In this article, I am going to be showing how God can be a useful scientific hypothesis in the fields of biology and biochemistry. This means that I will be showing how we can test whether a Divine intelligence has and continues to guide evolution, which would make this an improvement of the Modern synthesis rather than a separate explanation. However, this time it will NOT be about trying to prove that God guided evolution or prove God exists at all. It will also not be about whether God used common design or common descent. Instead, it’s all about finding out whether there is a Divine intelligence guiding evolution.
The God of classical theism is generally defined as “Necessary” and “Personal”, which sums up the totality of God’s attributes. What I mean by “Personal” is a common designer that can expressly manifest the immaterial properties of digital information and apply it to the physical-chemical world. “Necessity” means an intelligent designer that needs to exist in order to guide evolution. I made this inference based on…
The comparison between the genome and computers that have been shown to be more than just metaphorical but literal. For instance, researchers created a biotech version of an e-reader, with one of the highest storage capacity to date. Church_Science_12.pdf (harvard.edu)
The high similarity between the genetic text and human written language. For instance, Hubert P. Yockey:
“It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.”
Microsoft Word - 2005-11-16_Hubert_Yockey_reply_to_FTE_amicus.doc (ncse.ngo)
- The required assistance of the biochemist to obtain meaningful results within prebiotic experiments:
“…After all, it is not easy to see what replaced the flasks, pipettes and stir bars of a chemistry lab during prebiotic evolution, let alone the hands of the chemist who performed the manipulations. (And yes, most of us are not comfortable with the idea of divine intervention in this context.)" [emphasis added]
EVOLUTION BY DIVINE INTELLIGENCE
The best example of a successful experiment demonstrating, in a legitimate way, how lifelike molecules can emerge from prebiotic chemistry evolution is the Miller-Urey experiments. Researchers have provided a potentially useful criteria for the amount of observer interference acceptable, which should make sure biochemist successfully disprove the hypothesis completely (Thaxton 1984 p.99-110; Jekel 1985). Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L. & Olsen, R.L. (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Philosophical Library Inc., New York.
The best example of a successful experiment demonstrating, in a legitimate way, how random mutations can potentially produce new traits more often is Lenski’s world-famous long-term experiment on E. coli. In order to successfully disprove the hypothesis, the Lenski experiment needs to produce results similar to what we see from a protein engineer, such as this study:
When the observer chooses a particular set of natural conditions to work on, the observer has to first test and determine whether or not life can be developed within that condition without interference. Then, the observer must perform the same experiment with the same set of natural conditions following the previous one but impose unrealistic interference in the second round of experiments.
The combined outcomes of these experiments would produce evidence for the hypothesis. This is because even though the experimenter who guides evolution within each natural condition is finite and contingent, there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged, hence why we have to include the first experiment to support the “necessary” attribute of this common designer .
The Phage-assisted continuous evolution (with the apt acronym “PACE”) experiment and In-vitro selection experiments from prebiotic simulations would be the best approaches to confirm the hypothesis. The protein design experiment I suggested above could also be a good approach as long as researchers follow the procedure laid out here.
Furthermore, since we are dealing with a flawless designer, the discovery of optimality within so-called design flaws would also potentially confirm the hypothesis.
For instance, we should find many more examples of designs that are optimized to fit a particular environment better than another organism from alleged suboptimal design flaws.
We should find more trade-offs between conflicting design goals from allegedly bad designs that are considered to be poorly constructed for its perceived function.
We should find a positive function for sinister designs that seem to only bring harm and degeneration upon that organism or to other organisms. [Just ask for examples]
WHY GOD IS USEFUL
This hypothesis should encourage researchers to do and explain the following things…
Re-examine the alleged design flaws to find optimality in organisms.
Expand and test different environmental conditions to potentially find a new law of nature.
Find out whether there is a divine intelligence guiding evolution or not.
Find out how God guided evolution (I.e. common design versus common descent).
Explain the origin of life and species.
One more thing, feel free to just copy your previous objections from other topics and paste them here, if you feel they still have not been addressed under this topic. This will save everybody time and effort.