A Comparison of the GID Higher-Intelligence Interpretation and the RID Unidentified Intelligence.
The Basic Theological Interpretation is Included.

Robert A. Herrmann Ph. D.
DEC 2009. Revised 6 JUN 2018.

Higher ID simply characterized with the ID popularized by the Discovery Institute (DI).

I note that as of the date of this article, I have never read or heard any account that members of the Discovery Institute (DI) or its many associated groups have ever mentioned General Intelligent Design (GID). Could this be due to the fact that GID is so much more powerful than their restricted ID (RID) and RID only characterizes ID for comparatively few entities? Could it be that GID is fully scientific in character while RID has been designated by a Federal Court and others as "pseudo-science" - a fact that has been widely disseminate? The atheistic scientific community has successfully applied this court case to all forms of ID, although it is false to classify GID in this manner. Whatever the reason may be the DI has not mentioned GID, I am thankful they have not done so. I do not want DI to associate itself in any manner with GID.

Maybe members of the DI community trust Dembski's use of statistical decision theory more than pure mathematics. I note that statistical decision theory has axiomatic controversies associated with it and is not considered, by some, as well-funded. However, there are probably vastly more individuals with an in-depth knowledge of statistical decision theory than even the most basic aspects of nonstandard analysis. Importantly, individuals need not know nonstandard analysis if they trust the Bible as a linguistic model for God's creationary behavior. This article is concern with the linguistic aspects of scientific discourse. (I note that GID concepts were presented in 1979 and since have been refined.) If one presents the GID notion of a higher-intelligence to a general audience, can it be successfully presented without any technical terms? If this is so, then maybe there is no actual reason not to present it unless, of course, it contradicts the presenter's philosophic stance.

What is usually done, if an interpretation is presented in common terms, is to present references where the interpreted results appear. This is done at the end of this article for the GID-model. The references for RID appear in this link, which can be consulted after this brief summary.

For common (non-mathematical) understanding, one needs to have some idea as to what the term "infinite" means when compared to human thought and languages. Although it is not the very best way to state it, a dictionary definition is sufficient. Something most first have a property that fits the definition. Assuming for the moment that it does, then one definition for the "ordinary infinite" is that the defined property is "unlimited." Another definition is similar and is stated in the terms of "bounds." In this case, the "ordinary infinite" means that the property is "unbounded."

When it comes to God, C. S. Lewis states and many, many others agree that "what is behind the universe is more like a mind than any thing else we know." The Bible linguistically characterizes the processes God uses to create and sustain His creation. When I think, I do so mostly using a common language. I think in words. If appropriate, I switch to images. But, mostly, it is in words. Thus, it is appropriate to measure, at least partially, God's intelligence relative to thought and languages, where these two notions are compared with those of His created. (The letter at the end of each of the following indicates the reference at the end of this article.) No active member of the DI has presented any approach that scientifically predicts the following GID higher-intelligence attributes.

(1) Human beings can use only a finite set of hypotheses to make a step-by-step (mental) deduction. The GID higher-intelligence can use a finite or an infinite set of hypotheses to make a deduction. (a)

(2) To make a deduction, human beings can only perform finitely many steps. The GID higher-intelligence can make a deduction using finitely many as well as infinitely many steps over a finite time period. (a)

(3) The language L that human beings construct is based upon a finite set of symbols, although special symbols, like . . . , may be used to indicate the notion of an "infinite" set of numbers. The actual number of symbols is finite. It contains meaningful finite combinations of these that yield words and phrases. The language *L that the GID higher-intelligence uses is conceptually based upon an infinite set of "symbols." It contains all the words and phrases that have meaning for human beings and these have the same meanings for GID higher-intelligence. But, *L contains words or phrases that have meaning for the GID higher-intelligence and no meaning for human beings while they are in their present physical state. GID higher intelligent designs employ members of *L. These lead to rational descriptions for every physical-system and every alteration in such systems as a universe develops. Further, additional physical-like entities are also described.(b)

(4) Due to the speed by which the human brain functions, there is a lower positive bound for the time it takes human beings to deduce one conclusion from a finite set of hypotheses. The GID higher-intelligence can deduce from a finite or infinite set of hypotheses finitely or infinitely many conclusions during "any" positive time interval. (c)

(5) From a standpoint of other linguistic notions, a human being can ask questions that can be answered by the GID higher-intelligence, but it requires the GID higher-intelligence to use portions of its language that have, at present, no human meaning. (d)

Although more linguistic comparisons can be made, these five comparisons are sufficient to indicate how the linguistic attributes of the GID higher-intelligence compare to those of biological entities. These GID higher-intelligence statements seem to model, within the given context, such statements, as "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." That His "knowledge is . . . too lofty for me to attain. . . ." "How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them." ". . . for God is greater than man." "His understanding has no limit." "For His invisible attributes are decried from the creation of the world being apprehended by His achievements . . . ." [Such mental attributes are invisible.] "O, the depth of the riches and the wisdom and knowledge of God!" And many more that can be applied to this context.

The Discovery Institute ID simplified and how individuals tend to apply this idea.

The Discovery Institute and associated groups mostly use the Dembski defined notation of intelligent design (RID). This definition has the following properties.

(1) A pattern or a collection of patterns must have a specific purpose. Of course, this purpose uses human modes of intelligence to describe.

(2) Statistical analysis is then applied in an attempt to determine the probability that "known" physical processes could produce the pattern or collection of patterns.

(3) If the probability is less than or equal to a specific value, then the pattern or collection of patterns is defined as being intelligently designed. (This is what the DI means by "complexity.")

(4) The notion of irreducible complexity is a subcategory for this form of ID.

(5) From (2), the ID results are provisional.

(6) The entity that has "designed" the pattern or collection of patterns is not identified and the design is only indirect evidence for its provisional existence. It can be an object within or exterior to a physical universe.

(7) Such patterns are also indirect evidence for GID design by a higher-intelligence, as are all the describable physical processes.

Unfortunately, unless GID is employed, a describable purpose is not a signature that a pattern or collection of patters is intelligently designed since such a design most often comes about via known physical processes. (These include statistical models.) Many articles and books have been written that describe, from an esthetic viewpoint, the wondrous designs that appear within the physical universe. Also, they stress the purpose notion. These are certainly worthwhile endeavors, but they mostly do not indicate intelligent design using the RID notion. Of course, the do satisfy the GID requirements.

Atheists and evolutionists frequently note that RID is provisional in character. This is enhanced by the claim that it is not science as they define the notion. They also state that for the irreducible complexity notion such patterns are, for them, not "intelligently" designed. They claim that human intelligence could design a "better" pattern by including a significant amount of redundancy. Although every physical entity that exists and the behavior of each physical-system is indirect evidence for the existence of a GID higher-intelligence, atheists reject this fact by simply rejecting the model via personal choice. They do accept other models for physical behavior based upon the assumption that hypothesized entities and physical behavior exist although the entities and behavior cannot be observed in any manner and need not appear in the initial or final conditions of an experiment. For example, QED and many aspects of quantum mechanics.

GID, which applies to every physical entity, has a vast amount of indirect evidence for its defined notion of intelligent agency. Hence, this is additional verification for the scientific rationality of this concept. Indeed, via interpretation, this also verifies the rationality of the Biblically describe creationary scenario. Relative to the GGU-model, a theological interpretation states that (A) a higher-intelligence H, which has attributes of the Biblical God, designs the entire GGU-model. (B) When the GGU-model operators are applied, they each have a signature that implies that the operator is intelligently designed and intelligently applied by H. (C) Necessary (A) and (B) imply that all the physical patterns produce are H intelligently designed.

The unification U for all physical laws and accepted physical theories corresponds to a describable logic-system that can be applied via describable human mental processes. Hence, this direct evidence for design is at the human level of intelligent design. However, U is a restriction of *U and a corresponding higher-intelligence logic-system. Thus, it is indirect evidence for design by a higher-intelligence. But, RID, which applies to comparatively few entities, only provisionally yields indirect evidence for the existence of an unidentified designer. If it is a fact, as RID claims, that no physical laws have lead to the presented RID described patterns, then the patterns are still the result of the basic underlying universe creating processes applied by H and described by the GID-model. I often wonder why any Christian would choose RID over GID.


(a) This an interpretation using the notion of informal *-transfer of the basic logic-system algorithm discussed in "The two meanings for modern intelligent design," Journal of Creation 23(1) (2009) p. 66. These are further discussed in Hyperfinite and Standards Unifications for Physics Theories," International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 28(2) (2001):93-102, p. 94. Improvements can be found in General Logic-Systems that Determine Significant Collections of Consequence Operators p. 2-4. The portions of this algorithm are easily represented by simply mathematical functions and then interpreted in the nonstandard model. This paper contains Theorem 2.2 which is the second part of the Best Possible Unification for Any Collection of Physical Theories.

(b) For the language, see The Theory of Ultralogics. This book is found at raherrmann.com or is composed of the two files http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9903081 and http://arxiv.org/abs/math.9903082. The book is also available in three parts at http://vixra.org/abs/1606.0160, http://vixra.org/abs/1606.0159, http://vixra.org/abs/1606.0158 In particular, ultrawords would need to have such symbols. Theorems such as 9.3.1, and 10.1.1 also yield this conclusion from the "cardinality" viewpoint.

(c) Consider the definition of the refined development paradigm defined on pages 2 - 5 of http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0605120. A particular paradigm can correspond to any standard time interval of any selected positive length. At the right-hand end point "b" of any of these intervals there is a collection of nonstandard primitive moments in time to the left. Let "a" be the left-hand end point. These nonstandard primitive moments are between a and b. The portions of the developmental paradigm (event sequence) that corresponds to these moments can be composed of various repeated standards members of the common language L or they can be compose of infinitely many other members of the infinite GID higher-intelligence language *L that are not members of L. As defined in General Logic-Systems and Finite Consequence Operators. Logica Universalis 1(2006):201-208, the GID higher-intelligence logic-system that corresponds to the GGU-model identity operator identity *I is a trivial example. This definition is basically defined on the finite subsets of the language L. But, when the definition is used the general logic-system is empty. The GID higher-intelligence's *logic-system applies only to certain subsets of *L. It applies to each finite subset of the events between a and b. It also applies to the certain infinite subsets between a and b called hyperfinite. No matter what general logic-system one uses, it always deduces the hypotheses. Hence, *I deduces from a finite set of hypotheses a finite set and from the appropriate infinite set of hypotheses an infinite set.

The recently completed GGU-model produces the complete GID-model interpretation. This completion is discussed in The GGU-model and GID-model Processes . . . and in references [1d] and [6] mentioned in that article. (Note: nothing in this section restricts God only to these forms of deduction.)

(d) This is obtained by an application of Theorem 8.5 in "Introduction to Nonstandard Analysis," Hurd, A. E. and P. A. Loeb, Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, (1986), p. 107.

Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. In you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.