Intelligent Design - Simple Stuff Nature Cannot Do

The Detection of Intelligent Design

Simple Stuff Nature Cannot Do

Sean D. Pitman, MD

Not knowing how something was created is not evidence of intelligent design. This is a common and apparently reasonable argument. I hear it all the time from very smart people. It makes sense - even to me. There is a problem with it however. We do know how certain types of phenomena could have been designed with deliberate intent while we have no idea how they could have been designed without deliberate intent. A rather simplistic idea - right? Yet, this simple concept is in fact the basis for all mainstream sciences that search for intelligent design - to include anthropology, forensics, and yes, even SETI science.

Take SETI scientists for example. SETI scientists are looking for a particular type of radiosignal coming from outer space. If they find the type of signal they are looking for, they will actually announce that they have found evidence of non-human intelligent activity in this universe. How could they possibly say this based only on a radiosignal without having ever met their proposed designer? Hmmmmm? The basis for their argument is very interesting - - and very simple. They are looking for a type of radiosignal that they know humans could make but that is well beyond anything that any known non-deliberate process of nature could make. The type of signal they are looking for is actually quite simple - a signal with a narrow band spectrum (see Link).

It is kind of like other simple objects that humans could make but nature cannot make - like a highly symmetrical polished granite cube measuring, say, 10 x 10 x 10 meters. Such a cube, even if found on an alien planet by one of our rovers, would be highly suggestive of deliberate intelligent design. Why is that? Because we know how to make such a granite cube while at the same time we have no idea how any non-directed non-deliberate force of nature could produce such a cube with the material of granite this side of a practical eternity of time.

In short then, this is the basis of detecting intelligent design without having to actually meet the designer. It is a rather simple concept actually and is used in many sciences all the time. Of course, one could always be proven wrong after having proposed the intelligent design hypothesis to explain a particular phenomenon. Some as yet unknown nature phenomenon might be discovered after proposing the hypothesis of intelligent design as an explanation which would falsify the ID prediction. This is always a possibility - - but that is the nature of science. No scientific hypothesis, theory, or even law is 100% perfect. All real scientific theories are open to potential falsification. If they aren't they aren't really scientific.

There are actually some famous examples of the falsification of the intelligent design theories within various mainstream sciences. One striking example of this is the story of Germaine Henri-Martin and her once popular theory regarding numerous "artifacts" she found in Fontéchevade Cave in France. She thought she discovered the remains and artifacts of the "First Frenchmen" - but many years later these apparent artifacts were shown to be naturally produced and layered as natural flood deposits (see Link). SETI scientists also had a little bit of a glitch with the discovery of the first pulsars. "Pulsars were briefly tagged with the moniker LGM (Little Green Men) upon their discovery in 1967." (see Link).

Of course, the fact that many scientific hypotheses, even those having to do with the detection of intelligent activity both here on Earth and coming from outer space, have been falsified has not stopped science or the scientific search for signs of intelligent activity here on Earth and even coming from outer space - - as long as it has nothing to do with explaining the origin of life or its diversity on this Earth (for some odd reason?).

So, it seems that one should in fact ask the question if the standard default to non-deliberate natural production when it comes to explaining a particular phenomenon is actually "scientific" since it is really not based on testability or potential falsification. It really has very little useful a priori predictive value outside of actually seeing a non-deliberate natural process doing the job - or at least coming close to doing the job. It is really more of a philosophical position than a science in my opinion. Nature just replaces "God" as the all-powerful creative agent is all - but upon what basis? Sure, the various non-deliberate processes of nature can explain certain phenomena quite well; but all phenomena? - hardly. There are many phenomenon where mindless natural processes can only go so far and no farther. When it comes to the manipulation of certain materials or media, like granite rocks or radio waves, these limitations are known to a very predictable degree of confidence - which is quite useful when it comes to detecting design. When these known limitations of Nature are surpassed to a more and more significant degree, the hypothesis of intelligent design gains more and more predictive value and therefore viability.

Why then when some new phenomena is encountered, especially if it is a fairly simple phenomenon well inside the known range of human-level creativity and production, is the most logical default explanation some as yet unknown non-deliberate process of nature? How does one know that is the most reasonable conclusion without any real evidence that any non-deliberate force of nature can get remotely close to doing the job? How does one know that a non-deliberate process is a more likely explanation than a deliberate process? - especially if one knows how the phenomenon in question could be created deliberately even with human-level intelligence?

Why not just follow where the evidence leads instead of making a priori philosophical limitations to the paths which a scientist may or may not follow? - even if the various potential paths may have very significant philosophical or even "religious" implications - God forbid. Why not just let science be science?