DNA and Design

So now on to the second criterion that the peanut gallery has proposed to shoot down the conclusion that DNA was designed: it doesn't show any sign of fabrication. This depends on the "recognizable fabrication criterion" which I defined last time around as follows:

(2) RFC: evidence in the object of fabrication (e.g. tool marks)

So goes the reasoning: since DNA lacks evidence of fabrication (no tool marks or other signs of manipulation), it lacks this standard hallmarks of design and thus we should not conclude that it was designed.

So what can be said for this criterion? Let's begin by seeking maximal clarity on the meaning of the verb "to fabricate". For this lowly task, dictionary.com will do fine: "to make by assembling parts or sections." That works fine for a car, but not so well for an arrowhead or sculpture.

So I'll try another, broader definition from the same public access source: "to make by art or skill and labor".

Ahh, that's better. So fabrication is evinced whenever something shows evidence of having been made by art or skill.

And what is the sign of art and skill? Here's one: multiple parts working together for a discernable purpose.

Wait, something's moving out in the stillness....

Lo, is that William Dembski's design filter emerging out of the mists? Well now I do believe it is! Contingency, complexity and specification thus emerge as the most plausible design filter.

To sum up, it seems to me that RFC collapses into Demski's design filter. And since DNA bears the hallmarks of contingency (all deterministic law-like articulations of the origin of DNA have failed), complexity and specification in excelsis, it is most reasonable to infer that it was indeed designed.

Strike up the band and drop the confetti! I win again!!