Intelligent Design: Scientific FACT

Intelligent Design: Scientific FACT

This paper will statistically and mathematically prove the odds of our universe existing in it’s present scientific state without being guided by intelligent design are significantly less than the odds of a specific single person on a specific single occasion playing exactly 1 ticket per lotto game for 1000 consecutive lotto games and winning every one.

Consider an Olympic size swimming pool filled with small blue marbles, where N is the number of blue marbles. Suppose a mindless process selects a single marble. The probability of that specific marble being chosen from the pool is 1/N. But the probability of a blue ball being chosen from the pool is N/N = 1 because the mindless process will always select one but it never cares what one. For the purposes of argument only, I concede that every physical phenomena in our universe can be completely and unambiguously described in terms of mindless process.

Yet, if the entire universe is driven by mindless process including us and our minds, then how can we explain what happens when we write sentences on paper or even think an intelligent thought? We can specifically observe intelligence by examining written sentences. Yet where is that intelligence that we know to exist revealed or expressed in terms of probability? It must exist hidden within the number space of mindless processes. And where is it hidden? Right in front of your eyes.

A mindless process does not care what marble is chosen. That is why the odds that a blue marble will be chosen are N/N = 1. But intelligence does care what marble is chosen. Suppose we go to the swimming pool and paint one of the marbles red. When the mindless process selects the red marble we now no longer have a probability of 1 but rather a probability of 1/N since we are specifying a particular marble by painting it red before the mindless process makes its choice. Similarly, suppose we paint all the marbles red except a single blue marble. The probability that a red marble is selected in this case is (N-1)/N.

Whenever we see a probability of 1 the process must be mindless and without intelligence. That means all the marbles must be blue or all the marbles must be red. Then any process with a probability of occurrence less than 1 cannot possibly be mindless without intelligence. Hence, the process must be mindless with intelligent, thus we define intelligence numerically as:

Intelligence = probabilistic distance from 1 toward 0 specifying the occurrence of a mindless process.

That is just a fancy way of saying that the smaller the probability, the greater the intelligence. It also says that an intelligence of 1 is a mindless process containing no intelligence where every outcome is equally preferred. We can easily and obviously see with our own eyes how seamlessly the numbers match our intuitive expectations. When the pool contains all red marbles except a single blue marble and a red marble is chosen we see a very weak sign of intelligence as the probability is nearly the same as a mindless process of all blue marbles. This is perfectly consistent with our numerical value of an intelligence of (N-1)/N being very close to 1 hence very close to mindless process without intelligence.

Similarly, we see that when a single red marble is chosen by mindless process it shows a very strong sign of intelligence. This is particularly evident when we see the same mindless process consistently repeating itself. Suppose a different mindless process consistently deposits red marble into the pool immediately after the previous red one was removed. Each time the mindless process chooses the red marble from a pool of remaining blue marbles, intelligence thanks it for providing such a convenient way to express itself. As each iteration of the mindless process continues to faithfully select the single red marble from a pool otherwise filled with blue marbles, our intuitive sense that this process is one of intelligence is confirmed. This matches our numeric definition of intelligence telling us that the numeric probability of the totality of these iterative selections continually drives lower and lower with each successive iteration.

Furthermore, this definition of intelligence is consistent with the entire premise of the debate since the entirety of the argument does, in fact, rest upon the unstated assumption that a very low probability can be interpreted as intelligence. Until now, we really had no direct link from this probability to our conclusion of intelligence. Instead we have had to rely upon comparison to our known experience such as our, somewhat contrived, line in the sand of winning 1000 lottos. Again, we consistently see that our real life reaction to a person winning 1000 lottos would match our numeric expression of intelligence since our typical reaction would be one of incredulous disbelief. Such an actual occurrence would immediately garner serious suspicion since we all would have an innate sense that someone was somehow altering the selection process to somehow “fix” the games thereby indicating that intelligence was involved in the observed outcome even if we could not find where this intelligence was introduced.

In example after example, we consistently find that our definition of intelligence consistently matches our intuitive sense of probability of occurrence everywhere we see it. Similarly, we find no occurrence anywhere in the scientific description of our universe that compels us to consider any other numeric definition of intelligence while simultaneously having every reason to trust our definition as it consistently and repeatedly represented structurally in every case we consider.

Perhaps someone may propose that this is all some sort of parlor trick of numbers where I set up definitions to suit my own ends rather than presenting the true mathematical expression of what intelligence actually is. To this argument I appeal to Occam’s razor since some alternate statistical definition of intelligence could be proposed to contradict the results shown in this writing rather than simply refining them the way that Einstein’s relativity refines Newton’s laws. Of such an alternative definition we need to ask if it can so basically capture the essence of what intelligence is in any simpler and more elegant way than simply equating it to probability. If not, we should reject it.

Now knowing what intelligence is now allows us to see that we need an absolute reference point to measure from in relation to physical states. The third law of thermodynamics provides the perfect such reference point almost as if this entropy and intelligence stuff are maybe interrelated. Perhaps even designed.

We also reference The Einstein Statement
The entropy of any substance approaches a finite value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.

This is consistent with our notion that we did indeed miss some extra entropy going on since he says approaches a finite value instead of saying it approaches zero.

The physical description of this “zero” Intelligence state is basically something similar to a hydrogen atom alone in space not interacting with anyone. A similar configuration could also appear with two hydrogen atoms orbiting around each other without interacting, yet I cant help but think that even that would contain interaction between the two at some quantum level.

In any case, as was the case for the 1000 lotto games, this too is a somewhat arbitrary case since, even very early after the big bang there were clear signs of intelligences. Likely in every quantum wave function collapse, intelligence interjects itself into physical reality since that is precisely the measurement that defines physical reality including the fate of Schrodinger’s cat.

While this may or may not be proven true, we do know that at every quantum time-step, intelligence presents itself as deviation from our lone hydrogen floating in space. Bumping into other atoms adds a little intelligence but smooshing together with another atom to form helium adds way more intelligence.

As 30 year veteran of the Atheist - Theist Debate, I can tell you that the serious players who sit at the big boy table probably by now see the handwriting on the wall. For everyone else we simply call this compound exponential growth on top of compound exponential growth. Quantum time-step after quantum time-step, as the entire universe increments through time, physical reality is expressed through exponential growth fuelling exponential growth ultimately leading to the final actual probability of occurrence significantly close to zero that I have already won.

Since we can only hypothesize of what zero intelligence could even mean, we examine the numerical value expressed in the formation of stars and planets before life. Since any non-zero probability value at any level gets amplified through the layers of exponents, we quickly achieve our meager reference point of winning 1000 lottos and now it is official.

For this reason we do not need the actual number since the structure of the calculation tells us that we are so far beneath the odds that we stated initially. Furthermore, by doing this exercise we now know that we can see intelligence everywhere and in everything clearly demonstrated during ATP production from cellular respiration. From the rows of solid state proton pumps to the cam stalks driven by a driveshaft connected to a gear powered like a water wheel using protons. Anyone objectively looking at all the integrated little pieces constantly doing what they are supposed to instead of a bunch of hydrogen atoms sitting frozen across the universe. Big difference.

And big numbers. Driving tiny probabilities.

So there it is and now it is done. Many, many facts and formulas that are professionally considered and recognized as scientific fact have significantly less statistical foundation than the one shown in this writing.

We thus conclude intelligent design is a scientific fact and required for our universe to exist.
This scientific fact must now be taught in public schools.

I would hope that those now proven to be mathematically and statistically incorrect will have the common decency, morality and professional integrity to vigorously lobby to require this scientific fact to be taught as such in public schools with the same intensity that they spent in fighting on the losing side.

GOD
PEACE
LOVE

Someone Who Cares

Unevidenced hyperbole, neither scientific nor fact.

False dichotomy fallacy, so not just unevidenced and unscientific, but irrational as well.

No we do not. Don’t make assertions for others.

FWIW, and as has been explained innumerable times, atheism is far higher among scientists than in the general populace, and rises exponentially among elite scientists, so when some Billy-no-name on the internet claims there is scientific evidence for a deity, I must remain dubious, as surely those elite scientists are better placed to understand whether such evidence exists.

You are lying sunshine, if it helps, you’re not even the first by some margin. Don’t let the door…etc etc…

4 Likes

Personally, i would most certainly imagine that our being here would require a universe that formed from the most ‘improbable’, yet statistically possible probability.

If you can asign a probability, then it is by definition, possible.

The issue with most ID muppets is they cant comprehend the vastness of the universe, nor insanely small probability.

You, yourself are the product of an insanely low probabilistic chance of being conceived, raised and now typing horse shit regurgitated over and over again, with no evidence to support it… yet, here we are.

As for the theist/athiest debate, there is no debate.
For as always, you never demonstrate any actual evidence. Its always simply purse clutching and straw grasping at any position where science has not fully uncovered every tiny detail.

1 Like

The fact it exists is a large clue here… :rofl:

What’s never made clear is how adding an unevidenced creator, usually from an archaic superstition is more probable than an as yet unknown natural phenomenon.

If this latest drive by comes back, and explains, I am guessing an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Yeah, but they brighten the place up don’t they… :face_with_raised_eyebrow: :smirk:

1 Like

As soon as I saw how long your “proof” of intelligent design was, I didn’t even bother to read anything past the first few sentences. It isn’t anything different than what’s already been said countless times, both here, and abroad.
You’re way in over your head here.

1 Like

It does indeed exist… ironic really, given the opposing view point.

1 Like

Hi! I have a book with part of the title that says intelligent design.

The analogy of winning 1000 lottos or selecting specific marbles misrepresents complex natural processes. For example, if we assume a single event (like winning a lotto) is purely by chance, we miss the role of natural laws, like gravity or evolution, that systematically shape outcomes. Imagine rolling a die: getting a 6 seems lucky, but in nature, it’s like the die is weighted to favor certain results. Evolution isn’t random; it’s a process of selection over time, which isn’t equivalent to pure chance or a lottery win. Many people have misconceptions about evolution. In reality, animals do not actively adapt; rather, they possess genetic variations that result in different phenotypes. Those with phenotypes suited to their environment survive, while others do not.
The Argument from ignorance assumes that because we don’t fully understand the universe, it must be intelligently designed. That is just lazy since it solves nothing at all. Historically, many natural phenomena were attributed to supernatural causes until science explained them. For example, lightning was once thought to be divine, but we now know it’s an electrical discharge. Similarly, our current lack of understanding about consciousness or the universe’s origins doesn’t mean the default explanation is design, it simply means we need more evidence and research. Ignorance doesn’t equate to proof.
The argument assumes what it’s trying to prove, using the conclusion (intelligent design) as a premise. It doesn’t demonstrate why intelligent design is necessary; it just takes it for granted.
False dilemma of random chance or intelligent design as explanations for the universe’s complexity, ignoring other plausible options like natural laws (e.g., evolution, thermodynamics). The universe’s formation isn’t strictly a matter of randomness or design but may involve complex processes that are neither purely accidental nor purposefully crafted.

Another set of arguments is based on faith.
The argument that the universe is based on either random chance or intelligent design relies on faith, not facts, because it presents an oversimplified view of how the universe works. It assumes that complex natural processes must either be entirely random or intentionally crafted, without accounting for established scientific principles like natural selection or the laws of physics. Neither randomness nor design are factually proven in this context, and belief in intelligent design, without empirical evidence, is based on faith rather than observable, testable facts.

1 Like

Oh look, it’s this garbage yet again.

“Intelligent design” is a fraudulent concoction conjured up iby American corporate creationists, in a failed attempt to push fundamentalist Christian religious mythology into American science classes in violation of the Establishment Clause, and was exposed as such at the Dover Trial. And, as a corollary of that origin, employs all the usual duplicitous elisions and fabrications that I covered in depth in this thread specifically devoted to the duplicity inherent in “design” apologetics, which at bottom, is all that “design” fetishists have to offer – apologetics.

Indeed, I’ve never encountered a mythology fanboy who understands what steps are required to be taken, and what results are required to be obtained successfully, in order to convert the “design” assertion into something other than a product of the rectal passage. But, even if these steps were successfully undertaken, those steps would not provide any clues whatsoever to the nature of whatever “designer” was responsible - possible the only piece of “intelligent design” propaganda that bears some connection to reality.

Indeed, no matter how successfully those steps were performed, and “design” was detected in relevant classes of entities and interactions, this still wouldn’t validate the existence of a cartoon magic man from a Bronze Age mythology, because that is a separate issue. Furthermore, this separate issue is again totally devoid of genuine evidence supporting the requisite assertion, and no, “my favourite Bronze Age mythology says so” doesn’t count as “evidence” for anything other than the propensity of the authors thereof to make shit up.

Oh, and William Dembski tried the “let’s fabricate some fake mathematics” approach to try and validate his religious predilection for “design”, and failed. It only took him 12 years to realise that the exercise was futile, despite being schooled by genuine mathematicians on the subject.

2 Likes

It seems like you failed to show the math on this result. Assuming that is an oversight, could you provide that? For example you claimed that one value is [significantly] less than the other. Can you show how you derived these unlisted probabilities (and give us the actual probabilities)?

4 Likes

I may be misunderstanding the original poster’s analogy, but is he suggesting that the odds of intelligence are so low that it couldn’t happen by chance? Therefore God?

I found his original post to be a little difficult to follow, but that could be my fault because I did a lot of studying last night for my BSN classes, and my brain hurts.

My guess is he’s parroting an argument he’s found, but doesn’t understand, we’ve seen this innumerable times. They use words like (more) plausible and probable, for a deity they can’t demonstrate is even possible, even to a dullard like me, the irony is palpable.

At least one universe exists as an objective fact, as do natural phenomena, so they are demonstrably possible, yet the claim is they are less probable, or even impossible, without the addition of a deity, they can’t objectively evidence is possible, using supernatural magic that not only has no explanatory powers whatsoever, but that again they can’t demonstrate is possible. Occam’s razor on this one, slash…in lieu of him presenting the maths of course, but he will be the first to do so, from a long long line of apologists peddling this tired old canard.

It has all the hallmarks of an argumentum ad ingoranitam fallacy to me, we don’t have a natural or scientific explanation of how X happened, therefore it must require a deity using the supernatural.

That’s pretty much how I read it.

No, it was very poorly written, as are his subsequent posts.

1 Like

Thank you very much for getting back to me.

But I thought that Dr. Kent Hovind has proven that intelligent design was real.

1 Like

Kent Hovind actually reinforces the theory of evolution, because he is living proof that human beings evolved from slime.

1 Like

The proof is complete as it is written.

Historically, when people look back, they will stand in disbelief at how so many intelligent people of science could be so objectively, provably incorrect.

No offense, but this proof was not written for the lay person to understand.
It was written for the serious, hard-core players who sit at the grown up table where the only thing that matters is statistics expressed through mathematics related to physical reality through science.
Those people will understand exactly what I am saying.

1 Like

So we just have to take your word on the probabilities, and you think that is a proof?


For fun: how many premises were in your proof, and why didn’t you number/label them?

5 Likes

Ladies and gentlemen,
If any of you are interested in someone that actually has something legitimate to say then go look at how Calilasseia responded. This Sheldon guy is a complete phony so don’t listen to anything he has to say.

Our little blue butterfly is what I affectionately refer to as a Atheist fanatic ninja robot lawyer. Sure there is plenty of expected, knee jerk putdowns but hate the game not the player is what I always say. Besides, I have no problem skipping over a few bits here and there to get to someone who actually has something to say, unlike Sheldon who just blathers nonsense to get attention.

I have read every reply to my post and the only one that has any value at all is from Calilasseia. Go read the post because that is how the real players play this game. Yes the first paragraph is complete garbage as is the last paragraph. But the two paragraphs in between contain an actual argument that is exactly correct.

Want more?
Then go read my response to blue butterfly.
And please ignore this complete fake trying to get attention because all it does is lead to nowhere.

I’m a real player, and what you called a proof isn’t how it is done, AT ALL.

2 Likes