Monday, November 11, 2019

Is Intelligent Design Unscientific And Unfalsifiable?

  • Discussion:
          -It has been asserted that in order for a scientific hypothesis to be valid, it must satisfy the requirement of falsifiability, which was proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. In other words, it is assumed that a postulate cannot be regarded as a true scientific theory if it is unable to be shown that it is wrong. One objection to intelligent design is that it fails the test for falsifiability due to proponents attributing various designed features in our universe to a god which has been deemed an unknowable cause. However, it can be adequately demonstrated that intelligent design theory is not only scientific, but also falsifiable.

          Cells literally contain several volumes of information. They contain genetic information known as DNA, which operates in a manner similar to a software program. It is an observable fact that an intelligent, conscious mind is the source of any information that is intended to be practical and useful. Examples would include a newspaper or a journal entry. It is an observable fact that functional systems which contain specified information are the product of a mind. A computer is a classic example of this point. There is no reason to believe that a cell is an exception to the rule, as it clearly has the fingermarks of a Designer. To assert that organized complexity can just naturally happen does not make sense. Our common human experience is that meaningful complexity comes from a mind. Intelligent design advocates are just believing what is common to human experience. Stephen C. Meyer makes these pertinent remarks:

          "This connection between information and prior intelligence enables us to detect or infer intelligent activity even from unobservable sources in the distant past. Archeologists infer ancient scribes from hieroglyphic inscriptions. SETI’s search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that information imbedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. Radio astronomers have not found any such signal from distant star systems; but closer to home, molecular biologists have discovered information in the cell, suggesting — by the same logic that underwrites the SETI program and ordinary scientific reasoning about other informational artifacts — an intelligent source."

          The claim that intelligent design should be rejected due to being unscientific is false because the concept is indeed based on empirical observation. It is derived from inferences made on biological and cosmological structures. DNA requires a mind because language requires intentional thinking. That certainly sounds like a theory that can be tested.

          If one wishes to falsify intelligent design theory, then it needs to be demonstrated how intelligence could arise from nonliving scientific laws. Another approach that can be taken regarding the objection of intelligent design being unfalsifiable is to question the falsifiability of the principle of falsifiability. Some truths are regarded as self-evident. Examples would include human rights being inalienable and the law of non-contradiction. We also have to keep in mind that scientific laws (meaning reality and how it functions) are created and maintained through the continuing governance of God.


  1. Good article Jesse, yes it has only been observed that information only comes from minds.

  2. So as I study biology and chemistry, it seems more apparent that we are in need of an intelligent designer. I could go into all the examples, but that would be very long. In summary, life just seems to complex and ordered to randomly come about. Not only life but also the universe. It also seems logically impossible that order can come from chaos, or even an understanding of order and laws and right and wrong, and all these things that humans have "thought of." All this talk of good and bad, the divine, etc, I couldn't see to exist if the world is just a clueless bunch of mess. In other words, how could ideas of the divine or unnatural terms (like justice) spring from something that is neither divine nor transcendent?

    I have also seen heard of Stephen Meyers. He was a guest speaker on the Ben Shapiro Sunday Special. I would recommend watching it on youtube. There you'll learn some more of the evidence for God in creation.