intelligent design as a true science 2

7/29/2019 Intelligent Design as a True Science 2

1/64

Can Any Theory ofIntelligent Design

be A TrueScientific Theory?

Sean D. Pitman, M.D.April 2006

www.DetectingDesign.com


2/64

Both Could Have Been Deliberately Designed

Only One Had to Have Been Deliberately Designed


3/64

The Scientific Method

1. Make an observation2. Use that observation to make a falsifiable

prediction as to what will happen in the future

3. Test the prediction to see if it successfullyavoids falsification

4. If the prediction avoids falsification, thehypothesis gains predictive value

It is more likely that this prediction will continue tohold true with more testing

5. If the prediction fails, the hypothesis must beeither modified or discarded completely infavor of a new hypothesis


4/64

Karl Popper, one of the most influentialphilosophers of the 20th century:

Any hypothesis that does not makefalsifiable 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


5/64

Popper began considering the importance

of falsification in science after attending alecture by Einstein

Noticed that Einsteins theories were much

different than those of Marx or Freud Einstein Theories were extremely riskywhile those of Marx and Freud were not inthat they explain too much, often with

completely opposing explanations forobservations that could not be decisivelydisproved


6/64

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 foundsharing additional features like a feathered dinosaur

This prediction is not falsifiable, it is only verifiable

If feathered dinosaurs are never found, the hypothesis stillisnt falsified

It therefore does not meet Poppers criteria as a true

scientific prediction however useful it may be


7/64

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


8/64

Designed Things

Do things of known design have any

predictable characteristics that can beused to predict design when such

characteristic are found in other things?


9/64

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?


10/64

ID Explains Nothing?

ID does seem to be able to explain everything

ID is limited in explanatory power only by thelimits of the proposed designer

Mindless Nature is used to explain everything aswell and therefore nothing?

If ID and non-deliberate natural processes are bothequally limitless in potential creative ability, howcan one tell the difference?

One or the other must be limited in the ability toproduce certain characteristics over a certain spanof time


11/64

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, cant non-

deliberate forces do everything that highly

intelligent forces can do? Sure, but how much time do you have?


12/64

Time is the hero of the plot. The

time with which we have to deal is ofthe order of two billion years... Givenso much time the 'impossible'becomes possible, the possibleprobable, and the probable virtuallycertain. One has only to wait: timeitself performs miracles.

George Wald (1967 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine), "The Origin ofLife," 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.


13/64Deliberate or non-deliberate?


14/64


15/64

Non-deliberate?


16/64
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Japan_Tottori_KannonIn_DSC01907.jpg


17/64


18/64

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

Cant predict heads or tails of a particular coin

toss better than 50/50, but I can predict that theratio will almost certainly be 50%H/50%T after 1million tossesif the tossing is truly random


19/64

Kolmogorov/Chaitin

Complexity

"Although randomness can be precisely

defined and can even be measured, agiven number cannot be proved to be

random. This enigma establishes a limit

to what is possible in mathematics."Gregory Chaitin, Scientific American, 1975


20/64

A non-random process, like ID or Pi, canproduce non-random and random-looking looks

A truly random process, coin tossing, can alsoproduce 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 detectabledifference 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?


21/64

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


22/64

01010101010101010101

The first is obviously constructed according to asimple rule; it consists of the number 01 repeated tentimes. If one were asked to speculate on how the

series might continue, one could predict withconsiderable confidence that the next two digitswould be 0 and 1. Inspection of the second series ofdigits yields no such comprehensive pattern. There isno obvious rule governing the formation of the

number, and there is no rational way to guess thesucceeding digits. The arrangement seemshaphazard; in other words, the sequence appears tobe a random assortment of 0's and 1's.


23/64

. . . The second series of binary digits was generatedby flipping a coin 20 times and writing a 1 if theoutcome was heads and a 0 if it was tails.

Tossing a coin is a classical procedure for producinga random number, and one might think at first that the

provenance of the series alone would certify that it israndom. This is not so. Tossing a coin 20 times canproduce 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 theseries with an obvious pattern than to obtain the onethat seems to be random; each represents an eventwith a probability of 220.

01101100110111100010


24/64

If origin in a probabilistic event were madethe 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 possibleseries. 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 theintuitive concept of a patternless number.

Gregory J. Chaitin, Randomness and Mathematical Proof, Scientific American,

232, No. 5 (May 1975), pp. 47-52


25/64

A Patternless Pattern

Patternlessness is based on the patternitself without any regard to its actual origin

Patternlessness = Complexity (KCC) KCC = Measure ofCompressibility

Given the ability to recognize symmetry or

repeating patterns, a sequence withgreater internal symmetry has greatercompressibility (Low KCC)


26/64

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


27/64

Patternlessness cannot be absolutelyknown this side of absolute knowledge

An unknown compressor, like Pi,may come along and compress a verylong apparently random sequence intoa very small expression or formula

Something with apparentlyhigh KCC in

reality has a low KCC So, what good is the concept of KCC?


28/64

ApparentRandomness orChaos

Chaos Theory arose out of trying to predictthe weather (Edward Lorenz)

Its kinda like playing pool: Perfectknowledge of position, direction, velocity andseveral other features of each pool ball on aperfectly frictionless table would give exact

predictability over time Slightly non-perfect knowledge results inexponentially worse and worse predictabilityover time

i.e. The Butterfly Effect


29/64


30/64

Even a slight lack of knowledge of the startingparameters results in an appearanceof

randomness/non-compressibility or high KCC The actual rules governing the starting

parameters may have been very simple (lowKCC) 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 yearsweather patterns

Such things will therefore predictably producean apparentlyrandom pattern with high KCC


31/64

The Predictable Random Look

Imagine a 10 x 10 meter very smooth/polishedhighly 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 resultingirregularities of one half will look identical to the

other half? Will the irregularities show any significant

symmetry? this side of repeating thisexperiment a near infinite number of times?


32/64

or

Simple? Complex?

What About Random Etchings?


33/64

Entropy and Disorder

Non-Deliberate processes tend toward Complexity

and away from Simplicity Right?

Complexity, in this common understanding of theword, actually means Randomness or Chaos

Greater Complexity equals greater KCC, which equals

greater Entropy (Algorithmic Entropy (AE))

Like Thermodynamic Entropy (TE), AE heads towardits maximum value over time

Highly symmetrical irregularities have lower overall AE


34/64

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 thesubparts of such systems


35/64

Where are the Limits?

If nature can create both complexity andsimplicity, where are the limits?

It depends on the material in question

There are types of materials where all knownnon-deliberate forces have pretty much thesame limitations when it comes to producingcertain features like symmetry

Granite, marble, flint, clay, French-stylegardens etc.


36/64

When to Stop Looking

Science doesnt demand 100% certainty

If all potential ways of falsification were ruled outcompletely, 100%, there would be no more need forscience

Science is needed becauseof limited knowledgeA gapin knowledge

Science is an effort to determine the odds that a particularpossibility is not filling the gap

What do statisticians do at Las Vegas? You draw 4 Aces10 times in one night, youre never going back!

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


37/64

Einstein: A beautiful theory can alwaysbe destroyed by one ugly fact!

Gaps will always be there, but the odds that a falsifiablehypothesis or theory is actually wrong become less andless with more and more testing that the limits are whatthey are

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

What are the odds that mindless Nature could produce anear perfect symmetrical polished 10 m granite cube with

3 different complex etchings identically reproduced onopposing faces this side of 1 trillion years?

1 trillion to one? If true, should I keep looking for aNatural cause? or accept ID as being most likely?


38/64

All scientists actually do accept thetruth of their hypotheses well shy of

100% certainty . . . even when it comes

to the notion of ID - Exceptif the IDhypothesis has something to do with the

origin of life or different kinds of life.


39/64

James Gibsons List of Seven

Criticisms of ID Theory1. Intelligent Design Inhibits Scientific Inquiry:

Attributing a phenomenon to design is to remove

motivation for further study, and/or to make itimpossible to reach any conclusion because wecannot know the intentions of the designer

How long does one have to look for a non-deliberate cause of a French-style garden or asimilar highly symmetrical pattern drawn in thesands of Mars before one should loose themotivation for such a fruitless pursuit?


40/64

2. Intelligent Design is a Sterile Idea

Intelligent design does not provide any questions toexplore scientifically, hence it is useless for science,

whether true or not.

Gibson argues: Intelligent design may not be ahypothesis 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?


41/64

If I hypothesize that all known non-deliberate forces have a limit withregard to a certain feature, likesymmetry in gardens or granite, beyond

which they cannot go this side of apractical eternity of time, what happensto my hypothesis if some non-deliberate

apparently random force does happento cross this line?


42/64

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?


43/64

3. Intelligent Design is an Appeal from Ignorance Design is invoked when we dont understand

something. It is the same kind of argument as the god-of-the-gaps argument of former ages. As scienceadvances, our understanding will increase, and thenumber of mysteries will decrease. Thus, what appearsas designed today will eventually be shown to be theresult of chance and natural law.

Science is based on a lack of perfect knowledge

It is science that is invoked when we dont fully understand

The ID Theory is notbased on a complete lack of evidenceor knowledge, but on an extensive data base concerningthe very similar limits of all known non-deliberate forces,with regard to certain features, like symmetry, acting oncertain materials like granite, gardens, and even

biosystems (Ill explain the biolimits shortly)


44/64

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 validorigin for certain aspects of living things


45/64

5. Any Designer Would Also Have to beResponsible for Evil

What about the creation of true freedom?

What about the possibility of multipledesigners?

What about the possibility of a truly evildesigner who indented to create just what wesee around us? - as it is?

ID Theory only shows that design happened

as a cause for certain aspects of certainthings

ID Theory does not detect who or why or how


46/64

Such a Wide Range of IDists

Those who enter under the umbrella of

Darwinian-style evolution are also just

as wide ranging in their beliefsregarding evolution

The range of those who accept an idea

is notevidence that is it ill-defined andtherefore invalid as a good scientific

idea


47/64

6. Design is Superfluous Because Natural Selectionis Adequate

Natural selection is an adequate mechanism toexplain the apparent design of living things. This hasbeen demonstrated by computer analogies such as theTierraprogram, in which computer images aresubjected 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 adequatemechanism, ID would not be detectable in living

things Problem: Random mutation and natural selection

only give rise to different systems that are at verylow levels ofFunctional Complexity


48/64

Tierra evolution

Starts out with program codes that reproducethemselves

Gain reproductive advantages if they reproduce

faster

Result: paracytic-type programs that are actuallysmaller than their original programs

These smaller programs leach off the functional

aspects of larger programs

Because of this leaching effect, the populationeventually stalls out and usually goes extinct

No higher-levelsystems of function evolve beyondwhat the population started with


49/64

Biosystem Evolution A higherLevelof functional complexity requires a

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

Odds that a large book will have the sequence catpreformed somewhere? what about

supracalafragalisticexpialedocious?


50/64

Higher level biosystems

Flagellar Motility system: > 10,000 AA (>30,000 bp of

genetic real estate)

Evolution never makes it past systems with a

minimumrequirement of more than a few hundredfairly 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?


51/64

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 conclusionsdrawn in all areas of science and would create chaos, leaving onlyreligious 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 beyondwhat natural intelligent agents are theoretically capable ofachieving?

Does the detection of a superior intelligence really force theconclusion that such an intelligence is unnatural?

I can certainly detect that many people are smarter and morecreative than I am. Are these people therefore unnatural from myperspective?Yes! They clearly go beyond my natural abilities


52/64

Different Ways to Truth?

I often hear, Oh, thatsjusta philosophicalnotion or Thatsjusta religious idea

I never hear, Oh, thatsjustscience

Why do scientific claims demand so much

respect while philosophical and religiouslyderived truths take a back seat?

I believe it is because of the testable nature ofthe truths derived by science

Is it possible for ones religious ideas to betestable? at least when it comes to thoseideas about things that happen in the physicalworld outside the mind?


53/64

The fact that I like vanilla ice cream is a truththat cannot be tested I just know it as aninternally derived fact

Morality, like knowing that it is wrong to steal orto murder, is likewise an internally derivedtruth as part of the Law apparently writtenon the heart of all human beings

However, the religious notion that God orsome higher power exists outside the mindand does stuff to the physical world and to themind that can be detected as being beyond thenatural capabilities of either the physical worldor the mind - - is moving into the realm ofscience and potential falsification (risky ideas)


54/64

God, as quoted in the Bible, often use the notion of

falsification to support His claims as God and of beingmore 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


55/64

Abundant physical testable evidence of bothGods existence and character are available

For the invisible things of him from the creation ofthe world are clearly seen, being understood bythe things that are made, even his eternal powerand 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 onedoes not have a Love of Truth that isgreater than everything else


56/64

Scientists are always religious even

atheists Subjectivity and faith are always required for even

scientifically derived beliefs about the world thatexists outside the mind

Distinguishing Truth from Error, concerningideas about the world around the mindrequires the same not true filter Can be used by both science and religion, making

both the same thing

Ellen White comments that in Heaven thestudy of the plan of salvation will be ourscience and our song


57/64

Is Love Testable?

The fact that I love someone or

something is not testable it is an

internally derived truth Therefore doesnt need scientific evidence

My notion that someone else, like my

wife or God, loves me is testable (testedevery day even if only subconsciously)

and falsifiable qualifies as a science


58/64

A Little QuizDesigned or Not?


59/64


60/64

Stonehenge in the Snow


61/64


62/64


63/64

Non-Deliberate Potential

ID Potential

ID Potential

ID Potential

ID Potential

ID Potential

ID Potential

Fl ll A bl A M l f Mi i i


64/64

Flagellar Assembly A Marvel of Microengineering

intelligent design as a true science 2

Documents