Design: The debate continues

The Facts: The human genome is a vast store of biological information encoded in a four letter alphabet. Like staggeringly complex assembly instructions for an incredibly sophisticated machine, DNA provides the blueprint of life, the assembly instructions for you and I.

The Design Theorist's Question: We know what put you and I together. (It begins with the birds and bees. Next, that vast store of biological information in a complex interplay with environmental factors takes over.) But where do the assembly instructions ultimately come from? How did this vast store of biological information arrive on the scene to begin with? What is the most reasonable conclusion for its origin?

The Design Theorist's Observation: Since DNA is extraordinarily complex information, if we are seeking an explanation for its origin, it makes sense to look at the origin for other comparably complex stores of information.

The Atheist's Caution: We should not draw comparisons between DNA and a vast encyclopedia or the blueprints of the Pentagon. The reason is that we know encyclopedias and buildings are the products of intelligence. But we don't know that about DNA.

The Design Theorist's Reply: Fine. Encyclopedias and buildings are not natural while DNA is natural. But the only way that point would be relevant is if we assume that natural processes exclude design. 

The Atheist's Rejoinder: Exactly right. We must assume this as a matter of methodological naturalism. We cannot bring design into natural explanation.

The Design Theorist's Second Reply: But who stipulates that? Science is an a posteriori enquiry into the nature of the natural world. It is tentendious to define that enquiry in terms of "find non-designed explanations at all cost". Rather, that enquiry should be understood as "find the best explanation in every particular circumstance, whether that be chance, necessity, and/or design." As a result the attempt to exclude design from "natural" structures and processes by definition begs the question. If the evidence fits, it fits. And since design is the only cause we know in the world that can produce information such as we find in the human genome, we ought to infer it is a product of design. Design through natural processes.

The Atheist's Conclusion: But inferring design is a science stopper. It says God did it! End of story.

The Design Theorist's Conclusion: First, the conclusion of design is provisional, as are all things in science. To conclude that DNA looks designed need not stop further enquiry to attempts to understand it through chance and necessity. But for now design is the most reasonable conclusion. Second, if DNA is designed, wouldn't you want to know it?