Possible experiment to test for a "Divine" intelligent designer

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

Correct me if I am wrong but the example you gave as to why its not testable involves verifiability NOT falsifiability. As you know, NO theory can truly be verified in that manner, which is why falsifiability is considered the demarcation line for science instead.


“a theory is falsifiable (or refutable ) if it is contradicted by possible observations —i.e., by any observations that can be described in the language of the theory, which must have a conventional empirical interpretation.[A] Thus the theory must be about scientific evidence and it must prohibit some (but not all) possible observations. For example, the statement “All swans are white” is falsifiable because “Here is a black swan” contradicts it.”

An intelligent designer must exists in all possible natural conditions to develop life. This is falsifiable because “Here is an experiment showing life evolved naturally without interference” would contradict it. How can you say this is still unfalsifiable despite it being formulated in almost the exact same way that Karl Popper has suggested?

A quantum mind would simply be digital information and consciousness, which combined to make a human mind. Necessity would be a mind that affects matter and energy without a human body. For a more precise scientific definition of a mind, I would just refer you to Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammerhoff’s article:

Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014). “Consciousness in the universe”. Physics of Life Reviews . 11 (1): 39–78. Bibcode:2014PhLRv…11…39H. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002. PMID 24070914.

Right, but that is not what I meant. I was talking about in terms of using the hypothesis to explain the effects within biochemistry or biological settings from those initial experiments and observations I laid out before rather than non-biological settings.

Correct, but you have to start somewhere and ,don’t forget, I am proposing a different ID theory. In fact, I just made changes to my ID theory from a different topic of discussion I created. I saw you comment on already.

I beg to differ. As I said before, my overall argument for God is NOT suggesting the human mind exists outside of space and time in the context of substance dualism, but that one substance or one reality exists. Instead of the mind/information existing as or in the brain/matter via materialism, it is the brain/matter that exists within the mind/information as an information construct. In other words, brain/matter is still real but not “Objectively” real where matter/brain and its effects are only real because the mind/information makes it real. Here, let me show you an example of what I mean…

According to John chapter 1:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. “…The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

The Greek meaning for “the Word” mentioned in John 1:1-3 is “something said; by implication, a topic, also reasoning or motive; by extension, a COMPUTATION; specially, the Divine Expression.” [emphasis added]

In other words, God is Digital information in the form of logical absolutes and mathematical language. This is where the quantum aspect of the human mind is relevant here since it also digital information in the form of computation.

So if you are saying digital information is supernatural and quantum physics does not involve this, then you would be wrong.

Consider your hypothesis …

… and your test …

If the observer can create life, or near enough to it then the designer isn’t necessary, BUT it doesn’t falsify the existence of the designer OR the designers previous creations (if any).

THIS is wrong, or at least it only falsifies the necessity of the designer. The existence of the designer cannot be falsified this way.

The existence of a divine or quantum mind is not dependent on what human biochemists can or cannot replicate.

Not following your thoughts here, but I’ll give that article a read.

A suggestion: Simplify. Tear your idea down to the simplest statement possible. My experience with disagreement in discussions of research hypotheses is that sometime people are asking the wrong question.

That is clearly NOT what I wrote. If you think you have information to test the existence of God, then that’s what you ought to be testing. You can ditch the biochemistry - you don’t need it.

1 Like

In regards to the latter, Why couldn’t we just say “we don’t know yet whether this designer created and sustains the universe as well but we will figure that out later”?

In regards to the former, Not completely, but it falsifies the theory and that’s what’s important. Instead, it would just require a reformulation of the theory to account for existing evidence.

Necessity is an intrinsic attribute of the God’s nature. So I don’t get what you mean here. Falsifying the necessity of God is falsifying God completely.

Correct, but God would be dependent or bound by his nature, which makes it a testable hypothesis

I just did this recently in a different topic

What do you mean by this? can you elaborate for me?

Not nearly enough…

1 Like

Saying “We don’t know yet” is dodging the very question your are trying to answer. It’s your question, you would like it to be a testable hypothesis, but lack of falsifiability is preventing that. I warned you this wasn’t easy! :wink:

A testable hypothesis asks a simple question, which may be part of a theory. This question isn’t useful because the answer can never be evidence against it. It’s not testable, so it doesn’t tell us much about the theory, except that something leading to the framing of the question isn’t right.

Careful! Remember we want a way to falsify your hypothesis. Falsifying God is something else entirely. :slight_smile:

If God is by definition “necessary”, that might put the kibosh on testability too, depending on how you mean it.

??? Not sure I understood you correctly - Begging the question of the nature of God doesn’t make anything testable - but surely that’s not what you meant?

“Digital” information isn’t some magical property, it’s just an aspect of how we measure, record, and transfer information. Testing what human biochemists can or cannot do isn’t going to give you information relevant to quantum minds without a body.

I haven’t had much time for that other thread. I’ll catch up later if I can.


Ah, I think I see your point now. Then, all I need to do is change the question in a way that makes it more falsifiable. How about this instead…

What is the primary cause of evolution? Evolution by Natural Selection or Divine Intelligence

The other topic I created deals with this very question.

Correct and ,in this instance, I mean it in regards to life not the universe, which probably means I asked the wrong question.:grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

I don’t want to be critical of a good effort, but if you think this through I think you will see the problem.

You might be surprised how often asking the wrong question occurs in actual discussions of research hypotheses. Some of the best discussions are a sort of professional argument about the question, and help to better define the problem in useful ways.

I’ll check in over there.

1 Like

I would say that virtually all of the best discussions are of that nature. Pseudoscientists like to falsely portray scientific discussions as debates that are won or lost by participants.


I think @Meerkat_SK5 is sincere, and he shows signs of understanding. I don’t think I’m going to change his beliefs (nor do I want to), but we might at least understand each other. Criticize with kindness! :slight_smile: