The intelligent design hypothesis: The Planet Earth on which we live, the solar system and our position in it, the sequence of events that fashioned the earth's interior, the earth?s mantle, the lithosphere, our biosphere, all life forms, and our bodies are all the products of specific design, or the intelligent predictable utilization of natural law; all fashioned into a system of ecostasis based on the orderly integration, utilization and freely variable, dynamic interaction of the basic laws of nature. The entire integrated system is understood to function as a direct consequence of, and in conformity with, the laws of probability and statistical wave/particle interaction as a result of intentional intelligent design. This hypothesis stands in direct contrast to the Darwinian concept of spontaneous, accidental self?organization from inorganic material and subsequent accidental, non-goal-directed sequential change.

The hypothesis explains: the chicken and egg relationship between DNA, RNA, and protein. It explains the sudden appearance of multiple, fully developed varieties of life as a part of the Cambrian explosion. It explains the perfect integration between form and function in all living organisms. It explains the inability of mankind to convert one organism into another. It explains why mankind has not been able to produce life, de novo, from inorganic material. It explains why mankind has not been able to produce functional enzymatic or structural proteins under the normal conditions that currently exist, or have existed in or on the planet Earth.

The hypothesis predicts that any and all organisms will have their forms perfectly matched to their function. The hypothesis predicts that the integration of form and function in any and all organisms will demonstrate the best possible solution to the parameters surrounding the integration of form and function of any and all life forms and the conditions under which they live. If there are solutions that are of no greater than equal complexity, with equal potential, and equal ease of production and maintenance, any and all such solutions will be manifested in various organisms. The hypothesis predicts that mankind will never be able to transmute one form of life into another under the naturally occurring conditions that currently exist on the earth, or have ever existed in the biosphere of the planet Earth.

The hypothesis can be proven by continual, repeated, failed attempts designed to produce chance, non-goal directed sequential development of living organisms (macroevolution). The hypothesis can be proven by continually searching for new species that fail to perfectly integrate form with function. The hypothesis can be proven by continually searching for, and failing to find organisms that do not demonstrate perfect integration of their form and function as the best possible solution to the conditions under which the organisms in question live. The hypothesis can be proven by failing to produce life from inorganic material alone and / or failing to transmute an organism of lesser complexity into an organism of greater complexity, in vivo.

The hypothesis can be falsified by converting one organism/species into another, producing a functional cell membrane from inorganic material, producing a living organism from inorganic material, or producing DNA RNA and functional protein, all in the same reaction chamber; utilizing the normative conditions that exist, or have existed, on the surface of the planet, the ocean shores, the ocean depths, or at a reasonable depth into the lithosphere. The hypothesis can also be falsified by producing a functional cell membrane or native protein from inorganic, abiotic substrate, within the limits allowed by naturally occurring conditions, in vitro.

Mutually Exclusive Propositions: Until evolutionists can either prove macroevolution or produce falsification of the intelligent design hypothesis, design of the species must remain the default hypothesis. Every failed attempt to produce a cell membrane, native protein, or a living cell from inorganic materials by chance, falsifies evolution and proves intelligent design as the causation of life. There is no alternative. Wherever evolution fails as an explanation for the origin of life, or life's diversity, evolution is proven incorrect; and intelligent design is, therefore, proven correct.

Errancy regarding the intelligent design hypothesis, and the origin of intelligent design: Who the designer or designers are, or might have been, are not questions for science. They are philosophical questions left for philosophers, not scientists. The only question that science must answer is: which is the more correct explanation for the origin of life, and the diversity of life, as life exists on the planet Earth, accidental origin and evolution, or intelligent design?

The intelligent design hypothesis predicts that there is a purpose for everything. Thus, intelligent design demands that science determine why so many types of organisms are required to maintain ecostasis; and why death is an important part of life. Death is easily understandable. If death were not present the resources of the earth would be overcome within a relatively few generations by what ever organism happen to be the most virulent at the time.

As another example, the combinations of various types of predators, in combination with various types of scavengers that are capable of locating carrion by odor or site can degrade nonfunctional or dead bio-mass to a certain point. When these organisms are finished, organisms such as maggots, fungi, bacteria, etc. began their action. When all is finished the only thing that remains is a skeleton; which also degrades over time.

If this were not true infirm organisms would live longer than they should, consume more natural resources than they should, and pileup on the earth as detritus. Even bacteria have organisms which keep them under control, i.e. phage viruses.

Thus, we see the value of thinking in terms of intelligent design. We think in terms of systems; and the part that each individual link in the system plays with regard to the overall whole. On the other hand, if we think in terms of evolution, we don't see the overall systems, or the part that each individual link plays with regard to the system as a whole. Instead, we think entirely in terms of chance origin, and chance outcome.