In Search of the Designer of Intelligent Design
Kazmer Ujvarosy
January 03, 2007
The movement known as intelligent design (ID) is gaining momentum across the nation, and even beyond America’s borders, causing considerable alarm among Darwin’s disciples.
ID theorists hold that certain features of the universe and of living organisms are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by undirected processes, because they are too complex to have arisen out of chance and necessity. They make no claims, however, about the inferred designer of intelligent design.
ID theorists also hold that Darwin’s “Tree of Life” (i.e. the theory that all life descended from a single and simple common ancestor) is a widely held myth. The reasoning includes arguments such as “The fossil record of complex animal life on Earth exhibits a pattern of appearance that severely challenges Darwin's ‘Tree of Life’.”
Thus from the point of view of many ID theorists universal common descent, hyped by evolutionists as “the fact of evolution,” has no valid empirical support. These scientists contend that no single common ancestor existed, and large-scale speciation or macroevolution didn’t happen, because the major kinds of life were designed independently of one another. Microevolutionary processes are thought to have produced many new species, but with no radical changes from the original types of designed organisms.
Darwinists, on the other hand, argue that speciation did in fact happen because the geological column’s fossil record shows that species arise one from another. In short they posit that all life can be traced back to a simple beginning, minimal life form, or last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) takes the intelligent design movement’s challenge seriously, and is concerned. NCSE is the only organization in the country dedicating all its resources to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools and keeping alternative theories out of the science curriculum. NCSE’s Executive Director, Eugenie C. Scott, complains that teachers and students are being told by ID proponents that evolution didn’t happen, but fail to identify the agent and mechanism that drives life’s present complexity and diversity.
Scott firmly believes that the Darwinian model has been recognized and endorsed as a key component of science education by all major scientific societies because, in Theodosius Dobzhansky’s words, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Driven by that conviction, she vehemently objects to the teaching of any other alternative concept. She believes that any alternative explanation is in fact creationism under the camouflage of science. Such alternatives, she argues, fail to refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests.
Understandably she wishes to know exactly who or what caused the formation of biological complexity if common descent and natural selection fail to account for the richness of life. After all in science, above all else, the question is: How can we understand the phenomenon or effect in question in terms of its cause?
Thus, in essence, science is about the matter of causality. But for a scientific explanation it is not sufficient to provide a plausible cause. If the cause proposed by the explanation fails to account for the effect attributed to its agency, we must search for an alternative cause that shows a more explicit connection between cause and effect.
The scientific method requires, however, that the proposed cause must be accessible to scientific study for the purposes of observability, testability, falsifiability, or predictability. Science contends, in other words, that anything supernatural fails to qualify as a cause because no supernatural cause is accessible to scientific study. In other words a supernatural cause, such as the Creator of the universe, is viewed by science as an agent beyond nature, or beyond the universe, and therefore not amenable to scientific study.
Just as Scott, I wished to know the nature of the designer ID theorists have in mind, because I assumed that the knowledge of the designer holds the key to the controversy’s resolution. So I made my move, got in contact with Dr. Michael Newton Keas, Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science at Biola University, and asked him to comment on the question of the designer’s exact character.
Mike Keas appeared to be qualified to comment on the subject. He teaches in the Master of Arts program in Science and Religion (MASR) at Biola University, and is committed to tracking and influencing important new developments within science, such as intelligent design theory (www.biola.edu/scienceandreligion). On top of that he’s a Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
In essence I let Mike know that, in my opinion, only if we manage to identify the intelligent agent's exact character can we be certain that the agent is accessible to observation and scientific study. Unless we do so, the allegation voiced by ID’s critics remains plausible that the concept of intelligent design is not science, because it assumes an intelligent cause inaccessible to scientific study.
In response he explained that “Intelligent design is the science that studies the products of intelligence. ID distinguishes such products of intelligence from the effects of chance and natural necessity. It does not try to infer the identity of the designer or what the designing intelligence was thinking. Such questions lie beyond the scientific research program of intelligent design.”
Mike concluded by emphasizing, “ID theory today does not invoke a supernatural form of intelligent agency. Mere intelligent causation is the defining inference of 21st-century ID theory. The exact character of that intelligence, ID advocates insist, is not a scientific question.”
I found the claim puzzling that the intelligent cause’s exact character “is not a scientific question.” I asked Mike, “Do you mean by the term ‘not a scientific question’ that the question of the intelligent agent's exact identity (or identities) lies outside the domain of science, or that the question is scientific, but ID theorists are simply not interested in the designer's exact character? I have the impression that only if we manage to identify the intelligent agent's exact character can we be certain that the agent is accessible to observation and scientific study.”
He answered by stressing the point, "’Who is the designer?’ is not a scientific question.” But then he added by way of explanation: “Studying the effects of intelligent agency in the material world (and distinguishing such effects from the outcome of chance and natural law) is science. … Whether the designing intelligence is human, alien, the mind of a living universe, or an intelligent being beyond the cosmos is not an issue that can be effectively addressed through scientific inquiry. Other academic disciplines are better suited to plumb the depths of such fascinating questions.”
I wanted to know that if the question of the designer's exact character lies outside the scientific research objectives of ID theorists, what makes them believe that "ID theory today does not invoke a supernatural form of intelligent agency"? Mike reassured me, “ID does not infer supernatural intelligence. Other disciplines of knowledge beyond science could help one figure out whether the designer implicated by science is a supernatural God.”
When I found this view mind-boggling, Mike came to my help: “I want to clarify what I mean by "ID does not infer supernatural intelligence." It could be supernatural, or it might not be. We need other disciplines beyond science to help us decide the sort of intelligence to which the scientific theory of ID points. ID's agnosticism toward the supernatural does not mean that ID theorists know that no supernatural intelligence was involved in the designing work. As scientists, ID proponents simply do not know whether or not the designing intelligence was supernatural.”
Be as it may, when I told Mike that often critics claim, including Eugenie Scott, that ID has failed, and it is not science because no designer has been specified, he lectured: “Does it make sense to say that ID has ‘failed’ to infer the identity (or identities) of the intelligence at work when such inferences have never been part of its scientific research program? Shouldn't we judge any scientific research program by what its main architects have said they have set out to do, rather than by what others say they should be doing?”
We agree with Eugenie Scott,” continued Mike, “that there are many interesting questions that lie outside the scientific research objectives of design theorists. But it does not make sense to judge ID a failure for not doing what it never set out to do.”
To stress his point, Mike quoted from William Dembski’s The Design Revolution (p. 33): "As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such."
So we are told by ID theorists in no uncertain terms not to depend on them for illumination regarding the inferred intelligence’s exact identity. ID is strictly about design detection. It’s outside the scope of ID to speculate about the intelligence responsible for design in nature, or about the methods of the designer. This leaves us in the dark, and we have no choice but to cast light on the inferred intelligence’s identity without the help of ID theorists.
Fine, let’s start with the statement, “ID does not infer supernatural intelligence,” and let’s keep in mind that by definition “supernatural” simply means intelligence beyond and above nature, in other words intelligence beyond and above the universe. The term “supernatural,” however, must be distinguished from the term “superhuman.” By definition “superhuman” simply means intelligence beyond and above human intelligence. This distinction between supernatural and superhuman is necessary because irrespective of what scientists believe, the supernatural cause of the universe is indubitably and demonstrably accessible to us for scientific study, as opposed to a superhuman intelligence.
Well, if ID theorists do not infer supernatural intelligence, and if we exclude supernatural intelligence from their theory, then we are left with no intelligence to account for design in nature. The stark fact is that the only intelligence that qualifies to cause design in nature, and is accessible to scientific study, is our own intelligence. But if we have to exclude supernatural intelligence, then our own intelligence has to go, because human intelligence is supernatural.
How is it possible? Let me explain.
If it’s a fact that ID does not infer supernatural intelligence, then logic dictates that the intelligence ID theorists have in mind cannot be the cause of design in nature, and must lack the ability to observe and measure the universe, simply because it is confined within the boundaries of the universe. Stated differently, only intelligence beyond the bounds of the universe – i.e., only supernatural intelligence – can be the designer, observer and measurer of the universe.
So ID’s claim that the inferred intelligence is not supernatural doesn’t sound plausible simply because no such intelligence can be the cause of design in nature. The only unquestionably existing intelligence that qualifies to be the designer, observer and measurer of nature is human intelligence. Design by human intelligence is evident from nuclear engineering to genetic engineering, and for us the universe is observable and measurable. We have models of the universe based on our observations, we measured its parameters, and we calculated the proportions of its content. The fact that we are the observers and measurers of the universe constitutes evidence that our intelligence exists beyond the bounds of the universe. But if human intelligence exists beyond the bounds of nature, then by definition it is not only supernatural, but eternal as well.
At this point let me note that Anana, the chief scribe to Seti II, wrote the following in an Egyptian papyrus: “Our religion teaches us that we live eternally. Now eternity, having no end, can have no beginning, it is a circle. Therefore if the one be true, namely that we live on, it would seem that the other must be true, namely that we have always lived.”
Naturally both ID theorists and evolutionists could argue that human intelligence is neither eternal, nor the pinnacle of existing intelligence. Indeed, whether it is true or not, we can’t be absolutely certain. Precisely for this reason the theory that human intelligence is everlasting, and constitutes the pinnacle of existing intelligence, is tentative, just as scientific theories are supposed to be.
At this time what we know for certain is that human intelligence exists, and based on our uniform experience the existing highest form of intelligence is human intelligence. We have no verifiable evidence that at one time no human intelligence existed, that non-human intelligence superior to human intelligence exists, or that human intelligence is the product of a lower form of non-human intelligence.
In the absence of verifiable evidence that human intelligence cannot exist prior to the universe there is no reason to believe in the origin of the universe and human intelligence from anything inferior to human intelligence. Put simply, the immortality of human intelligence has never been falsified, and the principle of its immortality remains valid until human intelligence exists.
Again let me stress that if ID does not invoke any supernatural entity, then no intelligence qualifies as the cause of design in nature. The other point is that if supernatural causation is not allowed in science, then human intelligence is not allowed in science, because human intelligence is supernatural relative to nature.
The inference that human intelligence is supernatural relative to the universe it observes and measures brings us to the conclusion that intelligent design, in contradiction to what it says, deals with the supernatural, just as science in general. Human intelligence, after all, is the driving force behind both activities, and evidently behind all activities.
Based on the unique qualities of human intelligence we posit that it is the inferred “designer” of the universe because it constitutes the seed of the universe, i.e. the genotype of the phenotype universe, or the cosmic system’s input and output. When it feels an inner urge to produce human beings in its own image, it brings order out of chaos, and progressively develops the structure of the universe for the reproduction of itself, similarly as a seed creates a mighty tree for the production of seeds in its own image.
Thus the act of creation starts with a brief top-down fission phase, followed by the laborious and lengthy bottom-up fusion phase, and it is this phase that creates the illusion of cosmic and biological evolution from a simple beginning, when in fact it is cosmic and biological development from the parent seed of the universe.
Based on the eternity of human intelligence we posit that its configuration or development extends beyond the cosmic system’s life span. The cosmic system’s initial seed or input in the form of human intelligence generates the universe, which reproductive system produces human output in the initial input’s image. The human output in turn generates the next cosmic reproductive system for the purpose of self-propagation.
In light of the theory that human intelligence caused the generation of the universe for the production of human beings in its own image now we know that we live in a world that was created for the purpose of our production. The theory of creation by human intelligence also explains why our universe is so ingeniously bio-friendly. Just as an apple tree is an incredibly fine-tuned system for the production of apples because a single apple seed constitutes the genotype of that phenotype, so is our universe an incredibly fine-tuned system for the production of human beings because a single human being constitutes the genotype of the phenotype cosmos.
This living cosmology provides numerous critical insights. Among others it predicts:
Human intelligence is everlasting because the universe, being the effect of human intelligence, has no power to act upon the cause of its own origin, just as a tree has no power to act upon its own parent seed.
By virtue of its eternity human intelligence constitutes the cosmological constant.
Human intelligence has quantum properties because it exists in both particle and field states. Human intelligence in its potential or seed state is a particle, but in its state of expression takes on field characteristics, and thus provides the morphogenetic field or quantum vacuum of the universe for the development of the creatures it has in mind.
The cause of human intelligence is neither supernatural nor superhuman because it simply has no cause beyond itself.
There is no designer of human intelligence because human intelligence itself is the “designer.”
No origin-of-first-life idea is scientific because life is everlasting, and anything everlasting cannot be first relative to itself.
The universe is not a closed system as contemporary cosmology assumes, but an open system, because it is open to the creative and guiding activities of human intelligence. Only human intelligence is closed to itself because no intelligence exists beyond and above human intelligence.
Dark energy, that drives the expansion of the universe, is one of the deepest and most exciting puzzles in modern science. We posit that dark energy is the field manifestation of the parent seed of the universe, just as the cosmic vacuum’s zero-point energy. They all originate from the cosmic seed’s biophoton emissions, which blackbody radiation provides a holographic biofield for the generation of the physical universe. Based on the fact that the biophotonic radiation emitted by DNA is coherent, we predict that the cosmic seed's biophotonic field or "dark energy" is equally coherent.
The universe is a living system, dynamically managed by the parent seed’s unbounded and conscious holographic biofield, and regulated by the process of information feedback.
The elusive Higgs boson – so vital to the Standard Model of particle physics that it is dubbed “the God particle” – is identical with the genotype of the phenotype universe, and each human genome is its reproduction. Based on this identification we posit that mass-giving is life-giving because the elementary particles that come into contact with the cosmic seed's biofield or quantum vacuum receive their mass and property as a result of that interaction.
We are the cosmic system’s output, created in the parent input’s image, and no superhuman intelligence – i.e. intelligence beyond human intelligence – exists.
Because we are the cosmic system’s output, we have the potential to provide information feedback to the cosmic system’s initial input for the purpose of self-regulation. Communication with the universe’s parent seed is not only possible, but such exchange of information is taking place constantly in the form of prayer. In other words from systems cosmology’s point of view prayer qualifies as information feedback, where the cosmic system’s human output feeds information back to the cosmic system’s initial input, which feedback to our cosmic parent ensures homeostasis. By the act of information feedback in the form of prayer we have the potential to influence our Creator – and, by extension, the universe. Thus stabilizing feedback in the forms of prayer and charity should be encouraged, instead of discouraged. However these practices should not be institutionalized, but left to each person’s discretion.
Human intelligence constitutes the universal common ancestor of all things created, as opposed to Darwin’s simple beginning.
The Darwinian grotesque seedless and fruitless “tree of life” will be judged as a parody of the cosmic tree of life that has both input and output in the form of human intelligence.
As the fig tree develops from its parent seed and yields roots, trunk, branches, twigs, leaves, flowers and fruit, so from the parent seed of the universe came into being all forms of life. However species did not arise from lower forms of life, just as flowers do not arise from leaves, but by the direct action of the cosmic system’s parent seed in the form of human intelligence.
The recognition that our genome constitutes the microcosm or algorithm of the universe will lead to its utilization for all kinds of purposes, and will render fossil fuels obsolete. Instead of extracting energy from the remains of former life, we are going to tap directly into the seed source of the universe, and utilize that vacuum energy for the animation of our space vehicles.
We'll be able to read the minds of others, just as Elijah was able to read the mind of the king of Syria, and tell the king of Israel the words Syria’s king spoke in the privacy of his bedchamber (see 2 Kings 6:8-23). This form of ESPionage will make the traditional methods of intelligence gathering obsolete.
The human yield of this planet is ripe for the harvest. This is indicated by the fact that we have reached the stage of space travel. Those who qualify will be selected for survival, but not by Darwin’s imaginary “natural” selection. Our Creator in person is going to decide who is, or is not, qualified to live for ever. So face-to-face contact with our Creator is at hand.
These are some of the predictions we can make based on the theory of creation. They are falsifiable, and demonstrate the theory of creation’s predictive power. As a matter of fact this theory is so powerful that it exposes the irrationality of all the remote-from-reality evolutionist and creationist speculations, as well as the myth that science does not deal with the supernatural.
This brings us back to Mike Keas, Discovery Institute’s Senior Fellow.
I agree with his criticism of scientism, which belief system holds that the only reliable knowledge is scientific knowledge. As he pointed out, “The knowledge we get through science does not exhaust all possible human knowledge about reality.”
Indeed, the conclusion that the designing intelligence is supernatural human intelligence could not possibly be made while operating within science’s self-imposed limitations. After all science professes not to deal with the supernatural, not being conscious of the fact that human intelligence is supernatural. Perhaps science gets most irrational when it dismisses and ridicules the true account of creation, which our Creator made known to his children, i.e. the teaching that man constitutes the everlasting seed of the universe and created the cosmos for the purpose of self-propagation.
Where I disagree with Mike pertains to his comment, “Whether the designing intelligence is human, … or an intelligent being beyond the cosmos is not an issue that can be effectively addressed through scientific study.”
If human intelligence is not accessible to scientific study by human intelligence, what is more accessible? Is he contending that human intelligence is beyond our ability to study because human intelligence is supernatural relative to nature?
True, human intelligence is supernatural relative to the universe it created, yet nothing is more accessible to scientific study than our own intelligence. Thus the theory of creation is placed on the surest of foundations, namely on the existence of our intelligence.
The tree is made manifest by its fruit,” we read in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (III. 16), and now we know that similarly the universe is made manifest by its end product or human output. We know, in systems terms, that the knowledge of the cosmic system’s end product or output leads science to the knowledge of its initial input. That key was given to us in Genesis 1:27 where it is made known to us that we are the cosmic system’s end product or output, made in the input’s image, who is the universal common ancestor of all things created.
To give credit to Darwin, he had the insight to write that “all organisms start from a common origin,” and “descended from one parent,” but he failed to realize that the “one parent” is not a minimal life form, but the highest form of life that exists. In the final analysis backward logic on the part of evolutionists is what causes most of the controversy. But there is hope: evolution is not an invariant law. There is no rule imposed on our public schools against teaching common descent from the existing highest form of intelligence.
In light of the theory of creation the evolutionist dogma that undirected inanimate processes managed to generate the structures of the universe and life over many billions of years, for no purpose, collapses on the ground. Because the concepts of cosmic and biological evolution are inconsistent with reality and logic, they are manifestly false and absurd, yet the world of science is sold on these delusions to a large extent, and it is being sold aggressively to us and to our children.
For the sake of fairness it needs to be pointed out that the belief by creationists that human intelligence is the product of a superhuman intelligence is similarly faith-based, not fact-based. We have no empirical evidence whatsoever that intelligence beyond human intelligence exists. Christ disclosed his identity with the Father, or Creator of the universe, and in Revelation 22:13 he identifies himself with the cosmic system’s beginning and end, but in no place does he teach that an intelligence beyond and above himself exists.
Based on Christ’s teachings, and based on our observations and measurements of the universe Christ personally “designed,” I agree with Hermes, the God of Wisdom: “If you possess true knowledge, O Soul, you will understand that you are akin to your Creator.”
So the bang is that we are designers, too, because we are akin to the Designer of the universe.
ID theorists hold that certain features of the universe and of living organisms are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by undirected processes, because they are too complex to have arisen out of chance and necessity. They make no claims, however, about the inferred designer of intelligent design.
ID theorists also hold that Darwin’s “Tree of Life” (i.e. the theory that all life descended from a single and simple common ancestor) is a widely held myth. The reasoning includes arguments such as “The fossil record of complex animal life on Earth exhibits a pattern of appearance that severely challenges Darwin's ‘Tree of Life’.”
Thus from the point of view of many ID theorists universal common descent, hyped by evolutionists as “the fact of evolution,” has no valid empirical support. These scientists contend that no single common ancestor existed, and large-scale speciation or macroevolution didn’t happen, because the major kinds of life were designed independently of one another. Microevolutionary processes are thought to have produced many new species, but with no radical changes from the original types of designed organisms.
Darwinists, on the other hand, argue that speciation did in fact happen because the geological column’s fossil record shows that species arise one from another. In short they posit that all life can be traced back to a simple beginning, minimal life form, or last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) takes the intelligent design movement’s challenge seriously, and is concerned. NCSE is the only organization in the country dedicating all its resources to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools and keeping alternative theories out of the science curriculum. NCSE’s Executive Director, Eugenie C. Scott, complains that teachers and students are being told by ID proponents that evolution didn’t happen, but fail to identify the agent and mechanism that drives life’s present complexity and diversity.
Scott firmly believes that the Darwinian model has been recognized and endorsed as a key component of science education by all major scientific societies because, in Theodosius Dobzhansky’s words, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Driven by that conviction, she vehemently objects to the teaching of any other alternative concept. She believes that any alternative explanation is in fact creationism under the camouflage of science. Such alternatives, she argues, fail to refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests.
Understandably she wishes to know exactly who or what caused the formation of biological complexity if common descent and natural selection fail to account for the richness of life. After all in science, above all else, the question is: How can we understand the phenomenon or effect in question in terms of its cause?
Thus, in essence, science is about the matter of causality. But for a scientific explanation it is not sufficient to provide a plausible cause. If the cause proposed by the explanation fails to account for the effect attributed to its agency, we must search for an alternative cause that shows a more explicit connection between cause and effect.
The scientific method requires, however, that the proposed cause must be accessible to scientific study for the purposes of observability, testability, falsifiability, or predictability. Science contends, in other words, that anything supernatural fails to qualify as a cause because no supernatural cause is accessible to scientific study. In other words a supernatural cause, such as the Creator of the universe, is viewed by science as an agent beyond nature, or beyond the universe, and therefore not amenable to scientific study.
Just as Scott, I wished to know the nature of the designer ID theorists have in mind, because I assumed that the knowledge of the designer holds the key to the controversy’s resolution. So I made my move, got in contact with Dr. Michael Newton Keas, Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science at Biola University, and asked him to comment on the question of the designer’s exact character.
Mike Keas appeared to be qualified to comment on the subject. He teaches in the Master of Arts program in Science and Religion (MASR) at Biola University, and is committed to tracking and influencing important new developments within science, such as intelligent design theory (www.biola.edu/scienceandreligion). On top of that he’s a Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
In essence I let Mike know that, in my opinion, only if we manage to identify the intelligent agent's exact character can we be certain that the agent is accessible to observation and scientific study. Unless we do so, the allegation voiced by ID’s critics remains plausible that the concept of intelligent design is not science, because it assumes an intelligent cause inaccessible to scientific study.
In response he explained that “Intelligent design is the science that studies the products of intelligence. ID distinguishes such products of intelligence from the effects of chance and natural necessity. It does not try to infer the identity of the designer or what the designing intelligence was thinking. Such questions lie beyond the scientific research program of intelligent design.”
Mike concluded by emphasizing, “ID theory today does not invoke a supernatural form of intelligent agency. Mere intelligent causation is the defining inference of 21st-century ID theory. The exact character of that intelligence, ID advocates insist, is not a scientific question.”
I found the claim puzzling that the intelligent cause’s exact character “is not a scientific question.” I asked Mike, “Do you mean by the term ‘not a scientific question’ that the question of the intelligent agent's exact identity (or identities) lies outside the domain of science, or that the question is scientific, but ID theorists are simply not interested in the designer's exact character? I have the impression that only if we manage to identify the intelligent agent's exact character can we be certain that the agent is accessible to observation and scientific study.”
He answered by stressing the point, "’Who is the designer?’ is not a scientific question.” But then he added by way of explanation: “Studying the effects of intelligent agency in the material world (and distinguishing such effects from the outcome of chance and natural law) is science. … Whether the designing intelligence is human, alien, the mind of a living universe, or an intelligent being beyond the cosmos is not an issue that can be effectively addressed through scientific inquiry. Other academic disciplines are better suited to plumb the depths of such fascinating questions.”
I wanted to know that if the question of the designer's exact character lies outside the scientific research objectives of ID theorists, what makes them believe that "ID theory today does not invoke a supernatural form of intelligent agency"? Mike reassured me, “ID does not infer supernatural intelligence. Other disciplines of knowledge beyond science could help one figure out whether the designer implicated by science is a supernatural God.”
When I found this view mind-boggling, Mike came to my help: “I want to clarify what I mean by "ID does not infer supernatural intelligence." It could be supernatural, or it might not be. We need other disciplines beyond science to help us decide the sort of intelligence to which the scientific theory of ID points. ID's agnosticism toward the supernatural does not mean that ID theorists know that no supernatural intelligence was involved in the designing work. As scientists, ID proponents simply do not know whether or not the designing intelligence was supernatural.”
Be as it may, when I told Mike that often critics claim, including Eugenie Scott, that ID has failed, and it is not science because no designer has been specified, he lectured: “Does it make sense to say that ID has ‘failed’ to infer the identity (or identities) of the intelligence at work when such inferences have never been part of its scientific research program? Shouldn't we judge any scientific research program by what its main architects have said they have set out to do, rather than by what others say they should be doing?”
We agree with Eugenie Scott,” continued Mike, “that there are many interesting questions that lie outside the scientific research objectives of design theorists. But it does not make sense to judge ID a failure for not doing what it never set out to do.”
To stress his point, Mike quoted from William Dembski’s The Design Revolution (p. 33): "As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such."
So we are told by ID theorists in no uncertain terms not to depend on them for illumination regarding the inferred intelligence’s exact identity. ID is strictly about design detection. It’s outside the scope of ID to speculate about the intelligence responsible for design in nature, or about the methods of the designer. This leaves us in the dark, and we have no choice but to cast light on the inferred intelligence’s identity without the help of ID theorists.
Fine, let’s start with the statement, “ID does not infer supernatural intelligence,” and let’s keep in mind that by definition “supernatural” simply means intelligence beyond and above nature, in other words intelligence beyond and above the universe. The term “supernatural,” however, must be distinguished from the term “superhuman.” By definition “superhuman” simply means intelligence beyond and above human intelligence. This distinction between supernatural and superhuman is necessary because irrespective of what scientists believe, the supernatural cause of the universe is indubitably and demonstrably accessible to us for scientific study, as opposed to a superhuman intelligence.
Well, if ID theorists do not infer supernatural intelligence, and if we exclude supernatural intelligence from their theory, then we are left with no intelligence to account for design in nature. The stark fact is that the only intelligence that qualifies to cause design in nature, and is accessible to scientific study, is our own intelligence. But if we have to exclude supernatural intelligence, then our own intelligence has to go, because human intelligence is supernatural.
How is it possible? Let me explain.
If it’s a fact that ID does not infer supernatural intelligence, then logic dictates that the intelligence ID theorists have in mind cannot be the cause of design in nature, and must lack the ability to observe and measure the universe, simply because it is confined within the boundaries of the universe. Stated differently, only intelligence beyond the bounds of the universe – i.e., only supernatural intelligence – can be the designer, observer and measurer of the universe.
So ID’s claim that the inferred intelligence is not supernatural doesn’t sound plausible simply because no such intelligence can be the cause of design in nature. The only unquestionably existing intelligence that qualifies to be the designer, observer and measurer of nature is human intelligence. Design by human intelligence is evident from nuclear engineering to genetic engineering, and for us the universe is observable and measurable. We have models of the universe based on our observations, we measured its parameters, and we calculated the proportions of its content. The fact that we are the observers and measurers of the universe constitutes evidence that our intelligence exists beyond the bounds of the universe. But if human intelligence exists beyond the bounds of nature, then by definition it is not only supernatural, but eternal as well.
At this point let me note that Anana, the chief scribe to Seti II, wrote the following in an Egyptian papyrus: “Our religion teaches us that we live eternally. Now eternity, having no end, can have no beginning, it is a circle. Therefore if the one be true, namely that we live on, it would seem that the other must be true, namely that we have always lived.”
Naturally both ID theorists and evolutionists could argue that human intelligence is neither eternal, nor the pinnacle of existing intelligence. Indeed, whether it is true or not, we can’t be absolutely certain. Precisely for this reason the theory that human intelligence is everlasting, and constitutes the pinnacle of existing intelligence, is tentative, just as scientific theories are supposed to be.
At this time what we know for certain is that human intelligence exists, and based on our uniform experience the existing highest form of intelligence is human intelligence. We have no verifiable evidence that at one time no human intelligence existed, that non-human intelligence superior to human intelligence exists, or that human intelligence is the product of a lower form of non-human intelligence.
In the absence of verifiable evidence that human intelligence cannot exist prior to the universe there is no reason to believe in the origin of the universe and human intelligence from anything inferior to human intelligence. Put simply, the immortality of human intelligence has never been falsified, and the principle of its immortality remains valid until human intelligence exists.
Again let me stress that if ID does not invoke any supernatural entity, then no intelligence qualifies as the cause of design in nature. The other point is that if supernatural causation is not allowed in science, then human intelligence is not allowed in science, because human intelligence is supernatural relative to nature.
The inference that human intelligence is supernatural relative to the universe it observes and measures brings us to the conclusion that intelligent design, in contradiction to what it says, deals with the supernatural, just as science in general. Human intelligence, after all, is the driving force behind both activities, and evidently behind all activities.
Based on the unique qualities of human intelligence we posit that it is the inferred “designer” of the universe because it constitutes the seed of the universe, i.e. the genotype of the phenotype universe, or the cosmic system’s input and output. When it feels an inner urge to produce human beings in its own image, it brings order out of chaos, and progressively develops the structure of the universe for the reproduction of itself, similarly as a seed creates a mighty tree for the production of seeds in its own image.
Thus the act of creation starts with a brief top-down fission phase, followed by the laborious and lengthy bottom-up fusion phase, and it is this phase that creates the illusion of cosmic and biological evolution from a simple beginning, when in fact it is cosmic and biological development from the parent seed of the universe.
Based on the eternity of human intelligence we posit that its configuration or development extends beyond the cosmic system’s life span. The cosmic system’s initial seed or input in the form of human intelligence generates the universe, which reproductive system produces human output in the initial input’s image. The human output in turn generates the next cosmic reproductive system for the purpose of self-propagation.
In light of the theory that human intelligence caused the generation of the universe for the production of human beings in its own image now we know that we live in a world that was created for the purpose of our production. The theory of creation by human intelligence also explains why our universe is so ingeniously bio-friendly. Just as an apple tree is an incredibly fine-tuned system for the production of apples because a single apple seed constitutes the genotype of that phenotype, so is our universe an incredibly fine-tuned system for the production of human beings because a single human being constitutes the genotype of the phenotype cosmos.
This living cosmology provides numerous critical insights. Among others it predicts:
Human intelligence is everlasting because the universe, being the effect of human intelligence, has no power to act upon the cause of its own origin, just as a tree has no power to act upon its own parent seed.
By virtue of its eternity human intelligence constitutes the cosmological constant.
Human intelligence has quantum properties because it exists in both particle and field states. Human intelligence in its potential or seed state is a particle, but in its state of expression takes on field characteristics, and thus provides the morphogenetic field or quantum vacuum of the universe for the development of the creatures it has in mind.
The cause of human intelligence is neither supernatural nor superhuman because it simply has no cause beyond itself.
There is no designer of human intelligence because human intelligence itself is the “designer.”
No origin-of-first-life idea is scientific because life is everlasting, and anything everlasting cannot be first relative to itself.
The universe is not a closed system as contemporary cosmology assumes, but an open system, because it is open to the creative and guiding activities of human intelligence. Only human intelligence is closed to itself because no intelligence exists beyond and above human intelligence.
Dark energy, that drives the expansion of the universe, is one of the deepest and most exciting puzzles in modern science. We posit that dark energy is the field manifestation of the parent seed of the universe, just as the cosmic vacuum’s zero-point energy. They all originate from the cosmic seed’s biophoton emissions, which blackbody radiation provides a holographic biofield for the generation of the physical universe. Based on the fact that the biophotonic radiation emitted by DNA is coherent, we predict that the cosmic seed's biophotonic field or "dark energy" is equally coherent.
The universe is a living system, dynamically managed by the parent seed’s unbounded and conscious holographic biofield, and regulated by the process of information feedback.
The elusive Higgs boson – so vital to the Standard Model of particle physics that it is dubbed “the God particle” – is identical with the genotype of the phenotype universe, and each human genome is its reproduction. Based on this identification we posit that mass-giving is life-giving because the elementary particles that come into contact with the cosmic seed's biofield or quantum vacuum receive their mass and property as a result of that interaction.
We are the cosmic system’s output, created in the parent input’s image, and no superhuman intelligence – i.e. intelligence beyond human intelligence – exists.
Because we are the cosmic system’s output, we have the potential to provide information feedback to the cosmic system’s initial input for the purpose of self-regulation. Communication with the universe’s parent seed is not only possible, but such exchange of information is taking place constantly in the form of prayer. In other words from systems cosmology’s point of view prayer qualifies as information feedback, where the cosmic system’s human output feeds information back to the cosmic system’s initial input, which feedback to our cosmic parent ensures homeostasis. By the act of information feedback in the form of prayer we have the potential to influence our Creator – and, by extension, the universe. Thus stabilizing feedback in the forms of prayer and charity should be encouraged, instead of discouraged. However these practices should not be institutionalized, but left to each person’s discretion.
Human intelligence constitutes the universal common ancestor of all things created, as opposed to Darwin’s simple beginning.
The Darwinian grotesque seedless and fruitless “tree of life” will be judged as a parody of the cosmic tree of life that has both input and output in the form of human intelligence.
As the fig tree develops from its parent seed and yields roots, trunk, branches, twigs, leaves, flowers and fruit, so from the parent seed of the universe came into being all forms of life. However species did not arise from lower forms of life, just as flowers do not arise from leaves, but by the direct action of the cosmic system’s parent seed in the form of human intelligence.
The recognition that our genome constitutes the microcosm or algorithm of the universe will lead to its utilization for all kinds of purposes, and will render fossil fuels obsolete. Instead of extracting energy from the remains of former life, we are going to tap directly into the seed source of the universe, and utilize that vacuum energy for the animation of our space vehicles.
We'll be able to read the minds of others, just as Elijah was able to read the mind of the king of Syria, and tell the king of Israel the words Syria’s king spoke in the privacy of his bedchamber (see 2 Kings 6:8-23). This form of ESPionage will make the traditional methods of intelligence gathering obsolete.
The human yield of this planet is ripe for the harvest. This is indicated by the fact that we have reached the stage of space travel. Those who qualify will be selected for survival, but not by Darwin’s imaginary “natural” selection. Our Creator in person is going to decide who is, or is not, qualified to live for ever. So face-to-face contact with our Creator is at hand.
These are some of the predictions we can make based on the theory of creation. They are falsifiable, and demonstrate the theory of creation’s predictive power. As a matter of fact this theory is so powerful that it exposes the irrationality of all the remote-from-reality evolutionist and creationist speculations, as well as the myth that science does not deal with the supernatural.
This brings us back to Mike Keas, Discovery Institute’s Senior Fellow.
I agree with his criticism of scientism, which belief system holds that the only reliable knowledge is scientific knowledge. As he pointed out, “The knowledge we get through science does not exhaust all possible human knowledge about reality.”
Indeed, the conclusion that the designing intelligence is supernatural human intelligence could not possibly be made while operating within science’s self-imposed limitations. After all science professes not to deal with the supernatural, not being conscious of the fact that human intelligence is supernatural. Perhaps science gets most irrational when it dismisses and ridicules the true account of creation, which our Creator made known to his children, i.e. the teaching that man constitutes the everlasting seed of the universe and created the cosmos for the purpose of self-propagation.
Where I disagree with Mike pertains to his comment, “Whether the designing intelligence is human, … or an intelligent being beyond the cosmos is not an issue that can be effectively addressed through scientific study.”
If human intelligence is not accessible to scientific study by human intelligence, what is more accessible? Is he contending that human intelligence is beyond our ability to study because human intelligence is supernatural relative to nature?
True, human intelligence is supernatural relative to the universe it created, yet nothing is more accessible to scientific study than our own intelligence. Thus the theory of creation is placed on the surest of foundations, namely on the existence of our intelligence.
The tree is made manifest by its fruit,” we read in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (III. 16), and now we know that similarly the universe is made manifest by its end product or human output. We know, in systems terms, that the knowledge of the cosmic system’s end product or output leads science to the knowledge of its initial input. That key was given to us in Genesis 1:27 where it is made known to us that we are the cosmic system’s end product or output, made in the input’s image, who is the universal common ancestor of all things created.
To give credit to Darwin, he had the insight to write that “all organisms start from a common origin,” and “descended from one parent,” but he failed to realize that the “one parent” is not a minimal life form, but the highest form of life that exists. In the final analysis backward logic on the part of evolutionists is what causes most of the controversy. But there is hope: evolution is not an invariant law. There is no rule imposed on our public schools against teaching common descent from the existing highest form of intelligence.
In light of the theory of creation the evolutionist dogma that undirected inanimate processes managed to generate the structures of the universe and life over many billions of years, for no purpose, collapses on the ground. Because the concepts of cosmic and biological evolution are inconsistent with reality and logic, they are manifestly false and absurd, yet the world of science is sold on these delusions to a large extent, and it is being sold aggressively to us and to our children.
For the sake of fairness it needs to be pointed out that the belief by creationists that human intelligence is the product of a superhuman intelligence is similarly faith-based, not fact-based. We have no empirical evidence whatsoever that intelligence beyond human intelligence exists. Christ disclosed his identity with the Father, or Creator of the universe, and in Revelation 22:13 he identifies himself with the cosmic system’s beginning and end, but in no place does he teach that an intelligence beyond and above himself exists.
Based on Christ’s teachings, and based on our observations and measurements of the universe Christ personally “designed,” I agree with Hermes, the God of Wisdom: “If you possess true knowledge, O Soul, you will understand that you are akin to your Creator.”
So the bang is that we are designers, too, because we are akin to the Designer of the universe.
Print
Email
