Will the Intelligent Designer
Please Fess Up?

This site offers yet another theory to explain the origin of the universe and the source of biological life. A simple but broad theory, it also explains human consciousness and proposes a “meaning of life” which does not appear elsewhere. It differs at the fundamental level from all current theories about these subjects.

Our plan is to rewind the theological clock to a time before philosophers and theologians, intelligent people who were absolutely ignorant of science, defined God in the context of their ignorance and were taken seriously ever since. This leaves us free to devise a Creator-concept in the context of current knowledge about biology, astronomy, and physics.

Anyone who has read either of Michael Behe's books and wondered about the nature of his Intelligent Designer will find this entity well defined herein.

The theory explains a number of little things which have puzzled a few scientists and other curious types, but which most people don't know are still hanging around awaiting an explanation— such as handedness, hypnosis, the split brain experiments, paranormal phenomena, the origin of the first living cell, dark energy, and quantum effects in subatomic physics.

Our theory differentiates between the many things which have cause or purpose, and the three things which have neither cause nor purpose. Its author believes that this is a sound theory derived in a logical manner from mankind's best scientific knowledge, but is alone in this high opinion.

The entire theory is founded upon a single, very simple correction to an ancient fundamental hypothesis which lies at the heart of current scientific and religious belief systems. The hypothesis at fault is so deeply embedded in human thought that all religious and scientific theories are derived from it— yet this hypothesis has not been seriously questioned within the last several thousand years.

This ancient hypothesis is illogical, contrary to all scientific evidence, contrary to ordinary human experience, and nonintuitive. It cannot possibly be empirically verified! While any newly invented theory with such characteristics would be immediately dismissed as absurd, this silly old idea has been “grandfathered” into acceptance.

The grandfathering runs deeply. The idea at the core of human confusion is so deeply rooted in our beliefs that it is never explicitly taught. Ingrained within human culture, this absurd belief is shared without question by religionists and atheists alike, none aware of its subtle but powerful influence upon thought.

By contrast, although the theory offered here is logically coherent and fairly consistent with the available evidence, it will be universally dismissed because its hypotheses are inconsistent with current belief systems.

The Basics

Fundamental beliefs have far reaching consequences. One might casually think, for example, So what if the earth moves around the sun, instead of the sun moving around the earth? —What's the big deal?

When this question was argued a few centuries ago it was important enough to set the world's most powerful church and the soldiers it controlled against Galileo Galilei, an old, unarmed man, its devoted and most brilliant member— initiating the dichotomy between religion and science which has confused human progress for the last three and one half centuries.

Fundamental ideas are important because any theory built upon even one incorrect hypothesis is doomed to eventual but certain failure.

The ancient hypothesis upon which the creation theories of monotheistic religions are built is identical to that upon which the Big Bang theory of modern science rests. This simplistic idea has been guiding western thought in the wrong direction for the past 5000 years—

Everything in the universe came originally from a single thing or single entity.

This “all from one” concept apparently began in ancient Egypt, when a single god briefly replaced the Egyptians' traditional multiple gods. The idea caught on permanently with the Jews (who, if the Exodus story is true, may have exported it along with themselves) and is now embraced by billions of Christians and Muslims as well.

It was probably inevitable that the core concept of monotheism, the idea that a single thing can become or create a complex universe, has been unwittingly adopted by modern atheists in the form of Big Bang theory. Is it not ironic that this theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest?

Correcting this old hypothesis yields unexpected results, such as the merger of science with the spiritual, accomplished via a simple redefinition of the soul in terms of classical physics.

Our theory is scientific, but there are differences over what that means. Does “scientific” mean that this theory follows the opinions, beliefs, and speculative theories of conventional scientists? Of course not— what would be the fun in that? It means only that our theory is consistent, absolutely consistent, with the laws of physics and the rules of scientific engagement.

Religion and Science in Contrast

Western religions attribute the existence of the universe to a purposeful omnipotent entity. Sciences which address the origin of the universe exclude any concept of a Creator from their theories.

These religions also attribute the existence of life forms and man to deliberate acts of creation. Sciences which seek to understand our planet's life forms assume that life arose spontaneously (and mysteriously) from nonliving matter and subsequently evolved into complex forms as the result of purely mechanistic, random processes operating according to Darwinian principles. No Creator was involved in these processes.

Religions believe that humans have a soul, an entity which survives the body's death and carries each personality into an afterlife, preferably in the company of the Creator Himself, Who is often believed to have made humans because He wanted our company and worship.

Those who follow science's lead into atheism do not believe that any form of consciousness will survive the demise of a human body. For them, there is no God, no soul, neither heaven nor hell, no such thing as reincarnation, and certainly no afterlife.

Consequences

One consequence of the conflict between religious beliefs and scientific theories is that we human beings do not agree upon what human beings are.

In the late 1960's we sent men to the moon and safely retrieved them. It is likely that most of the scientists and engineers who designed the rockets had different beliefs about the nature of the astronauts who visited the moon than did the astronauts themselves or the mostly Christian taxpayers who paid for the project.

The conflict between religion and science creates many unanswered questions, one of which is personal: Is man a God created being with an immortal soul, or is man just a biological machine, an enhanced version of the chimpanzee? Or cutting to the chase, is the experience of being conscious just a one time shot for each of us?

None of the Above

I once attended a packed auditorium debate between creationists and evolutionists in which the Ph.d. participants on each side explained the errors in the opposing side's position. During the brief question and answer session which followed I asked, “Since each team has proved the other to be wrong, have you not succeeded only in proving that Creationism and Darwinism are both incorrect?”

The debaters ignored this question. Perhaps they found it irrelevant and nonconstructive, but that was not the intent. After all, they had not bothered to show that Creationism and Darwinism were the only possible valid theories. They merely assumed it, and trusted that their audience shared this simplistic assumption.

I mention this because the creationists and evolutionists were correct about their audience except for one member, and since then, neither the audience nor its divergent member has changed opinions. Creationists still believe that their omnipotent God created man, Darwinists believe that life arose from mechanistic causes, and I am certain that their confusion will be resolved by an alternative theory.

Intelligent Design

An intellectual movement called “Intelligent Design” has begun to flourish, fertilized by the droppings of Creationism and led by scientists who have rejected Darwinism and related theories. My personal favorite is Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution.

Behe is a microbiologist with a knack for clarity. While Darwin's Black Box is not accessible to comic book readers, it will make perfect sense to those willing to take personal responsibility for their beliefs. His book is a sharp wooden stake driven squarely into the heart of Darwinism, mandatory reading for anyone who believes that any form of neo-Darwinism offers a scientific explanation for the development of life.

Behe effectively proves what careful thinkers have long known, that Darwinism is not science. Those who read Behe's book but remain Darwinists can no longer regard themselves as scientists; they are merely followers of a pseudo-scientific belief system. Those who believe in evolution but do not read (or cannot understand) Behe's books are the mental grandchildren of the Inquisition's Cardinals who did not need to look through Galileo's telescope because they knew in advance what they would not see.

Post-Behe Darwinists must hang their beliefs on faith alone, like the religionists they so admire.

A Flaw in the Ointment

Michael Behe does not stop with the demolition of Darwinism. He demonstrates that the irreducible complexity of microbiological structures can only be explained by Intelligent Design. But he stops there, offering no further elucidation. He does not discuss the nature or purpose of the Designer.

These omissions are to his credit. Other anti-Darwinist writers make the mistake of either proposing their own inadequate theories of evolution, or declaring the Intelligent Designer to be none other than the traditional God of Christianity— as if there was no more interesting alternative.

Behe's ideas cannot contribute to the resolution of the science and religion conflict while his Intelligent Designer remains undefined and unexplained. He appears to be well aware of this, but not of the preconceptual biases which preclude any understanding of the Designer's properties.

Perhaps to underscore the confusion over God concepts, in The Edge of Evolution Michael Behe quotes an alleged philosopher named Nick Bostrom who says,

The “agent” doing the designing need not be a theistic God… We can take “purposeful designer” in a very broad sense to refer to any being, principle, or mechanism external to our universe responsible for selecting its properties, or responsible for making it in some sense probable that our universe should be fine tuned for intelligent life.

This dreadfully incompetent statement shows why the study of philosophy has degenerated into, “Beer Drinking 101— How to Identify a Tavern,” for folks struggling to earn a mail order Ph.d. One might expect muddled thinking from someone who coins the redundant phrase, “theistic God,” and Dr. Bostrom delivers it expertly.

No, Nick— we cannot take “purposeful designer” to refer to any principle or mechanism because “principles” and “mechanisms” are neither purposeful, nor designers. What has your garage door opener designed recently?

The term “purposeful designer” implies an entity capable of creative thought. Behe correctly insists that intelligent design is the only rational explanation for biological complexity. Why he quotes someone who reintroduces the Darwinian notions of vague principles and nebulous mechanisms which Behe himself took such pains to refute is a mystery.

Bostrom's most egregious error (if he blows the dust off his dictionary, he'll find “egregious” a few words after “egoist“) is his spurious assertion that the designer must be external to our universe. Really? What insights does Bostrom have about the structure of the universe and the nature of its designer that enable him to declare where the designer cannot be located?

If you choose to believe that the Creator of the Universe exists in a place your mind is not allowed to explore, your knowledge about that Creator will be forever limited to whatever the ministers, mullahs, TV evangelists and ersatz philosophers make up for you.

Since it is impossible to find a thing in a place where we cannot look, why not seek the source of creation in a place where we might actually be able to find it? Our minds, senses, and instruments operate only within this matter and energy universe— therefore doesn't it make sense to seek the creator within the universe on the chance that He might have been lurking there all along?

The Intelligent Designer

Behe's declaration that he is “a pretty conventional Roman Catholic” will satisfy readers who already believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God. For them, the Creator remains unchanged. If questioned about the scientific validity of their beliefs, they can now point out their hardbound copy of Darwin's Black Box enshrined on a coffee table next to their Holy Bible.

But what of the many thoughtful individuals disenchanted with religion? Behe's arguments may be good enough to convince objective atheists that Intelligent Design is a genuinely scientific conclusion, but don't expect them to show up for Sunday Mass anytime soon.

Behe is well aware of the designer identification problem. In The Edge of Evolution he writes, “Like it or not, a raft of important distinctions intervene between a conclusion of design and identification of a designer.” But he does not even offer an inventory of the raft's cargo. Despite his awareness of the problem, Behe cannot resolve it. Nor should he.

By identifying a serious problem within a fundamental belief system and taking a public stand against that belief system, thus risking a comfortable career as an establishment scientist, Michael Behe may come to be regarded as a modern day Galileo. His work is done, leaving ours.

The Form of an Alternative

What if the universe came from neither the act of an almighty God nor the spontaneous explosion of a cosmic micropea?

What if there is a Creator born within and from the very substance from which He derived His Creation?

What if the physical universe is not the result of a solo performance? What if our universe is the result of a partnership dance on the floor of spacetime, a dynamic performance engaged by mind and energy in which each affects the form and style of the other? Such is our hypothesis.

Site Purpose

We will introduce a unique theory about the origin of the universe and the nature of man which defines the concept of a Creator in the context of classical physics. It explains the single property (not omnipotence) needed for creation.

While including intelligence in the creation picture solves some problems, it introduces others, the question of motivation prominent among them. The inability of religions to offer a credible reason for God's creation of humankind provided the impetus for these ideas, so it would be remiss to neglect that issue. Since determining the purposes of any intelligent entity is mainly guesswork, in the absence of divine revelation we offer a choice of possible answers to the why question.

Your reward for examining the ideas is an alternative explanation for the origin and nature of your own conscious mind, something which is neither created nor evolved.

Terminology Notes

The term, “Intelligent Designer,” is typically used as a generic euphemism for God. It is a poor choice of euphemism at that, and too awkward to use repeatedly. We will freely use the words “God” and “Creator” interchangeably with “Intelligent Designer,” and will also follow the convention of using capitalized male pronouns to refer to this entity.

This use of commonly understood terms is only a literary convenience and does not imply agreement with their accepted definitions. Religious people won't like our description of God, and atheists won't like the suggestion that such an entity even exists. Alas— it seems impossible to please everyone.

We've already implied that whatever your understanding about the cause and purpose behind the universe and your personal existence, the ideas presented here differ drastically from those which you have chosen to believe. It seems worth noting that they also differ from the ideas and theories which you have rejected.

The Creator defined here is not the God Whom atheists have justifiably declared nonexistent.

This theory is engineered, not inspired. It depends upon fundamental laws of physics, not upon revelation. It offers alternative solutions to some interesting problems, such as the accelerating expansion of the universe and the mechanisms of consciousness. (Well, okay— maybe those problems don't interest Oprah viewers or Pauly Shore fanclub members.) In the context of this simple theory, even the fossil record of biological evolution makes perfect sense.

If you are somehow not one of the vast multitude whose interest these claims are certain to pique, consider another incentive:

These ideas are about you— what kind of being you are and how you came to exist. They propose a purpose for your life and a smallish possibility for its post-demise continuance. If understood, this theory will make a profound difference in your life and the lives of people with whom you interact.

History of the Theory

The theory was devised nearly a half century ago to reconcile Catholicism and physics and has been basking in obscurity ever since. Its inventor continued writing worthless manuscripts and reading science journals, looking for ideas and information. One of each recently appeared: the idea came after reading an arcane book about the teachings of Hermes Trismegistus and the information was the discovery of dark energy. Together, they provided enough incentive to reengage this project.

Also, timing is important. With the centuries old conflict between science and religion coming to a revived but still sour ferment, the time for an alternative may have arrived. Else it may never arrive, and instead of exploring an alternative, people will argue about whose ideas are worse for another two millennia.

The Future of the Theory

This theory is provable by the standards of modern physics, and may someday be subjected to scientific verification. When proven or at least found interesting, this theory will formally affect physics, cosmology, the neurological sciences, psychology and biology.

Eventually this theory's value will trickle down to the psychological and medical sciences where it can do individuals some directly applied good. It has been successfully but informally tested at this level. Although the technology exists to verify core elements of the theory now, our belief systems will prevent this from happening for many years.

In the meantime, any reader who adopts the ideas will find that they are useful to every aspect of human life.

In years to come, the first human culture to understand this theory and fully accept its implications, however small its geographic base and populace, will rise to ascendancy and remain there.

About Us discusses the site origin and sponsorship, which is mostly irrelevant to the theory itself. It includes an opinion about bibles and other sacred books which may be of interest to those who have friends who believe in the relevance of revelation. It mentions the excellent bible upon which these ideas depend and explains why it is superior to traditional sacred books. Remaining pages will deliver the theory for your evaluation.

Copyright © 2009 The Church of Physical Theology, Ltd., all rights reserved. .