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 Method
1. Make an observation
2. Use that observation to make a falsifiable
prediction as to what will happen in the future
3. Test the prediction to see if it successfully
avoids falsification
4. 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 nondeliberate 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?
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.”
01101100110111100010
“. . . 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.”
“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 nondeliberate 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 nondeliberate 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 ‘godof-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 preestablished 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 Quiz
Designed or Not?
Stonehenge in the Snow
ID Potential
ID Potential
ID Potential
Non-Deliberate Potential
ID Potential
ID Potential
ID Potential
Flagellar Assembly – A Marvel of Microengineering
www.DetectingDesign.com