Can Any Theory of Intelligent Design

be A True Scientific Theory?

Sean D. Pitman, M.D.April 2006

www.DetectingDesign.com

Both Could Have Been Deliberately Designed

Only One Had to Have Been Deliberately Designed

The Scientific Method1. Make an observation2. Use that observation to make a falsifiable

prediction as to what will happen in the future3. Test the prediction to see if it successfully

avoids falsification4. If the prediction avoids falsification, the

hypothesis gains predictive value • It is more likely that this prediction will continue to

hold true with more testing

5. If the prediction fails, the hypothesis must be either modified or discarded completely in favor of a new hypothesis

• Karl Popper, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century:

“Any hypothesis that does not make

falsifiable predictions is simply not science. Such a hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be science.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

• Popper began considering the importance of falsification in science after attending a lecture by Einstein

• Noticed that Einstein’s theories were much different than those of Marx or Freud

• Einstein Theories were extremely risky while those of Marx and Freud were not in that they “explain too much”, often with completely opposing explanations for observations that could not be decisively disproved

Non-Scientific Prediction?

• Observation: Dinosaurs and Birds share several features• Hypothesis: Dinosaurs and Birds have a common ancestor• Prediction: A link between dinosaurs and birds will be found

sharing additional features – like a feathered dinosaur

• This prediction is not falsifiable, it is only verifiable• If feathered dinosaurs are never found, the hypothesis still

isn’t falsified• It therefore does not meet Popper’s criteria as a true

scientific prediction – however useful it may be

A Scientific Prediction?

• While in Las Vegas I observe that I roll double sixes every time after I scratched my nose . . . 3 times so far!

• Through inductive reasoning, I hypothesize that scratching my nose causes me to roll double sixes

• I therefore predict that every time I scratch my nose I will roll double sixes

• If I continue to roll double sixes after scratching my nose, my hypothesis gains predictive value

• If I end up rolling anything else after scratching my nose, just once, my hypothesis looses predictive value

Designed Things

• Do things of known design have any predictable characteristics that can be used to predict design when such characteristic are found in other things?

Everything and Nothing

• It is a common saying among many evolutionists that ID explains everything and therefore nothing

• Is this “true”? Can ID explain everything? – Can anyone name anything that could not be

deliberately formed given enough knowledge, power and creativity?

• If ID can explain everything, does this mean it explains nothing?

ID Explains Nothing?

• ID does seem to be able to explain everything• ID is “limited” in explanatory power only by the

limits of the proposed designer• Mindless “Nature” is used to explain everything as

well – and therefore nothing?• If ID and non-deliberate natural processes are both

equally limitless in potential creative ability, how can one tell the difference?

• One or the other must be limited in the ability to produce certain characteristics over a certain span of time

Non-Deliberate Forces

• Which one is more limited, intelligent or non-intelligent activity – given access to the same amount of energy, basic building blocks and time?

• Oh, but given enough time, can’t non-deliberate forces do everything that highly intelligent forces can do?

• Sure, but how much time do you have?

     “Time is the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years... Given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles.”

– George Wald (1967 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine), "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, vol. 191 1954, p. 46; reprinted on p. 307-320, A Treasury of Science, Fourth Revised Edition, Harlow Shapley et al., eds., Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1958. p 309.

Deliberate or non-deliberate?

Non-deliberate?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Japan_Tottori_KannonIn_DSC01907.jpg

What Limits Non-Deliberate Processes?

• All known non-deliberate processes interact in an apparently “random” way when it comes to certain features of certain materials

• Apparently random or chaotic activity has a certain fairly predictable “look”

• Can’t predict heads or tails of a particular coin toss better than 50/50, but I can predict that the ratio will almost certainly be 50%H/50%T after 1 million tosses – if the tossing is truly “random”

Kolmogorov/Chaitin “Complexity”

"Although randomness can be precisely defined and can even be measured, a given number cannot be proved to be random. This enigma establishes a limit to what is possible in mathematics."

– Gregory Chaitin, Scientific American, 1975

• A non-random process, like ID or Pi, can produce non-random and random-looking “looks”

• A truly random process, coin tossing, can also produce non-random and random-looking “looks” – Given enough time it is possible for a million monkeys

typing away at random to produce all the works of Shakespeare

• What good are the concepts of “random” and “non-random” processes if there is no detectable difference between what one can do vs. what the other can do?

• Some things just seem so “intuitively” random while other things seem so non-random

• Is there a detectable difference?

Gregory Chaitin Explains

“Almost everyone has an intuitive notion of what a random number is. For example, consider these two series of binary digits:

01010101010101010101

01101100110111100010

01010101010101010101

“The first is obviously constructed according to a simple rule; it consists of the number 01 repeated ten times. If one were asked to speculate on how the series might continue, one could predict with considerable confidence that the next two digits would be 0 and 1. Inspection of the second series of digits yields no such comprehensive pattern. There is no obvious rule governing the formation of the number, and there is no rational way to guess the succeeding digits. The arrangement seems haphazard; in other words, the sequence appears to be a random assortment of 0's and 1's.”

“. . . The second series of binary digits was generated by flipping a coin 20 times and writing a 1 if the outcome was heads and a 0 if it was tails. Tossing a coin is a classical procedure for producing a random number, and one might think at first that the provenance of the series alone would certify that it is random. This is not so. Tossing a coin 20 times can produce any one of 220 (or a little more than a million) binary series [potential sequences in sequence space], and each of them has exactly the same probability. Thus it should be no more surprising to obtain the series with an obvious pattern than to obtain the one that seems to be random; each represents an event with a probability of 2−20.”

01101100110111100010

“If origin in a probabilistic event were made the sole criterion of randomness, then both series would have to be considered random, and indeed so would all others, since the same mechanism can generate all the possible series. This conclusion is singularly unhelpful in distinguishing the random from the orderly.

A more sensible definition of randomness is required, one that does not contradict the intuitive concept of a ‘patternless’ number.”

Gregory J. Chaitin, Randomness and Mathematical Proof, Scientific American, 232, No. 5 (May 1975),  pp. 47-52

A Patternless Pattern

• Patternlessness is based on the pattern itself without any regard to its actual origin

• Patternlessness = Complexity (KCC)• KCC = Measure of Compressibility• Given the ability to recognize symmetry or

repeating patterns, a sequence with greater internal symmetry has greater compressibility (Low KCC)

What about Pi?

• 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 . . . . No simple, repeating patterns longer than 10 digits (out of 200 million digits)

• Yet, this apparently infinite patternless sequence is very compressible/reproducible with a very simple formula of Pi– the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a

perfect circle

• Patternlessness cannot be absolutely known this side of absolute knowledge

• An unknown “compressor”, like Pi, may come along and compress a very long apparently random sequence into a very small expression or formula – Something with apparently high KCC in

reality has a low KCC

• So, what good is the concept of KCC?

Apparent Randomness or “Chaos”

• Chaos Theory arose out of trying to predict the weather (Edward Lorenz)

• It’s kinda like playing pool: Perfect knowledge of position, direction, velocity and several other features of each pool ball on a perfectly frictionless table would give exact predictability over time

• Slightly non-perfect knowledge results in exponentially worse and worse predictability over time– i.e. The Butterfly Effect

• Even a slight lack of knowledge of the starting parameters results in an appearance of randomness/non-compressibility or high KCC

• The actual rules governing the starting parameters may have been very simple (low KCC) and very reproducible - if they could be perfectly known

• Problem: certain apparently simple “formulas” cannot be known to perfection by us humans – i.e., the current starting points, velocities, and

trajectories of all particles involved in next years weather patterns

• Such things will therefore predictably produce an apparently “random” pattern with high KCC

The Predictable Random Look

• Imagine a 10 x 10 meter very smooth/polished highly symmetrical granite cube

• Now, imagine that it gets exposed to intense “natural” weathering for 10,000 years

• What is it going to look like?• What are the odds that the resulting irregularities

of one half will look identical to the other half?• Will the irregularities show any significant

symmetry? – this side of repeating this experiment a near infinite number of times?

or

Simple? Complex?

What About “Random” Etchings?

Entropy and “Disorder”

• Non-Deliberate processes tend toward “Complexity” and away from “Simplicity” – Right?

• “Complexity”, in this common understanding of the word, actually means “Randomness” or “Chaos”

• Greater “Complexity equals greater KCC, which equals greater Entropy (Algorithmic Entropy (AE))

• Like Thermodynamic Entropy (TE), AE heads toward its maximum value over time

• Highly symmetrical irregularities have lower overall AE

From “Complex” to “Simple”

• Mindless Nature can turn “Complex” to “Simple”• Some materials can turn apparently “random”

forces into non-random highly ordered activities with very predictable outcomes

• Crystals like quartz, salt, snowflakes, pyrite, etc.• Humans, dogs, cats, iguanas, trees, bacteria, etc.

– Based on the pre-established internal “order” of the subparts of such systems

Where are the Limits?

• If nature can create both complexity and simplicity, where are the “limits”?

• It depends on the material in question• There are types of materials where all known

non-deliberate forces have pretty much the same limitations when it comes to producing certain features – like symmetry

• Granite, marble, flint, clay, French-style gardens etc.

When to “Stop Looking”

• Science doesn’t demand 100% certainty• If all potential ways of falsification were ruled out

completely, 100%, there would be no more need for science

• Science is needed because of limited knowledge – A “gap” in knowledge

• Science is an effort to determine the odds that a particular possibility is not filling the gap

• What do statisticians do at Las Vegas? – You draw 4 Aces 10 times in one night, you’re never going back!

• What if Schwarzenegger wins the CA Lottery 5 times in a row? – keep looking for a non-deliberate process?

• Einstein: “A beautiful theory can always be destroyed by one ugly fact!”

• Gaps will always be there, but the odds that a falsifiable hypothesis or theory is actually “wrong” become less and less with more and more testing that the limits are what they are

• The odds that anything other than an intelligent agent can fill certain gaps, within a certain period of time or number of occurrences, can be statistically calculated

• What are the odds that mindless Nature could produce a near perfect symmetrical polished 10 m granite cube with 3 different complex etchings identically reproduced on opposing faces this side of 1 trillion years?– 1 trillion to one? If true, should I keep looking for a

“Natural” cause? – or accept ID as being most likely?

• All scientists actually do accept the “truth” of their hypotheses well shy of 100% certainty . . . even when it comes to the notion of ID - Except if the ID hypothesis has something to do with the origin of life or different kinds of life.

James Gibson’s List of Seven Criticisms of ID Theory

1. Intelligent Design Inhibits Scientific Inquiry:– “Attributing a phenomenon to design is to remove

motivation for further study, and/or to make it impossible to reach any conclusion because we cannot know the intentions of the designer”

• How long does one have to look for a non-deliberate cause of a French-style garden or a similar highly symmetrical pattern drawn in the sands of Mars before one should loose the motivation for such a fruitless pursuit?

2. Intelligent Design is a Sterile Idea– “Intelligent design does not provide any questions to

explore scientifically, hence it is useless for science, whether true or not.”

• Gibson argues: “Intelligent design may not be a hypothesis to test, but it may provide a ‘metaphysical research programme’ in which hypotheses may be generated and tested

• Is this really true? – that ID cannot be based on any testable hypothesis?

• If I hypothesize that all known non-deliberate forces have a limit with regard to a certain feature, like symmetry in gardens or granite, beyond which they cannot go this side of a practical eternity of time, what happens to my hypothesis if some non-deliberate apparently random force does happen to cross this line?

• What if there is a “limit” to Natural Selection?

• Gibson himself quotes Darwin:

– “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed [that] could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.

• Hypothetical: If such a demonstration could be done, what would be left besides ID as the most reasonable scientific explanation for such an organ system?

• Is the “Mindless Nature Can Do It” Hypothesis falsifiable this side of a practical eternity? – or is it only “verifiable”?

3. Intelligent Design is an Appeal from Ignorance– “Design is invoked when we don’t understand something. It is

the same kind of argument as the ‘god-of-the-gaps’ argument of former ages. As science advances, our understanding will increase, and the number of mysteries will decrease. Thus, what appears as designed today will eventually be shown to be the result of chance and natural law.”

• Science is based on a lack of perfect knowledge • It is science that is invoked when we don’t fully understand• The ID Theory is not based on a complete lack of evidence or

knowledge, but on an extensive data base concerning the very similar limits of all known non-deliberate forces, with regard to certain features, like symmetry, acting on certain materials – like granite, gardens, and even biosystems (I’ll explain the biolimits shortly)

4. Design is Religiously Motivated and Inappropriate in Science– Is the detection of design in forensic science

religiously motivated?– How about SETI?– How about detecting cheaters in Las Vegas?– Are these sciences “Religions” just because they

propose to detect design?– It seems to me like the “Religion Card” is played

only when deliberate design is theorized as a valid origin for certain aspects of living things

5. Any Designer Would Also Have to be Responsible for Evil– What about the creation of true “freedom”?– What about the possibility of multiple

designers?– What about the possibility of a truly evil

designer who indented to create just what we see around us? - as it is?

– ID Theory only shows that design happened as a cause for certain aspects of certain things

– ID Theory does not detect who or why or how

“Such a Wide Range of IDists”

• Those who enter under the umbrella of Darwinian-style evolution are also just as wide ranging in their beliefs regarding “evolution”

• The range of those who accept an idea is not evidence that is it ill-defined and therefore invalid as a good scientific idea

6. Design is Superfluous Because Natural Selection is Adequate– “Natural selection is an adequate mechanism to explain

the apparent design of living things. This has been demonstrated by computer analogies such as the Tierra program, in which computer images are subjected to a series of modifications and selection, resulting in unexpected complexity and creativity. Design is an unnecessary and untestable hypothesis.”

• If natural selection were an adequate mechanism, ID would not be detectable in living things

• Problem: Random mutation and natural selection only give rise to different systems that are at very low levels of Functional Complexity

• Tierra evolution– Starts out with program codes that reproduce

themselves – Gain reproductive advantages if they reproduce

faster– Result: paracytic-type programs that are actually

smaller than their original programs– These smaller programs leach off the functional

aspects of larger programs– Because of this leaching effect, the population

eventually stalls out and usually goes extinct– No higher-level systems of function evolve beyond

what the population started with

• Biosystem Evolution– A higher Level of functional complexity requires a

greater minimum sequence size and specificity – Antibiotic Resistance (can evolve, basically unlimited)

• Most forms require a loss or interference with a pre-established function (antibiotic-target interaction)

• Much easier to break something than to make it again, because there are so many more ways to break than to fix

– Nylonase: Minimum of ~ 300 AA (can evolve, limited)– Lactase: Minimum of ~ 400 AA (can evolve, limited)– Ratios in language systems:

• cat – hat – bat – bad – dad – did – dig – dog • Try it with longer sequences – gets exponentially harder and

harder to do because of an exponential decline in the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. potentially non-beneficial

• Odds that a large book will have the sequence “cat” preformed somewhere? – what about supracalafragalisticexpialedocious?

• Higher level biosystems– Flagellar Motility system: > 10,000 AA (>30,000 bp of

genetic real estate)– Evolution never makes it past systems with a

minimum requirement of more than a few hundred fairly specified AA ( < 3,000 bp of genetic real estate )

– A system requiring a minimum of just 4 or 5 K bp of genetic real estate would require literally trillions upon trillions of years to evolve – on average

– A God-of-the-Gaps argument? – Certainly!– What else besides a very high level of ID could fill

such a gap with an average time less than trillions upon trillions of years?

7. Accepting Design Would Overturn All of Science– “Science is based on naturalistic explanations. To accept design as

an explanation would change the fundamental nature of scientific methodology. Furthermore, it would alter the conclusions drawn in all areas of science and would create chaos, leaving only religious speculations to take the place of rigorous inquiry.”

• ID Theory can be based on naturalistic explanations – Are humans intelligent? – Are humans natural?– How then is the detection of design behind anything going beyond

what natural intelligent agents are theoretically capable of achieving?– Does the detection of a superior intelligence really force the

conclusion that such an intelligence is “unnatural”?– I can certainly detect that many people are smarter and more creative

than I am. Are these people therefore “unnatural” from my perspective? – Yes! They clearly go beyond my “natural” abilities

Different Ways to “Truth”?• I often hear, “Oh, that’s just a philosophical

notion” or “That’s just a religious idea”• I never hear, “Oh, that’s just science”• Why do “scientific” claims demand so much

respect while philosophical and religiously derived “truths” take a back seat?

• I believe it is because of the testable nature of the “truths” derived by science

• Is it possible for one’s “religious” ideas to be testable? – at least when it comes to those ideas about things that happen in the physical world outside the mind?

• The fact that I like vanilla ice cream is a “truth” that cannot be tested – I just know it as an internally derived fact

• Morality, like knowing that it is wrong to steal or to murder, is likewise an internally derived “truth” – as part of the Law apparently written on the heart of all human beings

• However, the “religious” notion that God or some “higher power” exists outside the mind and does stuff to the physical world and to the mind that can be detected as being beyond the “natural” capabilities of either the physical world or the mind - - is moving into the realm of science and potential falsification (risky ideas)

• God, as quoted in the Bible, often use the notion of falsification to support His claims as God and of being more “real” than “false” gods made of wood or stone

• “Only I can do this or that – and no other” – like predict the future or raise the dead or burn up alters on Mt. Carmel or guide new mother cows back to Bethel

• “Prove me [through tithes and offerings] and see if I will not open the store houses of Heaven and pour you out a blessing so great that you will not be able to receive it”

• Often God provides physical “signs” and “miracles” as proofs of the Divine origin of a promise or warning

• Abundant physical testable evidence of both God’s existence and character are available– For the invisible things of him from the creation of

the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20 KJV)

• God does not expect or desire “blind faith”• “Religion” can therefore be a science

• The strongest evidence will be rejected if one does not have a “Love of Truth” that is greater than everything else

• Scientists are always “religious” – even atheists– Subjectivity and faith are always required for even

scientifically derived beliefs about the world that exists outside the mind

• Distinguishing “Truth” from “Error”, concerning ideas about the world around the mind requires the same “not true” filter – Can be used by both science and religion, making

both the same thing

• Ellen White comments that in Heaven the study of the plan of salvation will be our science and our song

Is Love Testable?

• The fact that I love someone or something is not testable – it is an internally derived “truth”– Therefore doesn’t need scientific evidence

• My notion that someone else, like my wife or God, loves me is testable (tested every day even if only subconsciously) and falsifiable – qualifies as a science

A Little QuizDesigned or Not?

The timber circle at Holme-next-the-Sea in Norfolk, England

Stonehenge in the Snow

Non-Deliberate Potential

ID Potential

ID Potential

ID Potential

ID Potential

ID Potential

ID Potential

www.DetectingDesign.com

Flagellar Assembly – A Marvel of Microengineering