Replies

Well, as I think I made clear, I don't consider the fact that some matter is organized as evidence of ID because it is not a theorem. So yes, I guess I need something more tangible - a deduced prediction that we can practically test.

You can read about beta decay here and about many other radioactive decay modes from the links there. From that page I also learned that there are other kinds of decay called beta decay different from the one I cited (although I think that one is the earliest figured out).

I don't think beta decay per se is essential or influential for life. The main effect is to transmute an atom of one element to the one with a different atomic number. That is, it changes the chemical properties of the atom. If you scroll down in that article you'll see that beta decay turns an isotope of Cesium to an isotope of Barium.

Some radioactive decays are important to us. Fission of uranium is harnessed in nuclear reactors and bombs. Neither may have been important for the devolpment of life but certainly are important to us now. Fission transmutes an atom of uranium into two or more much smaller atoms and some spare neutrons and EM radiation.

Our best explanation for this and other quantum processes is that a system in a given quantum state has a propensity to change in certain ways. An individual system in that state is unpredictable but en masses you can make statistical predictions. For example, in a significant mass of radium 228, half will have beta decayed to actinium in a little less than seven years.

However, I don't think you addressed the implications of these facts for your statement that

The best evidence to falsify intelligent design would be the disintegration of particle matter.

It is apparent that your definitions of "theory" and "science" are more narrow than common convention and logic should allow. The definition of "theory" by no means necessitates or entails absolute certainty (as you assert in post #261 when you wrote, "Scientific theories are absolute and make absolute claims"), but only reasonable certainty. Furthermore, if science is limited only to that which is physical, quantifiable, and provable, then it is cutting its nose off to spite its face; throttling itself from genuine inquiry.

The theory of intelligent design is an overarching fundamental assumption about the universe. Because there is a preponderance of organized matter (by that I mean particle matter that retains its consistency and behaves predictably) we can reasonably infer it is intelligently designed and proceed from there.

The theory fits well from both and inductive and deductive standpoint. The more science is able to reveal about the universe, the more apparent it becomes that it is organized and behaves according to predictable laws. Or, to state it inductively, science may be comfortable beginning with the assertion that "God did it" (with the understanding that God is defined as a generic intelligent agent with the capacity to create visible and invisible matter, set its laws in motion, and sustain them both).

The only way such an approach would be wholly falsifiable would be for the universe to disintegrate altogether into nothing.

Your examples of radioactive decay are but further examples of matter that is designed to behave just as it does. As science further investigates the details I predict it will discover that there is quantifiable process and purpose involved and that it is limited to a range of elements, not coextant with the universe. This, too, is in accord with the overarching theory of intelligent design.

At any rate, radioactive decay does not constitute disintegration of matter, but only a reformation of particles.

One prerequisite for anything that is intelligently designed is that it must be available for reason and senses to apprehend. I submit this extends even beyond human emotions (which are also a proper object for science) to senses human science has yet to discover.

Most likely the best evidence to date that could falsify intelligent design is the black hole. If the universe should become a single black hole, then perhaps we could eliminate intelligent design as a scientifically viable notion.

Let's say that the universe is truly an infinite multiverse and that all possibilities are realized in it. . . . How shall we choose between your speculation and mine (or the many others that might be made)?

Science tends to limit itself to the physical universe that IS. Hence when I posit the theory of intelligent design it extends only to the universe humans know and experience. That universe contains organized matter behaving according to predictable laws, both of which are features of intelligent design.