2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY

c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable

d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves

2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason < the logic of war >

- lo·gi·cian /lO-'ji-sh&n/ noun

[Ahban]

Are you sure you have the right thread? There is a lot more predictive power than a simple mathematical formula involved in this. An evo only wishes that was all that was in this model. Instead, it is one component of a testable model for creationsim that makes prediction with the same degree of provability as evolutionary tests. Maybe moreso.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

For "it is impossible" substitute, "no one has yet demonstrated how." This guy is a charlatan.

If I burn hydrogen gas in air, I can make water.

(I haven't read the article yet so I can't be serious.)

[Ahban]

The agency IS described. The God of the Bible is the causal agent. I agree with your point about traces of His handiwork being evident in the genetic code. But if that point has not been made here it has been made in other research by Dr. Hugh Ross.

Of course that deals only with origination of the code. If the Creationists are right it is possible that NO viable pathway exists between orders or families or organisms. Thus it is not fair of you to say 'Well, don't ask us to show you our pathway until you show us yours'.

Our whole point is that the causal agent is OUTSIDE our three-dimensions plus time universe. YOU are the ones who say it is inside, thus finding those pathways strengthens your case, being unable to find them despite a wealth of knowledge strengthens ours.

Besides that kmock, plenty of testable predictions ARE made. If you want to diss this as a legit hypothesis instead of focusing on points not made that should have been, you have to show why all of those that ARE made don't count.

[Ahban]

I have an article at the top of this post that says your wrong- Creationism IS testable and thus IS scientific. If you can refute the specifics of the article go ahead. I say you can't, but you are just repeating the mantra of 'its not science' despite the evidence right in front of you that science can be applied to this issue.

When you decide to do something besides parrot the party line without any supporting facts I invite you to come back and contribute to the thread.

[VadeRetro]

If I burn hydrogen gas in air, I can make water.

I can "make water" without hydrogen! ;)

[Ahban]

"Only likely events will occur" is not strictly correct, so you have a point there. Would it help any if it was rephrased as "The laws of probability will be obeyed"?

That is, unlikely events CAN occur, they just are not likely to. If enough 'unlikely ' events occur, there is a good chance you are missing some causal agent.

[Ahban]

Vade, when it comes to paleontology, I must defer to your superior knowledge. On astronomy I think I know a few things.

Deem could have phrased this better, but the gist of what he is saying still holds. It is true we cannot detect Earth sized planets yet, but the giant planets we do find tend to be very close to the star. Almost every astrophysicst beleives they formed further out and drifted in. This would have disrupted the orbit of any earth-like planet.

In other words, what we are finding discounts the idea that earth-like planets are common. The 'norm' for a solar system, is for a big boy to spiral in and wreck havoc.

When you add up all of the odds, as big as the universe is, the odds are GREATLY against even ONE earth existing. I will post a link on that later.

[f.Christian]

Church of Darwin/dogma!

Main Entry: dog·ma

Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/

Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT

Date: 1638

1

a : something held as an established opinion; especially :

a definite authoritative tenet

b : a code of such tenets

c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church/*Cult

*my addition!