I am a published science education writer and welcome all honest unbiased opinon (informal peer-review) from this forum for the following theory that coherently explains "intelligent cause" as is required by its premise which states "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

I very much understand that some find religious significance in this theory. But if that were grounds for dismissing a scientific theory then Modern Evolutionary Synthesis would likewise have to be dismissed because of Theistic Evolutionists, Freethinkers, Agnostics and Atheists who use that theory as the core of their religious belief system. Since it stands on its own scientific merit as an origin of life/intelligence theory it does not argue against another theory or ever mentions "evolution".

Here is one section that will explain why it is easily possible for this theory to exist in science. Much of it is from a theory I was working on in the early 1990's that predates the ID movement, that almost four years ago led to my realizing that the theory of ID was possible from it. This part helps better define emerging scientific phrases "Molecular Intelligence" and the now relatively common "Cellular Intelligence" as well as "Multicellular Intelligence":

Levels of Intelligence

The structure of our brain changes at the cellular level in response to what we sense/learn at the multicellular level. For example, navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of London taxi drivers accommodate the huge amount of navigating experience their job requires [43]. Also, neurons form new connections then store new memories by making permanent changes to these synaptic connections. We are unaware of these ongoing structural changes, but at the cellular level our brain is constantly changing in response to what we sense and learn.

Likewise, the structure of our cells also change at their molecular (genetics based) level in response to what they sense and learn. For example, stem cells can differentiate into one of many possible types of cells depending on what their job requires. Stem cells would also not be aware of these ongoing changes, but at the molecular level our cells are changing in response to what they sense/learn. Since cells replicate by division of their genome, these changes are inherited in the next generation of cells that divide from them.

In our development from a single cell (zygote) what is expressed at its molecular level produces cell growth and division. Likewise, what is expressed at the cellular level by the dividing colony of cells causes our growth and in the case of identical twins there is division of the cell colony. We now have the three primary levels of biological intelligence, a one level to the next causation where one is the “intelligent cause” of the other.

(1) Molecular Intelligence
(2) Cellular Intelligence
(3) Multicellular Intelligence

These three biological levels may be further subdivided according to whether it is a single molecule system that qualifies as rudimentary intelligence, for example self-replicating RNA would here be classifiable as Unimolecular Intelligence (a most simple form of Molecular Intelligence). Although not well understood and too early to fully qualify as intelligence, what is currently known about animal cell centrosomes are meeting requirements as a self-contained molecular intelligence system here called Centrosomal Intelligence, which is in addition to the cells Molecular Intelligence which together produces (animal cell) Cellular Intelligence.

For scientific experiments to model intelligent systems we must also include computer algorithm produced Algorithmic Intelligence. Where electronic components are connected to form the circuit of an intelligence system we have Electronic Intelligence useful for robotics.

The introduction operationally defines "intelligence" and as you can see stays very "in spirit" with the theory, without having to get religious or invoke "special creation". It begins with the first part of its premise (what it must explain) which helps show how well what follows it meets requirements even though only "natural processes" are required to coherently explain what is now known about intelligent causation.

Introduction

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in multiple levels of unique organization who sum to produce an emergent self-similar biological entity behaviorally in their own image, likeness. Nonrandom behavior of matter is here the “behavioral cause” of molecular intelligence, which is in turn the “intelligent cause” of cellular intelligence, which is in turn the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence, which is in turn the intelligent cause of collective intelligence. In this way human male and female gender itself has an “intelligent cause” from a simpler cellular male and female gender, which has an intelligent cause from an even simpler two-allele molecular replication process which has a “behavioral cause” from matter which we are ultimately an expression of. In engineered designs, intelligent cause is from the intelligent entities that produce them.

The biological operational definition of intelligence (where at all levels intelligence comes from) is an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) controlled sensory-addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions. At the cellular level our cells can sense what is needed thus differentiated into muscle cells and neurons to control them which behaviorally combined to produce a moving organism with muscle organs made of many cells pulling and brain organ that intelligently coordinates their motion. At all levels entities who do not serve a useful purpose in their society do poorly among those who can connect together a certain way so that the needs of each are being met. Whether created from molecules or cells or organs or organisms, intelligence must on their own find a place where they serve a useful purpose in their collective society.

Computer models show this common to all levels intelligence mechanism reduces to four necessary requirements. (1) Something for intelligence to control (motors, muscles, metabolic cycle). (2) Sensory addressable memory to store successful motor actions to be taken in response to sensed environmental conditions. (3) Sensory feedback to gauge failure or success in actions taken here called “confidence”. (4) A guess mechanism to try a new action. Good guesses as in crossover exchange safely controls design variation to produce offspring each different from each other (not clones) and gene level recombination of small conserved domains which are the nuts and bolts and motor parts of complex molecular machinery that all together keep living things alive.

From the perspective of intelligence, its genome is not a sewing "pattern" or “blueprint” showing each part and where each new cell that divides out must go and what to differentiate into each gene is learned response data for the next generation to try in response to sensed environmental conditions. In the social amoeba (slime molds) along with a self-replicating centrosomal control system for migration behavior their genome encodes for extremely adaptable cells which require no pattern to achieve their final form. Depending on conditions, in the process of each meeting their needs these social cells intuitively work together to form streaming or solid multicellular colonies of various designs. In human learning, newly produced social stem cells of the brain form new synaptic encoded neural networks. In each human social cell its epigenetically controlled genome greatly changes its gene expression in response to learning to serve a useful purpose, in their highly specialized cellular society. Where things go wrong (such as in primitive cancer-cell behavior) some cells can refuse to play by the same rules as the other cells, then they all suffer.

Successful designs remain in the collective molecular (RNA/DNA) memory of their population to keep going the billions year old cycle of life learning process which replicates previous contents of memory along with good (better than random) guesses what may work a little better for us. Resulting cladogram shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of similar design present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.

In our lineage is a chromosomal Adam and Eve from a population of beings who had at least a single copy/allele of the chromosome fusion unique to the human genome design. In such speciation events there is a first couple, which this theory will explain.

Each of us and all living things are an intelligent design from multiple levels of intelligence where at our molecular level has a memory with recall as old as life itself, powered by behavioral cause that is at least as old as the universe(s) we are intelligently conscious of. This causation is explained through physics, chemistry, biology, and other sciences that search for a way to explain how living things and our universe were created. This theory of intelligent design connects current knowledge to become a fully deterministic explanation for the origin of all intelligent/living things, where everything happens for a reason, and we were all meant to be…

Entire theory in MS Word format including links to computer models and source code in MS Word format:
http://sites.google.com/site/intelligen ... Design.doc

To open in Google-viewer:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... ZmN2NiNTEx

Sorry, you raised my bullshit antenna in the first paragraph and maxed it out in the second. Thanks for playing.

Define "intelligence".

I must admit I mostly skimmed through it, but am I right in thinking that you 1) are not proposing an external Designer, as Intelligent Design proponents usually do, and 2) that what you are doing is replacing natural selection with the idea of "innate intelligence" from the molecular level and up?

Maybe I misunderstood; I'll read more carefully later.

Gary, your entire post is an incoherent mess that seems to rest entirely on a camouflaged attempt to re-label known laws and mechanics into "intelligent design".

It looks like what you are doing is simply taking the mechanics of physics and chemistry, relabelling it "molecular intelligence" and then arguing that intelligent design exists. Well, doh.

Take your example of self-replicating RNA, which you describe as a "unimolecular intelligence". We happen to know how these self-replicating RNA's work very well, and we have no need to re-invent a new term for already existing and very well known laws of physics and chemistry.

You are changing what is understood by "intelligence" and simply inserting any natural process capable of producing a build-up of complexity, or which functions by replication with inheritance, into the definition. Under that paradigm, simple crystal-growth would qualify as "intelligent design". It's a ludicrous way of trying to smuggle "intelligent design" into science.

Fenrir wrote:Define "intelligence".

Already did:

The biological operational definition of intelligence (where at all levels intelligence comes from) is an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) controlled sensory-addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions. At the cellular level our cells can sense what is needed thus differentiated into muscle cells and neurons to control them which behaviorally combined to produce a moving organism with muscle organs made of many cells pulling and brain organ that intelligently coordinates their motion. At all levels entities who do not serve a useful purpose in their society do poorly among those who can connect together a certain way so that the needs of each are being met. Whether created from molecules or cells or organs or organisms, intelligence must on their own find a place where they serve a useful purpose in their collective society.

Computer models show this common to all levels intelligence mechanism reduces to four necessary requirements. (1) Something for intelligence to control (motors, muscles, metabolic cycle). (2) Sensory addressable memory to store successful motor actions to be taken in response to sensed environmental conditions. (3) Sensory feedback to gauge failure or success in actions taken here called “confidence”. (4) A guess mechanism to try a new action. Good guesses as in crossover exchange safely controls design variation to produce offspring each different from each other (not clones) and gene level recombination of small conserved domains which are the nuts and bolts and motor parts of complex molecular machinery that all together keep living things alive.

Gary S. Gaulin wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Define "intelligence".

Already did:

The biological operational definition of intelligence (where at all levels intelligence comes from) is an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) controlled sensory-addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions. At the cellular level our cells can sense what is needed thus differentiated into muscle cells and neurons to control them which behaviorally combined to produce a moving organism with muscle organs made of many cells pulling and brain organ that intelligently coordinates their motion. At all levels entities who do not serve a useful purpose in their society do poorly among those who can connect together a certain way so that the needs of each are being met. Whether created from molecules or cells or organs or organisms, intelligence must on their own find a place where they serve a useful purpose in their collective society.

Computer models show this common to all levels intelligence mechanism reduces to four necessary requirements. (1) Something for intelligence to control (motors, muscles, metabolic cycle). (2) Sensory addressable memory to store successful motor actions to be taken in response to sensed environmental conditions. (3) Sensory feedback to gauge failure or success in actions taken here called “confidence”. (4) A guess mechanism to try a new action. Good guesses as in crossover exchange safely controls design variation to produce offspring each different from each other (not clones) and gene level recombination of small conserved domains which are the nuts and bolts and motor parts of complex molecular machinery that all together keep living things alive.

theropod wrote:

<snip>

Every time anyone asks for a simple explanation Gary posts a wall of repeating text.

<snip>

That's one to theropod.

Previously debunked apologist wrote:The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause

Why?

John P. M. wrote:I must admit I mostly skimmed through it, but am I right in thinking that you 1) are not proposing an external Designer, as Intelligent Design proponents usually do,

Yes, but I do have to add that not all ID proponents fit the stereotype that they have been labeled with. It is routine for anti-ID proponents to pick on the one with the most absurd statement they can find while ignoring reason. Can see the stereotyping and bullying already starting in this thread. I often just ignore them, so that I have time to properly answer others who are willing to follow the scientific method, or at least ask questions that pertain to this theory like yours.

John P. M. wrote:and 2) that what you are doing is replacing natural selection with the idea of "innate intelligence" from the molecular level and up?

No, requiring natural selection in the logical construct of theory is one reason why Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is not an origin of life theory or can explain how intelligence works. It has also led to many failed predictions such as "Lucy" having a half-ape foot design (recently evidence shows fully human), that there was no defining speciation event in our lineage (now known as "chromosome speciation"), and instead of first having the mechanism for such things as the Cambrian Explosion (reason for exponential biodiversity curve also explained in theory) phrases like "punctuated equilibrium" are created to cover failed predictions without ever explaining anything. Natural selection based theory is much more limited than we were led to believe. This theory does not need it because it focuses on how living things together change their environment to suit themselves, instead of the other way around and the environment changes all of the living things by blasting them with volcanoes, asteroids, floods, or stranding them on islands where molecular mechanisms will in time produce a new species even where natural selection did not exist (which can be computer modeled to verify). The phrase natural selection is also a generalization that includes intelligence that makes all selections for itself, from what to eat to who to choose as mate. Once all of these factors are explained the phrase "natural selection" becomes too ambiguous to be scientifically useful to a theory that has to be more specific than that.

John P. M. wrote:Maybe I misunderstood; I'll read more carefully later.

I hope you do John. It has a computer model that is a big improvement over the Genetic Algorithm that cannot model intelligence, which is one reason why the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is much more limited than you think and is prone to false predictions. This is an origin of life/intelligence theory that makes sense of things that Modern Evolutionary Synthesis cannot cover.

I started responding in full, but within a few paragraphs it was such gobbledegook it was no longer even possible to find a coherent sense in it. The OP appears to make up a number of definitions to suit their claims, the OP appears largely unaware of biological processes, the OP appears to think that their claims actually somehow establish validity to the proposed initial claim.... yet in none of these appearances is there any truth.


I will ask the OP a nice simple question regarding the premise:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Aside from the convenient weasel words like 'certain features', what I want to know is what the metric is for establishing an intelligent cause. I would like a rubric of intelligent design - some clarified series of points that allow us to test the hypothesis against objects of known provenance. This is, without question, a requirement for any of the above to hold the slightest scientific significance - a means to falsify a hypothesis.

Rome Existed wrote:It's not a theory. A hypothesis becomes a theory when scientists (not one or two) in that field accept it as having enough evidence to be superior to all other hypothesises regarding the same phenomenon.

That is the "layman's definition" of theory. I once used to believe it too. After discussing it with experienced scientists and weeks of research/refinement of a proper useful definition I found that this is how scientists define it:

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS

Although there are many “proper definitions” the primary difference between a hypothesis (also stated as a "research question") and a theory is that a hypothesis is a testable true/false statement (or brief question) which might be only an untested educated guess. For example the observation that water increases in density as it cools infers "Ice is denser than water." while scientific theory explains hydrogen bonds which make ice less dense than liquid water which in turn will "predict" that this intuitive hypothesis is false.

A theory is a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, and will contain a number of hypotheses all explained together. In origin of life (abiogenesis) theory are a number of hypotheses and possible "worlds" like RNA World, DNA World, Metabolic World and Protein World. A theory does not ask a true/false question then perform a quick experiment to see whether it holds true or not, theory explains how a phenomenon such as "abiogenesis" or "intelligent cause" works and cannot be answered with a question a theory predicts its answer.


HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS

A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomenon works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions.

The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomenon to be explained. Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise.

This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:

Source: Discovery Institute http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomenon to be explained. The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation. The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".

In science something either exists or it does not. The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”. Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy.

The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other. As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.

Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable. For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument. The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).

All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”. When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory. As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.

Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”. This made for a useful debate as to what science is. But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine. Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record. One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.

For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”. Otherwise it is “useless”. There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory. But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.

The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place. For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions

The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause. We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”

To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause. When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together. In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation.

In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories. This can make it appear that a new one is not needed. It will then be ignored. To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it. But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously. When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong. Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.

An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another. Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent.

Gary S. Gaulin wrote: It has also led to many failed predictions such as "Lucy" having a half-ape foot design (recently evidence shows fully human)

Citation please.

Gary S. Gaulin wrote:that there was no defining speciation event in our lineage (now known as "chromosome speciation"),

Citation please.

Gary S. Gaulin wrote:and instead of first having the mechanism for such things as the Cambrian Explosion (reason for exponential biodiversity curve also explained in theory) phrases like "punctuated equilibrium" are created to cover failed predictions without ever explaining anything.

Unfortunately, it appears you are operating under a poor awareness of what occurred during the Cambrian Explosion, a term creationists love to point to, but rarely understand that it is only an 'explosion', with concomitant implications of speed, in the context of geological time. If you were aware of what actually happened at that time, you'd not need to invoke some special pleading for it.

Further, punctuated equilibrium is to do with patterns in the fossil record, but in no way, shape or form presents a failure of the evolutionary theory.

Gary S. Gaulin wrote:Natural selection based theory is much more limited than we were led to believe.

Who's this 'we'?

Gary S. Gaulin wrote:This theory does not need it because it focuses on how living things together change their environment to suit themselves, instead of the other way around and the environment changes all of the living things by blasting them with volcanoes, asteroids, floods, or stranding them on islands where molecular mechanisms will in time produce a new species even where natural selection did not exist (which can be computer modeled to verify).

Natural selection does not exist in particular locations? How very fascinating. Perhaps it would be best if you gave an explanation of what you think natural selection means, as it appears you have a somewhat warped understanding of it.

Gary S. Gaulin wrote:The phrase natural selection is also a generalization that includes intelligence that makes all selections for itself, from what to eat to who to choose as mate. Once all of these factors are explained the phrase "natural selection" becomes too ambiguous to be scientifically useful to a theory that has to be more specific than that.

I take it then you are unaware of genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer. Further sexual selection is as much a component of natural selection as ecological selection is.

What appears to be coming out of this is that your notion of modern evolutionary theory is not actually the same as that held by evolutionary biologists, but rather, effectively, a strawman constructed potentially to permit you to knock bits down.

Gary S. Gaulin wrote:the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is much more limited than you think and is prone to false predictions.

Citations please.

I know what a scientific theory is Gary, so please proceed to provide me with a rubric for ascertaining intelligent cause, for example a statement clarifying the principles of designedness, so that I can then test the claims for myself.