Intelligent Design is a Scientific Hypothesis

Intelligent Design theory is a scientific hypothesis making testible, observable assertions about construction(s)of physical forms in the Universe. Logic does require that if structures of primordially created intelligent design exist in the Universe a Designer and Creator existed to form them. Rational public education could not exclude that truth (if found to be so) from scientific curriculum because it would upset believers in an atheistic construction of a dumb random universe of chance (DRUNC). If the Universe actually does have elements of intelligent design in it, an ostrich-like ignorance of it would ill-support compulsory public education in the United Sartres of America.

The separation of church and state of the U.S. Constitution wasn’t intended to separate valid scientific inquiry from public education. If there is intelligent design in the Universe the search the consequences for humanity of ignorant destruction or disrespect of those ‘semantic’ ‘artifacts’ of design in physical structures could be significant. A valid scientific theory arsenal should include the possibility of intelligent design.


Evolution theory itself is not the champion for which intelligent design theory is the number one contender; evolution theory is perhaps implicitly an element of the Biblical book of Genesis in which God ‘evolves’ the Universe over a period of ‘days’ from a stirring of the quiet ‘waters’ (perhaps akin to a Higgs Field exploding at superluminal speed into an inflation of space-time)…natural selection as the sole ‘mechanism’ of evolution is what intelligent design theory is pummelling presently. Natural selection theory has been a subject of rival theories since it’s conception and synthesis with evolution by Charles Darwin.

What time values regarding the Age of the Universe Does Intelligent Design Postulate?


So far as I know intelligent design theorists are ambivalent about the time scale or age of creation of the universe unlike strict Biblical ‘fundamentalist creationists’ whom generally set the age of the Earth and Universe somewhere between 6000 and 25,000 years before present. Intelligent Design theorists simply look for artifacts or evidence of intelligently designed structures in the universe that could not be explained by any natural process of evolution. Thus intelligent design theorists are happy enough to examine the explosion of multi-cellular life forms in the Cambrian era some 540 million years ago and postulate in some detail why that could not have been a naturally occurring development explicable within parameters of natural selection…that is, they postulate and demonstrate why natural selection could not have developed and sustained to the present era 37 of those 50 life-forms or phyla. The contribution of intelligent design theory is thus a useful analytical tool providing discussion input on the processes that selected life on Earth. Criticism of theories should not be banned from public education.

How the ‘Anthropic Principle’ differs from ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory

The anthropic principle does not seek to find artifacts of intelligent design as ‘substructures’ in the overall structure of the cosmos or of life as might the biolgist Mr.Behe in considering how certain cilia of microganisms developed. The anthropic principle instead is simply an aesthetic appreciation of the overall ‘beauty’ of the Universe in numerous ways from mathematical relations and it’s rationality and coherence to the phenomenal coincidence of physical constant values that allow radiation to be at the right degree to allow life to exist, for atoms to exist in the right ratio’s, and for physical values of constants to be set to such a level as to allow the universe to exist as it is fit for human life on Earth.

Some of these values are alpha-G (gravity fine structure constant), alpha-w (fine structure constant of the weak interaction), alpha-s (fine structure constant of the strong interaction), alpha-e (electromagnetic fine structure constant). An article titled ‘The Just So Universe’ by Walter Bradley in ‘Signs of Intelligence’ goes over these values that are remarkable. ‘The Cosmic Blueprint’ by Paul Davies as well covers points of the anthropic principle.


The anthropic principle is more of a philosophical point with dead-reckoning comments about the cosmos and its physical values, yet it is useful nonetheless for both multiverse theorists and intelligent design theorists of a theological or natural disposition (there is the possibility that super-intelligent beings created this universe designing it from another universe and setting it rolling with the right values-in which case finding evidence for the ultimate designer of all-possible-universes would be a step removed.

‘Cosmos and Creation; The Literal Values of Genesis’

This universe or multiverse is the subject of observation and conjecture, testing and hypothesizing in a disciplined way. Non-scientists such as myself with a background in the social sciences and humanities also may look over the shoulder of the scientific community and contemplate their findings usefully comparing that body of knowledge to what the Bible book of Genesis has regarding cosmological structures and the history of the Universe.


Humanity has always needed to interpret the book of Genesis within it’s own learning paradigm that until recently was quite minimal in substnative cosmology. It is a mistake of a significant nature in discovering new scientific knowledge and abandoning the old to also throw out the book of Genesis for-itself that was linked through human intepretation with the old secular cosmology–it is the case that the faulty data is in humanity and not in the Bible, yet the centuries old association of secular learning with literal Biblical values is difficult to detach. It is difficult to read the Bible with unbiased, socially unconditioned learning yet the importance of the truth of the message of the Bible demands that it be done.

I will here republish a brief intro to my book of brief essays on interpreting some cosmological points from the Bible, as time does not permit further writing here presently..


How is Biblical Scripture ‘cosmology’ like modern physical cosmology? Luke13-18″Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it?” 19″It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.”


Do the ‘days’ of Genesis represent time periods of uncertain extent in the form of literals as do algebraic literals represent variable numerical content?


Does Second Peter Chapter 3 exemplify the uncertainty? “8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” The age of the antediluvian Patriarchs given this conversion value is 2,453,235,000 years. Paleontologists suggest that multicellular life on Earth started about 2,600,000,000 years before present.