Abstract For physical behavior, the modern meanings for the notion "intelligent design" are often confused, especially since there are different theories used to model this concept. In this article, the meanings accorded the words "intelligence" and "design" are given for the two modern theories that investigate the "intelligent design" of physical-systems - Restricted Intelligent Design and General Intelligent Design. Once the phrase is defined specifically for each theory, then these two theories are compared for their physical and philosophic significance. It is also determined whether the theories satisfy certain canons of modern physical-science, canons that include the requirement that the notion of "intelligence" has measurable characteristics.1. Introduction.For modern physical-science, what does the expression "intelligent design" signify? For this phrase, there is a considerable amount of intentional misinformation being disseminated. For example, Wikipedia states, "Intelligent design is the claim that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected cause such as natural selection' " (Wikipedia, 2007). [I note that this Wikipedia article is now protected from "general" editing.] This definition is taken from the website of the Discovery Institute (2007). The entire Wikipedia article is misleading in all respects since there are two modern theories of intelligent design, (1998) Restricted Intelligent Design (RID) (Dembski, 1998) and (1979) General Intelligent Design (GID-model, or GID) (Herrmann, 1981, 1982, 1993).
Members of the Discovery Institute only popularize RID. The entire Wikipedia article presents only aspects of RID and leaves the impression that this is the only modern theory of intelligent design. This is a false impression that Wikipedia is maintaining purposely. As a registered editor for Wikipedia, I inserted articles relative to the GID-model into the Wikipedia database and, subsequently, each was removed. As regards the physical-science merits of RID, the criticisms presented are often correct. However, none of the stated RID criticisms hold for the GID-model. This may be the reason Wikipedia and others refuse to present the facts about the GID-model. Although examples for RID may be presented, the concepts termed as "intelligence" and "design" lack specificity.
The Wikipedia article argues that the notion of intelligence used for RID is only inferred. This is a correct aspect of RID. Without specific definitions for the two words in the phrase "intelligent design" that follow physical-science protocols, which the words presented in Wikipedia and other related articles about RID do not have, "intelligent design" cannot be considered as possessing significant physical-science content. Further, such a phrase requires a detailed definition for each word since each can have meanings that apply neither to RID nor GID.
2. The Design Notion.
In a major dictionary, there are eight definitions for the word "design." These include "(1) a plan; scheme, project. (2) purpose; intention, aim. (3) a thing planned for. . . " (Webster, 1979, p. 493). Any of the first six statements imply that a design is something produced by an intelligent being. But, if any of these first six apply, then the use of the modifier "intelligent" is redundant and should not be utilized. Consider definitions "(7) the art of making designs or patterns" and "(8) the arrangement of parts, details, form." For (7), the use of the word "art" may or may not imply that a reasonable amount of intelligence is involved. This is the first of these statements that includes the word "patterns." Statement (8) mentions "arrangement" and does not imply that an intelligent being produced such arrangements. For a definition of the phrase "intelligent design," the term "design" needs to be consigned to the idea of "pattern," where the notion of "intelligence" characterizes patterns in some special manner.
The content of the term "pattern" needs delineation. Since for this article physical objects and physical behaviors are the primary application for this concept, a "structural" pattern that is akin to the definition of a natural-system is an appropriate type. This is, a defined collection of named physical objects, the constituents, which are so related as to form an identifiable whole. Specific relations between the constituents are the bases for establishing the behavior of the entire structure (Herrmann, 2002, p. 232). In this definition, a natural-system, where "natural" always refers to "physical," is but a combination of the constituents. A "name" is an identifier and the first notion of "related" may be as general as associating each constituent with some comparable parameter or with defined behavior or the combination can be related in that it occupies merely a given space-time region. This definition for "design" is presented in two steps using the word "pattern." The first pattern - the structural pattern - corresponds to the first sentence in the definition for a natural-system.
As secondary terms are defined, it becomes evident that the definition process most cease at some point and further comprehension is intuitive in character. This is even a fact within mathematics, a subject that is often concerned only with patterns of written symbols and how they are combined. When individuals are instructed in the meaning of the "commutative law" for operations and corresponding symbol manipulation, they might first be given a definition for the symbol "=," the equal sign. Then they might be told that a binary operation | is "commutative" if for each A, B, A|B = B|A. The instructor may discuss mathematical processes where this statement does not hold such as the vector cross-product and most matrix multiplication. An individual needs some intuitive comprehension that expressing strings of symbols in a left-to-right manner may or may not yield the same value if expressed in a right-to-left manner. There have been individuals that have difficulty recognizing such structural pattern-differences because their written language gives the same meanings if the written symbol strings are read from left-to-right or right-to-left.
For certain disciplines, one needs the mental ability to recognize that collections of combined constituents are different from one another and, indeed, how they differ specifically. Consider formal mathematical logic. One needs to know that a string of symbols like (x)(P(x) => Q(x)) is not the same as ((x)P(x) => Q(x)). From a formal viewpoint, the first string is a "sentence" and the second is not. Some notions within mathematics and physical-science are described via the human "two-handed" characteristic. There is a textbook that defines a "left-hand (-paving" by inserting a drawing of a human left-hand into a "paving" diagram (Stroyan et al, 1976, p. 112).
Due to these difficulties, what actually constitutes a "structural pattern" definition is that such patterns are specifically described by a science-community using an acceptable community language. That is, there is a list of named physically objects where the science-community states that a named object is a related combination of the named physical constituents. Human mental processes are involved since if the list is descriptive, then the terms used must be meaningful to community members. The same is the case when images are employed since in modern physical-science many images that depict assumed physical events cannot be obtained through direct observation by an image producing machine. Human mental processes are first used to produce the images, for example the Feynman diagrams among thousands of others. But any discussion as to "how the patterns came into being" is reserved for the "intelligence" part of the definition.
The second sentence in the natural-system definition is related to the second type of pattern for this "design" definition. This is the idea that there are "patterns for behavior." A behavioral pattern consists of a collection of structural patterns where they can be compared with respect to various parameters. That is, the structural patterns may or may not actually differ as parameters are altered. For the first form of intelligent design, the notion of "intelligence" is to be minimized at this point. The structural patterns either differ in some describable manner or they do not and nothing else is stated at this juncture. If the structural patterns list is merely a collection of reproduced images, then a machine might be able to determine whether the images do or do not match. Relative to patterns, the term "design" used in the next sections is liberally defined as being a structural or behavioral pattern.
3. Surmised Intelligence.
For illustrative purposes, the designs being considered are those that involve biological constituents. The notion of "intelligence" may require a design to be selected for a describable "purpose or aim or function." Dembski (1998b) states "Specification in biology always makes references in some way to an organism's function." Such functionality is biological in character and is the aim. Webster (1979, p. 1465) defines "purpose or aim" as "(1) that which a person sets before himself as an object to be reached or accomplished; aim, intention; design. (2) end in view; the object for which something exists or is done." Definition (1) is used to describe partially a form of human intelligence that formulates and describes "purposes or aims" for various designs.
For the remaining aspects of what constitutes this form of intelligence, human mental processes, employing in this case an appropriate biological language, leads to a choice from a collection of descriptions for purposeful designs. The one chosen is for a design that satisfies a specifically defined function. Although there is often more than one design that satisfies the stated aim, the mental processes employed in making a choice are described in neither a differentiating nor measurable way. "Intelligence" characterized in this manner is called surmised intelligence. That is, an agent that exhibits surmised intelligence is assumed to posses intelligence based upon choosing a specific design that satisfies a described purpose.
It is surmised intelligence that produces the controversies for such intelligence is not revealed through "logical demonstration" (Dembski 1998b). Community G argues that, for them, a selected design reveals surmised intelligence. Community E argues that, for them, the same design does not reveal surmised intelligence. One example should suffice. Consider irreducible complexity. Dembski (1998b) states, "A system is irreducibly complex if it consists of several interrelated parts so that removing even one part completely destroys the systems function." But, an identified irreducibly complex biological system is not intelligently designed, for members of community E, since, in their view, an intelligent construction would include a "backup system." Although members of community E may not be able, as yet, to predict such designs from their accepted theory, such designs would not be classified as displaying a type of "natural-intelligence" unless they reveal functional redundancy. Irreducibly complex designs do not exhibit the necessary redundancy and members of community E reject the "intelligent" modifier. Dembski (1998b) states that (specified) irreducibly complex designs are (often) examples of his notion of designs that exhibit specified-complexity.
It is rather well known that surmised intelligence is often characterized as an "I know it when I see it" form of intelligence. Surmised intelligence dose not have measurable characteristics. Surmised intelligence relates completely to human mental processes, is indirectly implied and can vary with training. Since, at present, only functional biological designs are being considered, a statement that a biological design exists to match some geometric pattern for the pattern is esthetically acceptable need not satisfy the functionality requirement.
Modern secular philosophies of science do not include the notion that a "purpose" is associated with an "intelligent" desire to achieve a goal. For them, associating such purposes with an intelligent agency is an external and irrelevant connection. One example should suffice. In the subject Quantum Logic there is a specific notion called the Mittelstaedt conditional (Beltrametti et al, 1981). This conditional is compatible with a classical-styled logic-system (Herrmann, 1993, p. 66). However, in Quantum Logic one is warned not to consider this conditional as representing intelligent deduction, but rather to ignore this fact since "intelligent deduction" is not part of the language used and, hence, the phrase is meaningless for that discipline.
On the other hand, the terms "purpose or aim or function" can be part of another community's vocabulary and their usage justified. In general, a collection of "human" observers can make a list and assert that the aims listed would be those that they associate with an intelligent agent. However, depending upon how the association is determined, some communities consider this association as more philosophic than scientific in character. Does this list include all designs for physical behavior? As shown in Casti (1989, pp. 227-231) and Herrmann (2002, p. 20), there are many behavioral patterns that are created by human beings for intelligent purposes, external to the design itself, which cannot be differentiated from designs that most secular physical-science communities would judge as "purposeless or chaotic." However, these illustrated designs need not correspond to the customary notion of biological functionality.
The use of the word "intelligent" does not signify that individuals who use this word do not apply the basic canons of the scientific method. The only diverse feature may be that other science-communities do not modify members of a list of "causes" for specific designs with the word "intelligent." This lack does not mean that the term "intelligent" cannot be included within a list of science-community terms as long as there is an appropriate means to measure intelligence, a means that corresponds to the basic rules of the scientific method. Hence, if the term "intelligence" is not vaguely defined such as done when associated with "purpose" but is defined relative to specific measurable characteristics and there is actual evidence that accepted physical processes satisfy these characteristics and the processes yield structural patterns, then it is scientifically acceptable to state that the production of the patterns reveals the presence of an intelligent agent - an intelligent cause. On there hand, individuals certainly can accept a philosophic or consensus argument that a pattern has a definite describable purpose, a purpose that can be associated with an intelligent agent.
Simply because some individuals consider specific patterns as wondrous in form does not imply, using the intuitive notion of intelligence, that such designs are intelligently obtained. The patterns made by the crashing of ocean-waves against the rocks along a shoreline are considered, by many, as being just as "wondrous" as the geometric forms that comprise a snowflake.
4. Restricted Intelligent Design.
In this section, for the phrase "intelligent design," the noun "design" means structural or behavioral patterns. Further, the word "intelligence" signifies surmised intelligence and an intelligent agency (i.e. action, activity) via an intelligent agent (i.e. initiator of the action or activity) produces the designs that carry a surmised intelligence characteristic. For an event E, a chosen description D* that corresponds to an observed design is selected using surmised intelligence. The design satisfies a specified function. Additionally, the selection is partially based upon the following criteria. Consider a list M = {all of the known and verified physical laws and physical-science theories that are classified as having behavior displaying physical regularities}. Let C = {all other known verified chance related probabilistic models for physical behavior such as those that use probability density functions to predict behavior} (Dembski, 1998a, p. 41). Indeed, C must be considered as capturing "everything that your background beliefs say is probabilistically relevant to the occurrence of event E" (Fitelson et.al., 1999). Moreover, M and C have no common members.
For an unconditional RID conclusion, the set C must be exhaustive. However, this C-set property cannot be verified and it is a fact that the contents of M or C are altered by certain science-communities. Although there seems to be a controversy as to how one describes the sets M and C (Fitelson, et al, 1999), members M as well as a C can simply be accepted by a science-community as depicting physical behavior without any further discussion. Moreover, along with a "regularity" requirement, members of M are given a probabilistic component by stating that designs produced by them are "highly probably."
(1) It is determined that the specified design represented by D* is not, in a general sense, the result of relevant members of M. [There are differing opinions as to how this is accomplished.] For the members of C, an entire relevant subset R is considered. (2) Statistical arguments are mounted that tend to show that it is extremely improbable that R in its entirety can produce the design represented by D*. This is the notion of "complexity" as used in RID. Complexity corresponds to improbability. But, as discussed below, the design is not improbable in an unconditional sense. All RID improbability statements signify that, under a philosophic stance that may not be tenable, it is highly improbable that the entire "chance category," as represented by all relevant members of C, produced the design. [Although the technical methods used to measure this improbability can be challenged, they are not discussed in this article. However, it is noted that, prior to adjustment of the probabilistic estimate for the improbability notion, it is assumed that our universe is 1025 sec. old.] The fact that D* describes an actual design is coupled with (1) and (2) and, by implication, intelligent agency remains as the viable cause. This essentially comprises the content of the theory of Restricted Intelligent Design (RID) (Dembski, 1998a).
This RID approach has been highly popularized and discussed throughout the news media. It is termed as "restricted" since the conclusions of intelligent agency apply to comparatively few designs and what constitutes surmised intelligence is only relative to a mode of human thought that is not specified via measurable characteristics. Philosophically, a large group of scientists consider all designs to be fundamentally the result of probabilistic chance behavior even if the exact model has not as yet been discovered. For them, the members of C and the highly probable members of M model all physical behavior and RID has no content and is meaningless.
The RID approach cannot reveal whether the designs produced by members of M or C are intelligent designs. As mentioned, unconditional RID conclusions are dependent upon complete knowledge in that all relevant natural-system probabilistic behavior is describable via a language through application of human intellect (Fitelson et al, 1999). Dembski also discusses this probably untenable requirement for a specific design - the fact that C need not be exhaustive but may only appear to be so.
[T]he entire set of relevant chance hypotheses has been first identified. This takes considerable background knowledge. . . . Now it can happen that we may not know enough to determine all the relevant chance hypotheses. Alternatively, we might think we know the relevant chance hypotheses, but later discover that we missed a critical one. In one case a design influence could not even get going; in the other it would be mistaken (Dembski, 2001).Hence, invoking the notion that human beings probably do not have all knowledge as to the members of M and, especially the relevant members of C, greatly weakens any RID argument for intelligent design.
The statistical approach itself is controversial. Dembski (2001) claims "Natural causes, because they operate through the joint action of chance and necessity, are modeled mathematically by nondeterministic functions known as stochastic processes." This philosophic assumption has been challenged and, for some, yields alterations to the set C and the probabilistic component assumed for M.
[I]t's perfectly possible for a process formulated in terms of stochastic processes to be mathematically identical to a totally deterministic process. These are facts, not opinions, and they cast serious doubt upon the "stochastics are necessary" school of thought in system modeling. . . . Even further, Occam's Razor demands that we consider deterministic mechanisms of the above sort before resorting to the ad hoc addition of random "correction" terms into a model (Casti, 1989, pp. 230-231).It is a statistical analysis relative to R that leads to the RID improbability conclusions. If an actual numerical improbability measurement is employed, then it follows that RID is falsified for certain multiple-universe cosmologies. Also notice that purposeful choice, not just choice in general, has no explicit definition that can be measured or characterized analytically without bias.
Surmised intelligence is not a type of physical virtual notion, such as virtual photons, since virtual physical objects do have defined characteristics. Intelligent design is inferred via a "statistical justification" only and is not logically demonstrable (Dembski, 1998b). Due to this lack of a specific definition for "intelligence," RID is rather incompatible with the basic canons accepted by the majority of the physical-science communities. This does not mean that a science-community cannot include RID within its canons.
There is more than one philosophy of science and organizations can alter the canons. Retaining all of the common canons but including arguments for a list of purposes, if identified as such, certainly should not be considered as a weakening of a scientific method. However, for RID, whether the arguments strengthen the conclusion that the designs serve intelligently specified purposes is most often relative to personal philosophies. To choose RID as a justification requires philosophic considerations rather than exact physical criteria. Since RID conclusions correspond to no mechanisms described by members of M or C, then some positive RID conclusions might be useful to secularists who accept the stochastic process philosophy. Such RID conclusions could foster research activities that might lead to appropriate mechanisms that when added to M or C would eliminate the RID inference. Obviously, there is no RID approach that can rationally describe and compare a RID identified intelligent agent with a higher intelligence.
5. General Intelligent Design (GID).
The original (1979) mathematically based theory for intelligent design (Herrmann, 1981, 1982, 1992, 1993) investigates the verbal form "to design" rather than the nounal form. [In this section, the unmodified word "intelligent" means the GID defined notion.] Two types of mathematically characterized "intelligence" are investigated using physical process relations, where these relations correlate physical object descriptions or images that model physical processes. It is determined, independent from the patterns produced, that all known scientifically verified physical processes are intelligently designed. Further, the physical designs produced are not ad hoc or haphazard applications of physical processes but are intelligent applications. That is, each method, each scientifically verified physical process that produces or alters the behavior of a natural-system is intelligently designed, and the consequences of such processes, both the production of a natural-system and alterations in the behavior of a natural-system, are shown to be intelligently designed. In terms of "patterns," it is shown that specifically described structural patterns and behavioral patterns are produced by intelligent agency. Although one can investigate other aspects of the patterns such as functionality, essentially, other aspects are irrelevant.
To signify that the original theory is distinct from RID, the original theory name was changed to the "General Intelligent Design Model." RID only refers to surmised intelligence and yields a weak theological interpretation. RID cannot supply any physical mechanisms that lead to the designs investigated. Indeed, if such mechanisms do exist, they need to be included in M or C either as now known or as new discoveries and RID does not apply. For RID to apply unconditionally, one must have relevant and complete describable knowledge. Such aspects of knowledge are not part of the GID-model requirements. The GID-model is independent from the actual content of the sets M and C. All that the GID-model requires is that the members of the sets M and C be obtained via basic logic-systems. Obviously, within physical-science, RID neither predicts nor gives a "better" explanation for behavior based upon physical terms only. RID is neither testable nor falsifiable in the Popper sense. But, the GID-model is testable and falsifiable and is an interpretation of a Theory of Everything - the General Grand Unification Model (GGU-model) (Herrmann, 1992, 2006a), where the GGU-model does predict and provides mechanisms and specific explanations.
For this article, the GGU-model is not discussed in detail. However, generally and in a direct manner, the GGU-model uses mathematical operators (i.e. functions) that mimic collections of physical processes, processes that either produce or alter the behavior of identified natural-systems within a universe. Consequently, these operators produce structural or behavioral patterns. In particular, each operator is applied to a description or image that represents either the actual natural-system constitutes or the natural-system as a whole. Then the operator produces a description or image that represents either a natural-system composed of the constituents or alterations in the natural-system's behavior. There is yet another operator *S that is applied to a physical-like object and the result is a sequence of structural patterns that are represented by descriptions or images. This sequence can represent a type of "time-development" for a natural-system.
Each accepted physical law or verified physical theory is represented by a GGU-model operator and this collection of operators produces the detailed designs for almost all natural-systems that comprise our universe (Herrmann, 1992, 1993, 2001a,b, 2004, 2006a, 2007). This important collection is specifically defined using mathematical rules. Further, the defined operator *S is also used to produce our universe as a whole entity along with its development. The operator *S even guides all natural-system behavior that may not be predictable via any comprehensible human description. The construction of the GGU-model follows the rules for the mathematical modeling of natural-systems and, hence, is an acceptable physical theory. How does the GGU-model relate to an exact definition for intelligence?
The universe generating GGU-model operators have other meaningful characteristics and these characteristics yield the GID interpretation. The notion of "intelligence," as modeled by the GID-model interpretation, is related only to agency or to an agent. Rather than selecting a design and declaring that human beings would consider the design as existing for some intelligent purpose, the GID-model interpretation determines whether an action, independent from the design produced, is an intelligent action. Specific or general purposes can be assigned to a design, but for the GID-model such purposes are irrelevant.
The GID-model interpretation is distinct from the physical process interpretation. Further, there is a vast amount of direct and indirect evidence that supports the GID-model interpretation (Herrmann, 2007). For the GID-model, the meaning of the term "pattern" is the same as for RID - a structural or behavioral pattern. Basically, two types of GGU-model operators are used. The first type satisfies a set of three fixed set theoretic characteristics. An application of this type of operator is the first step in the production of or alteration in the behavior of a natural-system. Distinct from the physical results, the three axioms also model the most basic properties associated with deductive thought as used within scientific discourse.
The stated mathematical characteristics for the first type of operator are equivalent to an informal set of statements termed as a general logic-system (Herrmann, 2001b, 2006b). The most significant statements are the following:
(A) It is required that individuals mentally follow a set of rules applied to members of a language, where a language is a constructed collection of symbolic patterns or images. These rules describe an algorithm. (Among other applications, these language formations can represent physical information as modeled by human sensory information.)(B) It is required, as done in formal logic, that individuals mentally make choices from a set of symbolic patterns or images that may be potentially infinite.
(C) It is required that individuals mentally compare a finite set of specific symbolic patterns or images with a fixed list of symbolic patterns or images contained in a "general rules of inference" and, when the patterns or images correspond exactly, to select a related symbolic pattern or image. [A general rules of reference is a specific mathematically defined collection of relations.] This comparison and selection process is repeated.
(D) When applied to the physical world, it is required that individuals determine mentally when the selections made in (C) yield symbolic patterns or images for specifically defined actions. This includes the production of or alterations in the behavior of an identified natural-system. This requires an additional finite choice step.
(E) There are finitely many steps in the algorithm that yields a (C)-selected symbolic pattern or image. Each step has a describable algorithmic reason for the selection. (One should consider these statements as an analogue model.)
It is important to realize that, for physical behavior, although (A) - (E) describe some of the basic features that lead to "deduction from a set of hypotheses," they should be considered as but a model for mental processes. The actually mental processes that allow one to take a set of hypotheses and state deductive conclusions are unknown. Often, after or during the mental processes that lead to the conclusions, one attempts to justify the conclusions by describing the significant steps (A) - (E) as well. This is done so that other trained individuals can verify that the conclusions are rationally obtained. Since antiquity, this has been required within mathematics. Based upon knowledge of a set of axioms, a mathematician, applying unknown mental processes, writes down a statement "From P, the consequence Q follows." The facts are that, usually, after this statement is made a "proof" is constructed in order to justify to others that specific "rational" processes can be applied so as to deduce the Q consequence. In mathematics and for physical-science derivations as well, the justification follows significant steps (A) - (E), where for mathematics (D) is slightly altered. Using a specific proof or physical derivation others can verify the conclusions rationality. The (A) - (E) descriptions are considered as an informal descriptive model that only represents mental activity and, hence, it need not be considered as depicting the actual mental processes that originally led from P to Q.
In order to continue the GGU-model processes, additional mathematical functions that model the "finite choice operator" or "finite ordered choice operator" exist and are utilized. For the GID-model interpretation, these "choice" operators model statement (D) mathematically. The basic aspects for the GID-model definition for "intelligence," in its standard form, correspond to the significant mental procedures that are informally expressed by statements (A) - (E). Such informally stated requirements are modeled mathematically and investigated in the discipline Mathematical Logic. A finite consequence operator is the mathematical object defined by the three set theoretic characteristics that correspond to significant (A) - (C), (E). When the structural or behavioral patterns are obtained by application of a finite consequence operator, the finite choice operator restricts the values. This yields the behavior-signature - a relation that compares the original constituents or structural patterns with the produced results. Restricting the operator's "values" to a fixed subset of the language being used can eliminate direct application of the finite choice operator after application of the finite consequence operator. This yields the behavior-signatures directly (Herrmann, 2006a).
Due to the fact that statements (A) - (E) are informal consequences of a formal set of mathematical axioms (including the notion of finite or finite ordered choice), the formal mathematical statements are said to yield a signature for intelligent design. Distinct from RID, a GID intelligent design signature is exactly defined and this definition corresponds to a representative model described by significant (A) - (E), a model that can be specifically demonstrated to exist. Technically, each described and verified physical law and each scientific theory is representible by a finite consequence operator. Applications of the modeled physical laws and modeled scientific theories also require that either language restriction or a finite choice operator be applied. It is when these finite consequence operators are so constrained that GID behavior-signatures are generated. The behavior-signatures yield the intelligently designed physical process relations.
For the described physical laws, it has been shown how the language elements used directly generate corresponding behavior-signatures (Herrmann, 2007). Usually, the actual linguistic construction for verified scientific theories can be explicitly shown to follow, at least, the above (A) - (E) characteristics. From this, the behavior-signatures are generated. However, as with empirically determined physical laws, if a scientific theory is vaguely stated so that only the physical process relations are generated, then these relations can specifically define a behavior-signature. Each behavior-signature defines a logic-system to which (A) - (E) applies (Herrmann, 2006b). Consequently, all verified physical laws and scientific theories are assumed to be intelligently designed via GID.
The coupled GGU-model and GID processes are as follows: In a manner similar to theory construction, but in more detail, there is an intelligent agent H that designs the operators that detail and represent physical processes. Once constructed, the mathematical operators, at the least, represent each member of the set of all stated and verified physical laws and each verified scientific theory. In most cases after application, the operator is then restricted to a previously selected portion of the language and this generates a second operator, the behavior-signature, with the same defined GID intelligent agent characteristics (Herrmann, 2006a). For any other case, the behavior-signature is directly obtained. For a verified physical theory or law, what an intelligent agent behavior-signature does is to produce directly a natural-system from its constituents or directly produce an alteration in the behavior of a natural-system without individual application of a choice operator and without any additional "extraneous" deductions. There is a final rather technical process that is modeled after the human ability to collect finitely many objects. This final process uses the information contained within the descriptions or images to produce the physical results being depicted. However, there remains one attribute that seems to guide much physical behavior and has not, as yet, been consider.
Physical theory predictions often include a statement that the behavior predicted has a statistical component. This requires an additional step when an actual physical event occurs. Simply stated, this means that, although the production of or alterations in the physical behavior of a natural-system are intelligently designed, the actual real occurrence of a collection of such designed events is controlled statistically. When necessary, an intelligent agent P controls this additional statistical requirement for the GID-model interpretation. However, this agent is classified as a "pure higher intelligence."
A higher intelligence is partially characterized by (A) - (E) but each mental activity stated also applies, at least, to the "hyperfinite" world (Herrmann. 2001b), a nonstandard notion. Intuitively, such intelligence can usually be characterized as "more powerful" than the intelligence displayed by any biological object that displays (A) - (E). An operator that represents a higher intelligence is called an ultralogic. For example, in statement (E) the word "finite" is replaced with the word "hyperfinite." If (E) is compared with the modified version, then intuitively a nonfinite hyperfinite collection of steps can be utilized by a higher intelligence for a logical argument as easily as human beings use but finitely many steps. The higher intelligence can also replicate human thought processes. For the specific case of controlling statistical behavior, the ultralogic P that rationally exists cannot be directly described via a standard language and a complete general logic-system. Such a complete general logic-system exists mathematically and is indirectly verified from the predicted evidence.
As an example of special control by a pure higher intelligence, consider probabilistic behavior modeled by P. If of 100 photons statistically only 4 are partially reflected from a piece of glass, then this is a basic alteration in the behavior of the photon-glass natural-system. If a physical theory is used to predict that physical reflection occurs for a portion of the photons, then this is an intelligently designed change in the behavior of the photon-glass natural-system. Consider the photon-glass natural-system as exhibiting no photon-reflection behavior as altered to present a photon-glass natural-system that exhibits (statistically determined) photon reflection. Each of the "solitary" events that appear to be a photon reflection is controlled by the pure ultralogic P, an operator that preserves the statistical predictions (Herrmann, 2001a). For the GID-model, operator P represents a higher intelligence. Including with the behavior-signatures an agent P that controls the individual occurrences of the intelligent designed probabilistic events, allows one to state that the construction of every natural-system from its constituents and every alteration in natural-system behavior as required by any known physical law or verified physical theory is produced by intelligent agency. Although some individuals might consider the following observation as extraneous, each behavior-signature is a restriction to the material world of an ultralogic. This fact presents a vast amount of indirect evidence for the rational existence of a higher intelligence.
In general, it is not necessary to employ GID statements that specify that definable intelligent agents produce designs. The GID-model is but an additional interpretation of the GGU-model and, as with the Quantum Logic example, this interpretation can be ignored and considered as but an irrelevant artifact. On the other hand, the GID-model satisfies all of the required scientific protocols. It is a verifiable and falsifiable scientific theory with a vast amount of available evidence and can be accepted based upon these criteria. One can reject RID because it does not follow scientific protocols, it is neither testable nor falsifiable and it is rather provisional in character. On the other hand, RID can be accepted on philosophic grounds. Distinct from RID, rejecting the GID-model interpretation does not yield a rejection of the GGU-model. Nevertheless, any rejection of GID does not, technically, invalidate a statement such as "it is scientifically rational to presuppose that (i) the production of each natural-system and alterations in the behavior of each natural-system as controlled by known physical laws or physical theories are intelligently designed."
Every physical law and every verified physical theory prediction is direct evidence for the GID-model. This form of direct evidence corresponds to how physical processes are detected. Being characterized as a relation, a physical process is revealed by the results that occur when the process is applied to specific physical objects. Each describable physical process relation corresponds to a behavior-signature. Although it is possible to give vague evolutionary arguments relative to human mental development and how this development might correspond to physical perception, there is a remarkable fact associated with the universe controlling physical laws and verified physical theories that are intelligently designed, at least, at a human level of intelligence. Human beings can use these descriptions to construct a manmade universe; a universe that can serve either good or evil intentions.
Is there a relationship between GID and RID? Suppose that, for a specified and complex design, members of M or C model all relevant physical behavior that can produce the design. Let a design description D* be RID attributed to a surmised intelligence. Hence, neither members of M nor C produced the design. This intelligence is not identified in any manner by the RID approach. However, it is identified by the GID-model explicitly. The GID higher intelligence represented by operator *S coupled with hyperfinite ordered choice produces each such RID identified design. Further, *S represents the underlying intelligence that exists even in the case that standard operators produce the designs. In the usual manner, both the GGU-model and the GID-model can be truncated. For the GGU-model applied to our universe, a maximum truncation would remove all aspects of the model except for the operators that model the known physical laws, the verified scientific theories and a standard unification (Herrmann, 2001b, 2004). For the GID-model, this means that individuals can accept the GGU-model truncated or not and, yet, choose to accept the GID-model completely, partially or not at all.
Importantly, the GID-model interpretation satisfies all of the canons for modern verified physical theories. The GID-model does not make judgments as to a design's purpose based upon human levels of intelligence. The GID-model is based entirely upon a testable and falsifiable hypothesis, which is that there are operators that satisfy a specific set of axiomatic statements and they produce all of the structural patterns as well as all of the behavioral patterns. It is shown elsewhere that there are specific steps that will falsify the GID-model (Herrmann (2002, pp.73 - 74). Thus far, no GID-falsifying real physical behavior has been demonstrated to exist.
6. Theology.
As a cosmogony, the GGU-model is capable of generating infinitely many different cosmologies. It can generate every proposed secular and theological cosmology. Of significance, the GGU-model can generate a cosmology that satisfies a strict Genesis 1 interpretation and the complete universe as observed today without contradicting young-earth evidence. RID cannot identify an intelligence that is not biological in character. But a non-biological higher intelligence can be rationally described via GID. Indeed, a GID-model interpretation rationally describes a higher intelligence that satisfies Biblically described characteristics. Of considerable theological significance is the fact that there is a vast amount of indirect scientific evidence for the existence of this specific higher intelligence.
7. Summary.
It is shown that the notion of "design" as used in the phrase "intelligent design" can refer to different concepts. For the theory of Restricted Intelligent Design (RID), design is the noun form and means, in the most general sense, that RID is concerned with physical structural patterns or collections of structural patterns (behavioral patterns). For the theory of General Intelligent Design (GID), design is considered as verbal in that it denotes "to design." The methodology used for RID is only related to the undefined notion of (human level) surmised intelligence and applies to comparatively few designs. The intelligence examined in the GID-model is fully definable mathematically and applies to every natural-system within our universe.
If a pattern satisfies the RID requirements, it also satisfies the GID-model requirements. RID cannot be applied to designs obtained via the known physical laws or verified scientific theories. However, independent from the patterns produced, all of the known methods, the physical procedures themselves that produce or alter the behavior of a natural-system and both the production of a natural-system and alterations in the behavior of a natural-system, as produced by each expressed physical law or verified scientific theory, are intelligently designed via GID. Consequently, all such produced structural patterns and all such produced behavioral patterns are GID intelligently designed. This yields a vast amount of evidence for the acceptance of a GID-styled intelligent design. Further, an additional observation indicates that such evidence indirectly implies the existence of a higher intelligence.
The GID-model is an interpretation of the GGU-model, which postulates mechanisms and is fully explanatory scientifically and predictive in character. RID postulates no such mechanisms and, other than characterizing a few designs in terms of surmise intelligence via the "purpose" notion and possibly suggesting research projects, RID has no physical applications. RID has only one possible immediate and direct application, a weak theological interpretation. For a specific design to be classified, without conditions, as intelligently designed via RID, a required philosophic stance is that humankind possesses, through its mental and descriptive abilities, the set of all possible and relevant probabilistic models that can explain or predict the design. The GID-model interpretation has no such dubious requirement. The GGU-model is a cosmogony and has numerous physical applications. One such application leads to a strict Genesis 1 formation of our universe. Theologically, a GID-model interpretation describes rationally an intelligence that corresponds to that described within the Bible. However, the GGU-model allows for choices to be made relative to whether one accepts or ignores the GID interpretation in whole or in part as well as to how one applies the GID-model theologically.
References Beltrametti, E. G. and G. Cassinelli. 1981. The logic of quantum mechanics, in Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 15. Addison-Wesley, Reading, PA.
Casti, J. L. 1989. Alternate Realities: Mathematical Models of Nature and Man. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Dembski, W. A. 2001. Another way to detect design. http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_anotherwaytodetectdesign.htm
Dembski, W. A. 1998a. The Design Inference - Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dembski, W. A. 1998b. Science and design. First Things 86(October 1998):21-27. http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3580 Discovery Institute. 2007. http://discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign
Fitelson, B., C. Stephens and E. Sobert, 1999. A review of William A. Dembski's The Design Inference - Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Philosophy of Science (Sept. 1999).
Herrmann, R. A. 2007. Some GID evidence. http://www.serve.com/herrmann/comparex.htm
Herrmann, R. A. 2006a. The GGU-model and generation of developmental paradigms. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0605120
Herrmann, R. A. 2006b. General logic-systems and finite consequence operators. Logica Universalis 1(2006):201-208. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0512559
Herrmann, R. A. 2004. The best possible unification for any collection of physical theories. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 17:861-872. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0306147
Herrmann, R. A. 2002. Science Declares Our Universes Is Intelligently Designed. Xulon Press, Fairfax, VA.
Herrmann, R. A. 2001a. Ultralogics and probability models. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 27(5):321-325. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112037
Herrmann, R. A. 2001b. Hyperfinite and standard unifications for physical theories. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 28(2):93-102. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0105012
Herrmann, Robert A. 1993. The Theory of Ultralogics. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9903081 http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9903082 http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0605120
Herrmann, R. A. 1992. A Solution to the General Grand Unification Problem. http://arxiv.org/astro-ph/9903110
Herrmann, R. A. 1982. The reasonableness of metaphysical evidence. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 34:17-23.
Herrmann, R. A. 1981. Mathematical philosophy. Abstracts of Papers Presented before the American Mathematical Society 2(6)(1981):527.
Stroyan, K. D. and W. A. J. Luxemburg. 1976. Introduction to the Theory of Infinitesimals. Academic Press, New York, NY
Webster, N. 1979. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Edition. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Wikipedia. 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Click on back-buttom to return to "free papers" or click here to return to top of main page.