Intelligent Design supporter has me stumped. Help!

A friend of mine, a good guy really, supports the notion of Intelligent Design. No, he isn't a crazy fundi person just an average person who is "spiritual" but also someone who enjoys science like myself. We sometimes talk and debate between each other about this and that, with no hard feelings if we disagree on something.

Well, that happened not to long ago and I didn't know how to respond. It didn't start out as a conversation on evolution, but rather Super String Theory, M-Theory, Parallel Universes, Brian Greene's Book "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory" and his appearance on the Colbert Report.

...and that's where things kinda went awry. When we were talking about Parallel Universes and the implications of it he paused for a moment and then said something like, 'You know, if there are parallel universes out there in which everything that can happen did happen... isn't that kinda like Intelligent Design?'

I didn't understand what he meant right away, and he clarified by saying, 'Well, it would mean things aren't all that random as the theory of evolution would have us believe. That in this universe we evolved into this, but in other universes we may not have evolved at all or may have evolved into something else completely or took another path.'

I wasn't sure how to respond to that. He isn't one of those people who uses intelligent design as a front for creationism, he believes in the principles of evolution just that it was somehow 'guided along'.

...problem I have is that I don't know how to refute that, and I must admit I never thought I'd be stumped in regards to Intelligent Design. I ended up laughing and saying, "I guess you have a point." However, that isn't satisfying for me. I want to find a way to refute that logic, so can anyone help me poke a hole in it?

No, I didn't think so. Second, if you truly want to make an ID person stutter, refer them to Dr. Kenneth Miller's deconstruction of Michael Behe's "proof" of ID: the flagellum. It completely collapses the idea of "irreducible complexity".

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

"...the TTSS does not tell us how either it or the flagellum evolved. This is certainly true, although Aizawa has suggested that the TTSS may indeed be an evolutionary precursor of the flagellum (Aizawa 2001). Nonetheless, until we have produced a step-by-step account for the evolutionary derivation of the flagellum, one may indeed invoke the argument from ignorance for this and every other complex biochemical machine."

Claiming that it 'may indeed be an evolutionary precursor' is not the same as showing that it was an evolutionary precursor. A step-by-step account has not been produced, let alone shown to have actually occurred. Are they claiming that the flagellum evolved from the TTSS? If so, where is the evidence? Are not Darwinists invoking the argument from ignorance?

"In fact, it's to be expected that the opportunism of evolutionary processes would mix and match proteins to produce new and novel functions ..."

This appears to be a rather sudden way to form a new function.

How is it a fact that mixing and matching proteins would probably - by chance - result in a beneficial new function? This seems to be what he's claiming. What verified scientific study showed this?

(What If?) world. There is no firm ground to debate from. In (What If?) worlds all things are possible. Both of you are right and both of you are wrong.

Why not start with an easy question like; "Where is the Universe?"

180

It just creeps me out that an Intelligent Design person scored one on me.

...but what if parallel universes turn out to be true? What does that mean then?

That's all. If these universes exist and each one is the result of a slightly different nature, what is the evidence that ANY of them are guided by some entity toward a particular goal?

I like that line of thinking, falling back on "prove it". It's easy to do currently. "Prove there is a Creative Force, if you can prove it I will believe it." ...and of course it always relies on faith so it cannot be proven.

Although, I still don't like how the line or reasoning didn't give me a response to it. I really hate that, I just want to be right - have such strong evidence that it cannot be refuted by theoretical 'what ifs' or anything else.

A. "Right here."

(Just don't ask me where 'here' is...)

This one?
Oh, well, there it is then.
:rofl:

There is nothing concrete in a speculation that begins with 'If".

First off, the "many worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (to which I assume your friend is referring) is by no means widely accepted and is indeed highly problematic.

But even asuming it as a possibility, your friend still doesn't make any sense. Just because there are an infinity of universes out there where every possible fork in the space-time diagram of every object in existence is explored, how does that equate to anything like an intelligent exploration of possibilities. These "many worlds" don't reduce to an intelligent search of possible outcomes. They are the simultaneous instantiation of those multiple outcomes.

If there are infinite universes, then there it is no longer chance that explains us. It is, statistically, a sure thing. There is even less need for ID under your friend's scenario.

Maybe I should clarify what he believes 'Intelligent Design' is, exactly. He believes, simply put that there is a creative force behind all life. He doesn't hold to any particular belief or dogma, so he isn't so much bound by rules as a Christian person is - which makes it difficult on this subject as I don't believe in any such 'Creative Force'.

Anyway, it isn't difficult for him to expand upon the theory of parallel universes and simply say, 'There is a creative force that drives them all.' Or saying something like, 'It seems obvious that there has to be a Creator now, because he obviously planned for every obvious outcome by allowing the creation of multiple universes.' Or something along those lines.

It really opens up a can of worms that I'm not sure how to deal with.

That's really the annoying problem with this, because it's all from "What if" stand point. So really, we can "What if" ourselves until we are blue in the face, but really... I just want to be right and have no plausible argument to refute my facts, theoretical or otherwise.

I mean, what would be the point of guiding an infinite number of universes where no desired outcome was met?

Oooops....too much heat! Damn! No life on that world.
Oooops....the KT event misses by 24 hours! No rise of mammals.
Oooops....not enough gravity....no Earth at all!

Ad infinitum.....

Simply ask him how we would ascertain whether such a scenario is accidental or designed. He will have no answer. Then lay a little Occam's Razor on him and buy him a tasty beverage. :)

There's no need to suppose that there is another creative force behind life when the wonders of life are understood.
Furthermore, the static latches (a la Pirsig) that prevent dynamic advances from degenerating are a product of chemistry. The composition of DNA for example.

If I throw a teaspoon of paint at the wall and the 4000th time I get something that looks like the number 4, it's still random.

And if our developement is being guided, how do we know we aren't one of the "failures" just plodding along on our own while the "designer" concentrates on the successes?

It's just metaphysics.

events can appear random, even if directed.

fundies to get schools to reject teaching evolution and teach creationism in science, which it shouldn't ever do...

But I'm a progressive christian who believes there is a creator and there is also science and the two are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion they are mutually supportive. That is SUPPOSED to be the crux of an abstract concept of intelligent design, but as we all know, fundies are using that more rational approach to sneak in creationism after their foot's in the door. the intelligent design they're selling is thinly veiled antiscience.

bottom line, even though I believe in a creator, and science, I have absolutely no right to expect public schools to teach that belief to anyone.

He just describes himself as 'spiritual' and just 'feels that there is a higher power out there'. So 99.9% of the time Science and his beliefs work perfectly together and have no problem. It's just really evolution that is the stump.

He believes in the principles of evolution just not that it was completely random, unlike many Fundi's as you pointed out - who are using Intelligent Design as an attempt to sneak in creationism.

I enjoyed the debate, it just left me somewhat... unsettled. I like having all the facts laid out before me. Granted, even if there are other universes out there, and this theory is correct, it still doesn't prove the existence of a creator or a creative force... or whatever.

I am glad we had the debate, and it was actually a veiled attempt to find out if he was interested in it and to see if he had read the Elegant Universe as I was thinking about buying the DVD and Book for him for Christmas. *LOL!*

I personally think that the miracle of evolution is far more amazing than any Adam and Eve, and Intelligent Design is a good word for it, BUT how in the world can you discuss ID in a scientific way? It goes way past science.

I believe that when the theory of evolution is learned, really digested, that the next leap is the concept of intelligent design. Some never make that leap and that is fine. But that leap is a personal leap and should not be taught. It can't be taught because there is no evidence for it.

you engaged in a philosophical discussion with your friend, not a scientific one.

There is simply no scientific evidence that what causes species to evolve from one form to another is the plan of a supreme being. However, Darwin's theory is supported by myriad evidence and has yet to be proven (with physical evidence) to be incorrect.

Within any philosophical (ie bullshit) discussion, there are all kinds of tantilizing arguments to be made for ID. Not one of those arguments are arrived at using the scientific method, and for this alone the teaching of Intelligent Design does not belong in the science classroom. However, IMO it absolutely belongs in philo classes.

Discussing the meaning of existance against the meaningless of existance.

It would make for some wonderful bullshit sessions, but ultimately, what one gleans from those discussion would be meaningful only to oneself.

Adding to your point:

The debate in the original post illustrates why we do not prove things in the scientific method. Anything is possible. We could be the product of intelligent design, multiple universes, space aliens (traveling from an infinite number of alternate universes), ourselves in some sort of time loop paradox, or I'm the only thing in existence and all of y'all are part of my imagination. Because of this science is based on theories that come from testable hypotheses.

To use the scientific method, first you make an observation, then you form a hypothesis, then you test your hypothesis by trying to disprove it. You publish your data and other scientists test it. If enough test it and agree on the results, your hypothesis becomes an accepted theory. I.D., multiple universes, etc. are philosophical because they cannot be tested. Until someone comes up with a method for testing ID, then it cannot be considered science. Proofs are for mathematics and philosophy. Tests are for science.

In a simplistic form, the Theory of Evolution boils down to Nothing Succeeds like Success.

Randomness - the sense of genetic variation - is merely one of the engines that cause inheritable change that can lead to adaptation.

Could have or could not have occurred. I like the metaphor of throwing paint at a wall and interpreting the design, or if you would, the old infinite number of monkeys will eventually type out Shakespeare's sonnets.

What separates evolution and id is that evolution can be tested. The results occur time and time again. Id cannot be tested, so therefore can or not happen. But a whale suddenly appearing 10 miles above the Earth can also happen, although I for one would not place a bet on it.

1) the inability to accept the unknown
2) the need to anthropomorphize

It is true that it was once thought to be all driven by "chance mutations", but that was chucked overboard some time ago, it's much more complicated and interesting than that. But that doesn't mean you have to have some deus ex machina to run things either.

If he wants to believe in a deity let him, just don't confuse that with evolution or anything else based on observation. If you want to do that, then it's all about faith, so skip the pseudo-rational bullshit, you are just munging your faith by doing all that rationalizing anyway.

and of course more than mutations. It obeys the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore is influenced by the principles of uncertainty which are the core of quantum physics. See my post below.

Think about it. How can a selective process be random?

Evolution is not ONLY selection. To evolve means to change. Natural selection is the only process that cannot happen at random. But the 3 other processes are going to influence the selection and happen at random. That's why you cannot find a DESIGN in the result. If there was only selection you'll have an infinite variety of clones, living side by side. But dinosaurs wouldn't have evolved into birds.

Evolution :

1) Natural selection : not random because based on differential fitness
2) Genetic drift : random
3) Gene flow : can be at random (transfer of genes from population to population)
3) Mutation : random

I agree that the correct term is that evolution happens MOSTLY at random

Genetic drift is a contributing factor in biological evolution, in which traits which do not affect reproductive fitness change in a population over time. Whereas natural selection causes traits to become more prevalent when they contribute to fitness, or eliminates those which harm it, genetic drift is a somewhat random process which affects traits that are more neutral.

Genetic drift is a statistically stochastic process that arises from the role of random sampling in the production of offspring. The genes of each new generation are not a simple copy of the genes of the successful members of the previous one, but rather a sampling, which includes some statistical error. Drift is the cumulative effect over time of this sampling error on the allele frequencies in the population.

phenotype must still "work", hence is not random, but remains adapted, else is would be selected out.

The genome also has mechanisms the ensure that new combinations "work", random frobbing of the DNA sequences get repaired (usually), hence change at that level, by any of the mechanisms you point out, is not random either.

The genome itself is the result of long periods of evolution, and it is an integrated whole with higher level structures, not just a collection of genes dealt like a hand of cards.

The point is not that random genetic change cannot occur, but that it is almost always a botch when it does, and that effective change occurs along certain channels of possibility that are determined by the present structure.

It is true that evolution is not directed, but that is a different thing from saying that it is random.

sounds like a break into the laws of entropy

1) random genetic change DOES occur

all serious biologists agree that it is a random process. I can give you a link amongst one million.

http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Genetic_drift

besides it's the part of evolution that counteracts natural selection.
To say that it is "botched" "when" (it occurs all the time) is going against all the standards of evolutionary biology.

2) DNA repair have nothing to do with that. We are not talking about defect genes. It's the question of random effects of the DISTRIBUTION of VIABLE allele in a finite population.

It might be difficult to understand that a random process (within the frame of the laws of physics of course) can generate a complex organized structure. But it happens all the time in the universe from accretion of particules resulting from the condensation of a cloud from an exploding star into an intricate solar system, the rise of continents and from agitated water molecules into a hurricane. Or are the water molecules jumping around expecting to be "channeled" ?

People hate uncertainty. If you have asked an average American during the Kennedy years if it was likely that their country would be run 50 years later by a gibbering religious fanatic, former drug addict, condoning torture and driving America into illegal wars and otherwise ruining the country, they'd told you were nuts and that the "firewalls" within the American system would prevent that and that anyway the American people would never vote for such a guy. And to lose two wars ? never.

But it happened. The Bush "genes" were there. A serial of random economical and political factors made it possible. And they sure weren't God's hand or even less intelligent design.

It means that only certain avenues of change are viable, consistent with the present form. The appearance of a foot in the middle of your forehead won't help your reproductive fitness.

Random means that what comes next does not correlate with what exists now. That is patently false of evolution, where what comes next is a slight variation on what is now. That chance has a role in the process does not mean that the process is random, it means that it is in some part unpredictable, which is true. That what comes next must be something like what exists not does not mean that the process is directed, either. That would be something like ID: "We are the way we are because God made us evolve that way". That's not what I'm saying at all. It just means that the process has structure, and that what comes next can't be just anything you want.

what comes next is not wanted because it happens at random

there is noway to predict that the next "generation" of ladybugs will have 2, 3 or 24 dots, be red, black or yellow or even green maybe all colors together. Because it's the result of a random process.

Then natural selection - in a certain environment - will then decide if the pattern is viable. Deterrent or camouflage.

your definition of randomness is a new one : random mean only that the event lacks statistical correlation, not the "thing" in itself. When you pick a card at random in a deck of cards, it still a card (a machine does it better, because humans can be biased). Anyway since the cards have been thoroughly mixed, the result is at random.
If you pick the ace, you might win the game. If not you might have to sell your house and your wife will divorce you and you end up like a bum, commit crimes, are caught and end up in the electric chair. But it's still a CARD you picked. But the card had the "wrong" value. In another game it could have been the contrary.

Bombs that fall at random, killing or not, are still bombs.

Same with genes at meoisis : still genes, but not the same set. With maybe the propriety to code for a proteine that makes the individual resistant to malaria. This one will survive by natural selection. But the process of coding for the new proteine happened AT RANDOM, it was due to happen in time in a population of a certain size.

Of course what comes "next" is a "slight variation", but in due time, it's an enormous variation, a completely different species, with own properties. Birds are different from dinosaurs, even if they can be tracked back to them.

And if scientists study those phenomena on banana flies and bacterias, it's not because they are small, but it's because their rate of reproduction is enormous and changes happen within a few generations under a short period of time. And they will tell you the changes happen at random. Which means that some bacterias will "thrive" with an antibiotic, while the majority dies. And some will maybe even need penicillin to live. They are still bacterias. They didn't become fish. But one can kill, when the other dies.

That's a major difference. But there were no ways of predicting that the ones dyed with a blue color or a red color will turn into a resistent bacteria or not. Because the "inherent" or mutated genes of resistence were transmitted in a RANDOM WAY to some and not to others.

A random number is a number chosen as if by chance from some specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these numbers reproduces the underlying distribution. Almost always, such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there are no correlations between successive numbers.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RandomNumber.html

===

But, here is what I mean:

Some parts of the history of life seem to be pretty random. Take, for example, the meteorite that killed all the dinosaurs. However, selection is different. It means that somehow, some individuals succeeded in leaving more descendants than other individuals did. And, it means that they succeeded for some reason. Reasons are not random.

For example, imagine a hawk which chases other birds. It needs wings which are specialized for flying as fast as possible. Individuals are not identical, except when they are twins or clones. So, some hawks will be born with wings which are a little better, or a little worse, for the task at hand. If the ones with better wings have (on average) more grandchildren, then that is not random. It's a consequence.

---

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_random.html

If you don't choose to understand that, of course you don't have to.
Have a nice day.

"Scientists agree. That is why the Theory of Evolution contains something which is not random. Darwin said that there was natural selection. And today, Evolution contains other kinds of selection."

A PART of evolution is NOT RANDOM : natural selection

never said anything else.

But if you add a non-random part to a MOSTLY complex random process, it doesn't make the whole thing "non-random".


If you don't choose to understand that, of course you don't have to.

Have a nice day.

Natural Selection is what makes evolution happen. It isn't random. Genetic Drift: also not random. There may be random cyclicity about a mean, but there are selective pressures keeping the random population fluctuations within a small area. If drift is unidirectional, selection pressures keep it that way. All organisms exist on adaptive peaks. Sometimes these peaks move, sometimes they don't, but just because there is movement, that doesn't mean that any organism can exist in any random configuration. The unidirectional movement, and stochastic variation about a mean is held in place by selective pressures.

'Well, it would mean things aren't all that random as the theory of evolution would have us believe. That in this universe we evolved into this, but in other universes we may not have evolved at all or may have evolved into something else completely or took another path.'

Evolution doesn't really deal with geological-cosmological processes. It can be seen as a temporary exception to the princip of entropy, since it tends to organize matter instead of deorganizing it (at least until life dies and decays and goes back to basic entropy). So far this organisation happens at random, the same way that crystals grow, depending of surrounding factors. Then crystals are melted again into the magma due to continental drift. Doesn't matter if you wear them around your neck.

Saying that in other universes (if they exist) things might be different is a sophism and doesn't AUTOMATICALLY correlate to the events in this one. It's like saying if this planet was covered with water, we'll have gills instead of lungs. Or if we lived on Titan we'll breathe methane and fart oxygen.

Translating that basic assessment that if things were different, things would be different, doesn't leads to the conclusion that some "invisible hand" is manipulating reality for whatever godlike purpose. Or I'd like to have explained the leap between the first statement and the second... obviously a quantum leap...

Really, it is similar to yet completely different than the way the Fundi's approach it.

The Fundi's see 'God' as something that is constantly involved in our lives. He sees his version of a 'Creator' which he believes to be more of a 'force' than a sentient entity as not directly involving itself... but kinda you know... nudging things along. More like a part of the natural order of things to keep stuff in balance. At least that is how I understand it.

But it isn't like some invisible guy in the clouds waving his hands. We've discussed it some and his ideas of a 'creative force' is interesting. I don't necessarily buy it, but it works for him and is fun to discuss and talk about - if your into that sort of thing.

Anyway, the point is it isn't exactly a huge leap for him, after all from his point of view 'there is a creative force behind the universe and all that exists within it'... then why not also other universes?

The only logical argument that I can come up with, aside from you know... brushing it off by saying, 'well you know this is just a theory and can't be proven' (even though it could one day be proven to be true) is to say 'well prove there is a creative force behind the universe.' Naturally, that wins any argument because just like the concept of God the belief in a creative force requires a leap of faith and therefore cannot be proven. But that feels like a cheap and dirty trick and not something likely to win an argument.

there are two solutions :

1) give an absolute MATERIAL proof that the force exists.

2) elaborate a "flawful" theory that the only LOGICAL explanation to the actual world is an "invisible force". I mean a scientific theory, not a philosophical assumption. Something like "God = mc2".

What I know of nobody has so far come up with such a theory gaining "unanimous" scientific approval.

That's why you always go back to the level "I believe"...

It doesn't bother me. It can be so.

Besides you could perfectly explain parallell universes (and even travel into them) without mixing God into it. The one doesn't have AUTOMATICALLY to do with the other. If God made this universe he/she might have made one zillion or 3 or one. The amount doesn't change the fact that the creation of the universe can be God's act or not. Or an accident. Maybe God shows up tomorrow and says "sorry guys - I pushed the wrong button, do you know how to stop this mess ?" "BTW I never intended to create you, but since you are here..."

We cannot prove it.

It's not because something is very complicated that it is automatically the work of God. This has been discussed by philosophers through ages. Nobody has come to the UNIVERSAL conclusion that it is so.

May the force be with you

"May the force be with you."

That's what I think too when he explains it sometimes. I try and be respectful though, and although it sounds similar I don't think he thinks he is going to become a Jedi or something. (And if he does I believe he and I are going to have some issues that will ultimately end in him seeking some serious help. :P)

But, no... you are right I guess. I just like to have so much proof that I can counter any argument put toward me and he side swiped me with his suggestion. Which in a way I find invigorating and also somewhat unsettling at the same time.

I think I'm going to get him the book and DVD for Christmas, which was my original intent behind bringing it up to start with. I wanted to feel him out for a gift. LOL.

I should have just used my Dark Side powers instead. :P

then every time he hit a snag in his work he would just stop and pass it off as ID. There would be no need to continue and find a solution to the problem. I like Einsteins remark that he was trying to discover how God did something. There is a big difference in this thinking than throwing up your hands just because you are too dumb to figure something out. If you want to believe in God, why not give God credit for inventing evolution. After all, evolution is a remarkable intelligent design.

Random mutations are only one component of evolution. Selection, on the other hand (the "invisible hand" if you will - thank you, Robert Nozick) is anything but random. Quite simply, those variants that are not suited to successfully compete for limited resources are selected against. There is nothing random about that. And as for parallel universes, who knows? If they exist, it is a virtual certainty that there are differences in the evolution of the life forms that inhabit them, but not because of any preordained plan. Variants will arise naturally based on the mutation rate and the selective pressures acting on those populations. Because it is not possible to predict every selective pressure or to know with certainty how any species will adapt to such pressures, it is not possible to know all the answers or all the possibilities, and further, it doesn't matter! Science is not a static endeavor. It is not about knowing or having the definitive answer because many times, maybe most of the time, there isn't one. There are just most likely possibilities that work for a time until something changes. Then a new set of possibilities comes along offering strategies for survival based upon coping with the new conditions. And that's where the mystery is! Don't worry so much about being right. Look for the simplest explanations to explain hypotheses. For thermodynamic reasons, they are usually correct. Search openly, honestly and scientifically, and enjoy the adventure! That is what science and the intellectual endeavor in general are all about.

If we assume there are an infinite number of universes, where everything that can happen has in fact happened, then how did we get to our universe? Pure dumb luck.

Also, if there is an intelligence driving the whole thing, why go to the bother of creating so many universes, the vast majority of which have just as much matter and energy as ours, but are essentially static and dead? That's like saying there is an intelligence, but it's retarded.

no need to make your point complicated. I'd ask your friend this question - what is a scientific theory? He either knows or he doesn't. If he does, then he should also know Intelligent Design doesn't fit. If he doesn't, tell him this:

A scientific theory explains observations, experiments. It tests and confirms a general principle and helps to explain and predict natural phenomena using FACTS. A scientific theory must be based on careful and rational examination of the facts.

Intelligent Design has no facts to support it - a scientific theory for Intelligent Design cannot be formulated.

1) Intelligent Design is an hypothesis that certain biological structures are too complex or specialized to have evolved in a stepwise fashion, therefore a creator-being (god, aliens, whatever), must have designed and created the structures. This is problematic because it ignores the fact that this is an anti-scientific cop-out to laziness, and more importantly, the IDer ignore the fact that no such structures actually exist. ID, like evolution, at its core say nothing about the origin of the universe, or the existence of other universes.

2) EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM!!!!!!!!! Mutations are random, but the process of evolution, the application of selective pressures, and the process of natural selection are decidedly non-random. Plus, you're buddy is 100% wrong, the existence of all realities simultaneously actually makes a designer highly doubtful, to me anyway.

on absurd.

First of all, there is no evidence whatsoever that "everything that can happen did happen." It is pure speculation that this is the case, just as it is ridiculous to estimate - with no data whatsoever - that intelligent civilizations arise with some frequency wherever carbon based life exists, or - for that matter - that carbon based life occurs with some knowable frequency. (Obviously to know this last frequency, one would need to be able to observe the chemistry of a large subset of worlds, something that even in the age of space robots that operate within this planetary system, remains highly problematic and ambiguous. There is no known procedure for determining extrasolar planetary chemistry.)

All your friend has done is to repeat an old, very tired and silly, "this must be so, because I say so," argument with no data. No data is exactly what characterizes "intelligent design" in the first place.

Some people raise what is called the "weak anthropic principle" which is merely the argument that the universe exists as it is, simply because only a universe with this structure can support observers. There need be nothing at all "intelligent" about this. Such an outcome can be perfectly random, but whether or not it is so is unmeasurable in any sense. One can make assertions about parallel universes of any kind as long as there is no experimental data to which these assertions must fit. The minute there is data, there is a means for comparison. However the data is impossible to obtain, since the only universe we have observed is the one in which we live.

What your friend is telling you is that his speculation is better than other speculations because he regards himself as "intelligent."

He's high, basically.

Calling this religious design "intelligent" is rather like calling the stuff asserted before the Iraq war as "intelligence." It is very poor use of language, and that's all.

An infinite number of universes in which every possibility is covered? That's about as random as it gets.