Possible experiment to test for a "Divine" intelligent designer

Then you’re convinced by your misunderstanding of some-one else’s misinterpretations of a paper you haven’t read. Not only is that not in Yockey’s paper, it has been denied by Yockey himself:

FTE is wrong: “the mathematical treatment of these biological message texts” is NOT “identical to that of human written language.”

Don’t expect anyone else to be as gullible as you are.

Also, since you have cited Yockey directly, and not the FTE amicus brief submitted at Kitzmiller (or some similar secondary garbage) that you actually got that idea from, you bear sole responsibility for the difference between what Yockey wrote and what you have claimed Yockey wrote.

You have some explaining to do. Otherwise the natural expectation of any other source you cite will be that you haven’t read it, have no idea whether your description is accurate, and don’t care anyway. In short, you will have zero credibility.


Indeed. If that were universally understood then this thread would never have happened.


I was making an inference that there was a Universal common designer that exists in biochemistry based on all three studies I referenced in the introduction. These studies convince me the digital information is literally the same as digital information among humans.

But, I am not saying those studies prove it therefore came from humans, which is what I think is your issue here. In fact, this is probably Michael’s and Mercer’s issue as well who were the ones who recently made comments. Ultimately, the invitro selection experiment I reference is what I was arguing provides evidence that digital information not only came from a mind but a “Divine” mind.

And you are absolutely right. I should have been more precise.

Exactly. Let’s hope he takes the advice.


No, that is not my “issue.” My issue, and it would appear that of others, is that you keep misrepresenting scientific papers as if they support the belief to which you are already committed.


At the start of making this topic, I specifically said:

“I really need to know from expert scientists whether this experiment could potentially test for a Universal common designer existing in biology.”

At some point, I added the introduction to help reviewers adequately critique my case.
This means that I never pretended to be an expert this field nor do I have a desire to be one. You either did not care to read this or did not fully absorb it into your brain. For this reason, I don’t care whether I make mistakes or not but I care about getting the mistakes right. So I’ll admit I was attacking a strawman argument in regards to their article because I was ultimately focused on trying to make a larger point, as a NON-expert, to get expert advice. However, unlike other users on here, almost all your objections and sources (except for one maybe) have NOT addressed the topic at hand. Therefore, I am only going to address the things you said that are relevant to the topic from here on out.

Yes, I agreed but what was the point of your objection in regards to the topic. Do you agree that my proposal can be tested in a way that verifies or at least potentially falsifies the hypothesis that a Universal common designer exists in biochemistry? If you do, then I encourage you to move on from this and politely ask you to start critiquing the next topic I made:

A Comprehensive Theory of Intelligent Design - Peaceful Science

And the experts have answered “no”, but I agree some have wandered from the key question to details which beg the question of testability. My expertise includes framing hypotheses so they can be tested with mathematical rigor. Not every hypothesis requires statical testing, of course, but asking a clearly defined question in the right way always matters.

The specific error you are making is common for ID; you are trying to disprove evolution to prove design. That’s not how it works. You first need to define design in a way to distinguish ID from evolution (or other hypotheses). Then you need to seek evidence to disprove design, and fail.

Edit to add: The possibility of failure is the “falsifiability” of the hypothesis. With a very few exceptions, ID is not falsifiable.


@Meerkat_SK5, please read this ^^^^^^^^^^. It concisely summarizes all of the reasons why everyone has answered “no.”


The transcriptional regulatory network IS NOT DIGITAL, because it is not limited to DNA.


Remember Dan, I specifically said in the introduction that this topic was NOT about showing how the origin of life or advanced life emerged whether its our life or another NOR was I defending the intelligent design theory proposed by intelligent design theorists.

The ultimate purpose was to confirm whether a Divine agent even exists in the first place within the bounds of biochemistry in order to answer the question “Where did the digital information in DNA come from?” and explain it’s origins. This means its either an undiscovered law of physics or a Divine agent.

Yes, an all-powerful designer could have but the question is… “would we expect this?” if this designer is personal like us, which is suggested by the high similarity between digital information in DNA and digital information among humans, we would not expect a miracle or random event to happen based upon that designer’s personal nature that is similar to ours.

Furthermore, this particular aspect of this designer’s nature is what limits the behavior of the designer in a way that is testable like what we see in other fields of science that involve a intelligent designer, like SETI.

Again, as I mentioned above, if you factor in the similar personal nature of this designer, then it does exclude an unconscious computer-like designer.

Right, I agree. This is why another experiment showing an unguided process is required (which ALSO must be in accordance with the second experiment that shows a guided process) in order to show there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged. The unguided experiment would support the “necessary” attribute of this intelligent designer.

For example, here is a clearer definition of this designer…

The Universal common designer hypothesis involves an intelligent designer that exists by necessity where life emerging from a natural condition could not possibly have been otherwise without a quantum mind. A quantum mind is a causal agent that is not contingent upon classical space-time physics or a prior natural cause.

Again, all a biochemist has to do is produce digital information within a natural condition that does not require his assistance to falsify it.

In the second round of experiments, the biochemist can intervene to produce positive results and verify it.

Now, it is ok if you still disagree that this could be a way to verify this hypothesis despite my refined definition because providing a way to falsify this idea is more important. But, keep in mind, I am not the only one who has made a similar inference in regards to these experimental results:

“…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.)”


Although I am not an expert, there are two reasons why it may not be realistic to require or expect a mathematical model in order for this hypothesis to be considered scientifically viable. First, according to the Orch-Or theory, consciousness is not supposed to be an emergent property of space-time but goes beyond the math. Also, experimental results are supposed to be determined by the act of the conscious observer in quantum experiments similar to what we see with in-vitro experiments.

Secondly, although this is somewhat off topic, there is not supposed to be a big contrast between common design and descent because common design is primarily supposed to be an improvement of the Modern Synthesis NOT a negation. There are only two key differences that I outline in another topic and those differences would not involve testing a mathematical model.

Do you take this approach to all questions? If you find a puddle on your kitchen floor, and you ask the question “Where did the water in my kitchen come from?” to explain its origins, do you assume it’s the result of an undiscovered law of physics or a Divine agent? Or do you look for leaks and call a plumber?

What similarity? Are you still convinced by the Yockey paper you haven’t read?


@Meerkat_SK5: I’d like to preface my reply with a note about criticism. I think you are making an argument in good faith, and I am trying to offer kind criticisms of that argument. :slight_smile:

My emphasis. You are proposing a scientific test to confirm a divine agent? This can’t be done. To me the reasons are obvious, but perhaps not to you? I’ll leave that to further discussion.

Aside: Consider the implications if science could demonstrate the Divine. It would imply a god that can be quantified and measured in a material sense. That doesn’t fit any concept of God or the Divine that I know. I’m pretty sure theologians would back me in this too. If God exists and is anything like what humans conceive, then this sort of material test of the Divine should not be possible.

This is how it is done.

That can only be supposition. We have no reason to expect all-powerful designers to conform to human expectations. AND, if you hadn’t noticed, we are not discussing science any more. (I don’t object to your personal beliefs.)

The distinction between SETI and ID have been adequately addressed elsewhere. It’s a search for material evidence of material beings like ourselves. I don’t think it is helpful to rehash that discussion again here.

Not to belabor the point, but I don’t think we can scientifically quantify the “personal nature of the designer”.

More to my reply, but I need to break here for work.

1 Like

Please explain the high similarity of the biological production of keratin and the operation of say, one of those robotic vacuuming discs, because I’m not seeing it.

1 Like

Except that you haven’t demonstrated this. You have merely demonstrated that DNA can store both the information in a genome and human digital information. This merely demonstrates that the media storing the information is the same, not that the information stored is ‘similar’.

Likewise you can store both an audio recording or a computer game on a CD. That does not mean that the audio recording and the computer game are similar information. (And it is not clear that genome versus digital information are even that similar.)


Oh yes, I am well aware of this, which is one of the reasons why I have not bothered to respond to the other users on this topic. I hope my last response did not make you think otherwise.

Ahhhh… I think I see the issue here now. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be presupposing materialism as the true nature of reality. If so, then I would agree: It is not possible under that perspective. In fact, I would say the vast majority of theists would back your assessment as well because most of them hold to a substance dualistic model that is inherently untestable (and logically incoherent in my opinion). However, most people often forget or don’t realize that there is a third option: Idealism. Let me bring some context before I elaborate on this:

What is Objective Reality?

Realism is the view point that external things are real and exist independently of mind in the form of either materialism or idealism. Materialism is the viewpoint that material things shape our ideas and ideologies. In contrast, idealism states that ideas come first and then changes in material things are pursued in accordance with those ideas.

Substance dualism is the view that material things and ideas are both fundamental substances of existence (I.e. supernatural vs natural). Furthermore, this viewpoint states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot. Where the immortal souls occupy an independent realm of existence distinct from that of the physical world.

Substance dualism is unparsimonius and materialism has been disconfirmed so many times by quantum physics experiments that a consensus on the matter has developed [just ask for it].

This leaves us with a form of idealism that places digital information and human consciousness as representing objective reality where space-time is influenced and emerges from.

Well, I mentioned that If the biochemist applies the procedure to a different pre-biotic condition, it would be another attempt at falsification without including the second experiment. However, this leads me to your response…

Yes, this would be the case but only if I was trying to extend the hypothesis outside the bounds of biochemistry or biology and into physics. But, this hypothesis’s scope is only within the bounds of biochemistry and potentially biology and thus the experiment I proposed would falsify it completely under those terms and scope.

Well first off, I never claimed within the theory itself that this designer is all-powerful. Instead, those are just the implications of the theory if it’s true. Secondly, if the attribute of omni-potent was the only attribute this designer would posses, then your assessment would probably be correct. However, if it’s true, the theory implies that the designer has other attributes, such as omniscience and omnibenevolent, that would require this designer to stay consistent with those other attributes or else the hypothesis would be rendered logically inconsistent and , as you know, every model must be logically coherent for it to be considered science because it is depended on it.

AND, if you hadn’t noticed, I am trying to stay within the confines of the hypothesis that was inferred based upon previous experiments and observations not the bible. :wink:

Again, I feel like you are presupposing materialism when you say this where consciousness and digital information are emergent properties of matter.

Well, I have not showed you how we could yet so I don’t blame you.

Lijia Yu et al., “Grammar of Protein Domain Architectures,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 116, no. 9 (February 26, 2019): 3636–45, doi:10.1073/pnas.1814684116.

No Meerkat. That genomes possess something akin to grammar does not entail that the genome is similar to digital information.

That genomes bear some similarity to natural language is neither surprising, nor remotely supportive of a designer – as a key attribute of a natural language is that it is one that evolved naturally (as opposed to an artificially created, ‘designed’ language like Esperanto).


Picking up where I left off before replying to newer comments.

Let me try to unpack this. The first experiment, paraphrased:

… [The] observer has to first test and determine whether or not life can be produced within that condition solely by allowing the natural conditions or processes to occur without interference.

I replaced “specified complexity” carries unnecessary baggage; producing life is more than enough. – I’m not sure this is falsifiable. In theory an infinite number of biochemists could test all possible conditions, but in practice that can’t be done. In other context a hypothesis Y might not be testable but is implied by X which IS testable. I don’t see a necessary implication here. I’ll think about it tho.

However, if just one of those experiments succeeds then we are done. There is no need for the second experiment to confirm design.

I don’t think this is any clearer. It feels like a moving of goal posts to “quantum mind”, which is equally undefined. Does a “designer existing by necessity” imply assuming the conclusion? Testable hypotheses can almost always be stated in a simple sentence (definition may be much longer). I don’t see this here.

The author has a point, but is missing another. Those detailed lab experiments are design to tease out how just particular reaction happen. It is much harder to discern cause and effect in observational studies. Carefully designed experiments are how we establish basic science.

I think you misunderstood me; I meant that not all evidence is statistical in nature.

1 Like

Methodological naturalism requires material evidence. It is possible to pose hypotheses about supernatural cause, but still requires material evidence. In the unlikely even that science ever manages to quantify God, then I predict a lot of theologians will be highly disappointed. :wink:

I hate to bear bad news, but chemistry is physics, including biochemistry.
BUT, you might be interested in Constructor Theory. :grinning:

A key point here: you haven’t claimed otherwise. Defining limits is essential to testable hypotheses. This is one of the failings of ID trying to be science.


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.”

Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology , Vol. 91 (1):16