I propose that it is in fact possible to test the hypothesis of
intelligent design, in a falsifiable manner, when it is suggested as
an explanation for a given phenomenon.  It happens all the time in
science.  Forensic science and the scientific search for
extraterrestrial intelligence are examples that are both based on the
idea that the workings of intelligence, not just human intelligence,
can be detected in a rational scientific way.

For example, let's say that I walk by a house with a broken window in
the morning and then when I walk by that house again in the afternoon
I notice that the window is fixed.  What is the most rational
assumption I can make to explain how the window got fixed?
Intuitively we all know by experience that the only rational
assumption once can make is to implore the workings of an intelligent
mind - most likely a human mind in this case.  But why is this?  
Imagine now that I walk by this same house the next day and I see that
the fixed window is broken again.  Is it as easy to assume a mindful
process this time as a cause for the broken window?  No, it isn't.
But why isn't an automatic assumption of deliberate, intelligent cause
an automatic default as it was when we saw the broken window get
fixed?  Because, we all know by experience that mindless processes are
actually quite capably of breaking a window.  In fact, it happens
fairly often.

Strangely enough, while mindless processes can break windows fairly
easily, they never fix them - ever.  Of course, intelligent processes
can do both.  The window could have been broken either by a mindless
or deliberately designed process.  So, it is harder to know the cause
of a broken window that it is to know the cause of a fixed window.
This is *not* because we know that humans are capable of fixing
windows.  This is not enough.  Humans are also capable of breaking
windows and yet we do not automatically assume an intelligent cause
just because we know that a human is in fact capable of such an act.
No, we must have more knowledge than this before we can adequately
assume and intelligent cause for a given phenomenon.  We must also
have an understanding of the potential and limits of what mindless
processes can do.

If I find an amorphous rock in lying on the ground, I might quickly
assume that a mindless process formed this amorphous rock.  However,
it is also possible for a human or some other intelligence to have
made this amorphous rock since humans are in fact capable of making
and have in fact made amorphous rocks before.  Again, a mindful
process can never be absolutely ruled out when we view a natural
mindless phenomenon. However, a mindless process can be absolutely
ruled out, beyond any reasonable doubt, when we see certain phenomena
that go beyond what mindless processes have ever done or will ever do
- even given a practical eternity of time.

So, when one understands the potential and limits of mindless
processes in this universe to at least some degree of predictable
value, one can reasonably hypothesis an intelligent process when one
recognizes that a given phenomenon has gone beyond what mindless
processes are capable of.

The question now is, do living things exhibit qualities of structure
or function that go beyond what all known mindless processes are
capable of?  If they do, then an intelligent cause is the only
reasonable option to consider.  However, if a mindless process can be
found that explains what we see in living things with a fair degree of
predictive value, an intelligent cause cannot be adequately proposed
in a scientifically significant manner.

Obviously, I believe that no mindless process can explain much of what
we see in living things.  Therefore, the only rational option I have
left is to assume an intelligent origin for living things.  But how,
exactly, is my position testable in falsifiable way?  The answer is
very simple actually.  If someone can show a mindless process creating
the functional mechanisms that exist in various life forms, my
position will be falsified.  Of course, you will come back and say
that there are many structures and functions in living things that can
and have been evolved with mindless processes in laboratory in real
time.  Of course, I would agree with you.  Ah ha!  My position has
obviously been falsified - hasn't it?  Not so fast.

There are many aspects of designed objects and systems that can also
be achieved by mindless process and yet the object or system as a
whole cannot be produced by any mindless process.  For example,
mindless processes can produce glass, but they cannot fix a glass
window.  Mindless processes can produce facets on a diamond, but they
cannot make the symmetry of a cut diamond.  Likewise, mindless
processes have been known to produce certain amino acids and other
building blocks that are used to make living things.  But this does
not necessarily mean that mindless processes are therefore equally
capable of putting these building blocks together to form the higher
and higher levels of complexity found in living things.

Obviously mindless processes, such as random mutation and natural
selection, can give rise to many new structures and even novel
beneficial functions in living things.  But, what is especially
interesting about these mindless creations is that they are all found
at the lowest levels of functional complexity - as compared to the
levels of functional complexity actually found in all living things.
Absolutely none of the higher levels of functional complexity found in
living things have been shown to evolve via mindless processes alone -
period.  This observation is repeatably testable and carries a very
high predictive value.  The limits and relative time required to
mindlessly evolve beyond a particular level of functional complexity
can be fairly accurately determined with extraordinary predictive
value.  So where, exactly, would I propose placing these limits?

Before I discuss my own theorized limits to what evolution can do, I
would like to ask what falsifiable prediction that evolutionists make
concerning the genetic mechanism of evolution?  The mechanism of
random mutation and natural selection is supposed to be the driving
force behind the evolution of every novel function at all levels of
functional complexity that we see in living things.  What testable
prediction supports such a mechanism as the driving force for
evolution?  Can you or anyone else that you know of make a falsifiable
prediction that proposes what, exactly, such a mechanism can create in
the future and when, if ever, such a creation may be expected to be
realized?  No one has seemed able to put themselves out on the line in
regards to such a falsifiable prediction.  In answer to this challenge
I have received many historically assumed correlations, but no
futuristic prediction concerning the mechanism of evolution.  It seems
to me then that evolutionists like to chide IDists and creationists
about moving their goalposts, while evolutionists themselves have no
goalposts to begin with.  Your theory concerning the very mechanism of
evolution is simply not testable in a falsifiable way, or at least I
have yet to hear of any such falsifiable position.  On the other hand,
my position is very prone to falsification with the use of real time
experiments.

Consider that very simple functions, such as de novo antibiotic
resistance and other such functions, that are based on the
interference with or destruction of a pre-established function or
interaction, can be evolved by just about any life form in short order
and with a relatively small population.  However, not all life forms
or even large colonies of certain life forms can evolve certain
functions that are based only on relatively short single proteins.
They just don't seem to have what it takes to evolve such functions
given what they have.  Experimental biologists, such as Barry Hall,
have described such unfortunate life forms as having, "limited
evolutionary potential".  However, there are certain other fairly rare
life forms that have evolved various single protein functions - almost
always with the use of one or two point mutations to a pre-existing
genetic sequence (perhaps as high as 2 to 6 neutral point mutations
for the chloroquine resistance function in the malaria parasite).

Already we are starting to see the limits of what mindless processes
can do as we climb up just a short distance on the ladder of
functional complexity.  What is really interesting, however, is that
beyond the level of single protein functions, or series of single
protein functions, to the level of multi-protein functions, there
simply are no examples of evolution at all - period.  Of course, I
will be asked what I mean by a multi-protein function since many
evolutionists in this forum seem to get confused over what a
multi-protein function is.  So, I will define it again here.  A
multi-protein function is a where multiple proteins are require to
work together at the same time in a specific orientation with the
other protein parts.  Examples of such levels of multi-protein
functional complexity can be found in bacterial motility systems and
the like.

But why do mindless processes stall out so quickly as we climb the
ladder of interactive functional complexity?  I propose that neutral
gaps are the problem.  As we climb up the ladder of complexity, the
junk sequences expand at an exponential rate as compared to beneficial
sequences at the same level.  What happens is that the ratio of
beneficial sequences in sequence space, as compared to the total
number of potential sequences, becomes so miniscule that a gulf
develops between these potentially beneficial genetic sequences.  This
gulf quickly grows so wide that mindless processes simply cannot find
their way through all the junk sequences in a reasonable amount of
time.  The reason that natural selection cannot save the day here is
that natural selection can only select between different sequences in
sequence space that are also different in function.  As it turns out,
the gulf between beneficial functions is filled with many different
non-functional sequences.  Nature is simply powerless to tell the
difference between these different non-functional sequences since they
all have the same non-functional function.  All that is left for
mindless evolutionary processes to do then it to walk blindly and
randomly through these sequences in the hopes of stumbling, by sheer
luck, upon the very rare beneficial sequence that can be recognized by
nature.  At higher levels of functional complexity, the rarity of
beneficial sequences in the all the junk sequences becomes so great
that the random walk required would simply take a practical eternity
before success would be realized - even for a very large steady state
population of individuals.

For example, consider that the total sequence space of proteins 10aa
in length is 10,240,000,000,000 - just over 10 trillion potential 10aa
proteins.  The question now is, "How many of these 10 trillion
potential proteins would be beneficial to a given organism?"
Certainly not all of them, but perhaps a fairly large ratio would be
beneficial.  Let's say that the ratio is 1 in a million beneficial vs.
junk sequences.  If this were the case, an average colony of 10
billion bacteria would quickly evolve a large number of bacteria to
cover the distance between what they started with (as a clonal
population) and at least one and then quickly all of the beneficial
sequences in this sequence space (one million junk sequences per
beneficial sequence).  With 10 billion bacteria undergoing random walk
and a chance of success in only 1 million random walk steps, success
would be realized for this colony in just a handful of generations on
average.  But, what happens when the level of functional complexity
requires more than 10aa?  What happens for levels of functions that
require, say, 100aa?  The total sequence space now is 10e130 potential
proteins.  The question now is, "What is the ratio of beneficial vs.
non-beneficial sequences?"  Is it still 1 in a million?  Some have
suggested that the total number of beneficial sequences at such a
level of complexity, for a particular life form, would be less than
10e100.  If true, this creates a ratio of less than 1 in 10e30 (1 in
one million trillion trillion).  This is a lot less than the ratio of
1 in a million that we had for the 10aa level of function.  And, it
only seems to get worse.  At the level of 500aa, the sequence space
grows exponentially to over 10e650 while the total number of
beneficial sequences still seems to hover at less than 10e100.  The
ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial is now truly miniscule.  The
average random walk to success, even for a large population to have
even one individual achieve success, is quite difficult and relatively
rare in real life experiments.  Note also that this is a very low
level of complexity when compared to the much higher levels of
complexity found in all living things.  When we start talking
multi-protein functions, where several thousand amino acids are
required, the neutral ocean of non-beneficial sequences becomes truly
enormous (practically infinite) and evolution just can't get across to
any new beneficial function in any life form or population - even in
zillions of years of time.

And yet, we do have such multi-protein functions and even far higher
levels of functional complexity in all living things.  How are these
very high levels of functional complexity to be explained if all known
mindless processes stall out on the lowest rungs of the ladder?

Sean
www.naturalselection.0catch.com