Christian apologist (and former atheist) “Jim” Warner Wallace knows quite a lot about design, having earned a bachelor’s degree in design from California State University and a master’s degree in architecture from UCLA. Wallace also worked as a homicide detective for many years, in a job where he had to be able to distinguish deaths that were intentional from deaths that were not. Wallace writes well, and his Cold Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (David C. Cook, 2013) is an apologetic masterpiece. So naturally, when I came across a post over at Evolution News and Views, featuring his views on Intelligent Design, I was very interested to hear what he had to say.
In his interview with Center for Science & Culture research coordinator Brian Miller, “Jim” Warner Wallace listed what he referred to as eight attributes of design. Wallace emphasized that a strong case could be made for saying that an object was designed, even on the basis of its possessing only a few of these attributes, but that when taken together, they constitute a case for design which is certain beyond all reasonable doubt. The cumulative nature of the case is what makes it so strong.
Without further ado, here are Wallace’s eight attributes of design:
1. Could random processes (i.e. chance alone) produce this object?
2. Does it resemble something that you know is designed?
3. Does it have a level of sophistication & intricacy best explained by design?
4. Is it informationally dependent – that is, does it require information to get it done?
5. Is there evidence of goal-direction?
6. Can natural law get it done?
7. Is there any evidence of irreducible complexity?
8. Is there evidence of decision, or choices, that were made along the way, that can’t be explained by chemistry and physics?
I’d like to offer my own brief comments on Wallace’s eight attributes:
1. Could random processes (i.e. chance alone) produce this object?
By itself, this attribute doesn’t yield the inference that an object was designed. It needs to be combined with attribute 6, which rules out natural law as an explanation for the object. But even if 1 and 6 are both true, it still doesn’t follow that law and chance working together could not produce an intricate object which neither of them could generate alone.
2. Does it resemble something that you know is designed?
Resemblance to a designed object does not justify the inference to design. Wallace’s attribute trades on an unfortunate ambiguity here, confusing (a) a resemblance in structure between an object known to be designed and one which looks designed, with (b) a resemblance in causal history between the former object and the latter. The point of Darwin’s argument in his Origin of Species was that resemblances of type (a) do not warrant justified design inferences, in and of themselves, and that two objects with wildly different causal histories may end up looking alike. Darwin’s theory of natural selection was intended to provide a causal history that was capable of generating objects that look designed, but which have no designer.
3. Does it have a level of sophistication & intricacy best explained by design?
I have to confess that emotionally, my sympathies are very much with Wallace here. Back in the 1980s, the breathtaking level of sophistication that can be found in even the simplest living cell made a vivid impression on biochemist Michael Denton, who wrote:
Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.(Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, p. 250.)
However, critics will object that the complexity of a city or a factory is not irreducible: cities, like factories, can be constructed one step at a time. That being the case, they say, there is no reason in principle why blind (or non-foresighted) processes are incapable of producing these complex structures.
Even so, I cannot help wondering whether the cell is in a special category of its own:
4. Is it informationally dependent – that is, does it require information to get it done?
The three tricky questions which leap to mind here are: (a) what kind of information; (b) how much information; and (c) how should the quantity of information be properly calculated, anyway?
5. Is there evidence of goal-direction?
Goal-direction, or teleology, is of two kinds: intrinsic (directed at the good of the entity itself) and extrinsic (designed purely for the benefit of some other entity). Teleology of the latter kind obviously implies design. However, in order to show that even intrinsic teleology indicates design, one needs to appeal to a philosophical argument rather than a scientific one. As philosopher Edward Feser has pointed out, Aristotle’s own view was that goal-directedness does not require a mind which consciously intends the goal. By contrast, the Scholastic philosophers argued, in the Middle Ages, that the very fact that unconscious things exist whose natures direct them towards certain goals can only be made sense of if there is a Divine Intelligence which orders the world. (Feser outlines the Scholastic argument in an essay titled, Teleology: A Shopper’s Guide, in Philosophia Christi, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2010. See also his blog article, Atheistic teleology?, July 5, 2012.)
At any rate, the point I wish to make here is that goal-direction, taken by itself, cannot be said to constitute scientific or forensic evidence for design, unless the goal is an external one.
6. Can natural law get it done?
See my remarks on attribute 1 above.
7. Is there any evidence of irreducible complexity?
It is worth noting that Professor Michael Behe has never said that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve naturally; rather, his point is that their evolution by a roundabout route (exaptation), while theoretically possible, is practically impossible for any system containing a large number of parts.
In his interview, “Jim” Warner Wallace made much of Behe’s example of the bacterial flagellum. However, the following passage from an article in New Scientist magazine by Michael Le Page (16 April 2008) reveals the weakness of Wallace’s case:
The best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a “designer” created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up.
What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.
It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum – the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system – can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.…
…[W]hat has been discovered so far – that flagella vary greatly and that at least some of the components and proteins of which they are made can carry out other useful functions in the cells – show that they are not “irreducibly complex”. (Emphases mine – VJT.)
Nick Matzke’s 2006 article, Flagellum evolution in Nature Reviews Microbiology, over at Panda’s Thumb, is also well worth reading. Intelligent Design advocates have often claimed that the bacterial flagellum contains a large number of unique components. As Matzke convincingly shows, they’re wrong, period.
Of course, this is not the end of the story, and Professor Behe discusses what he views as further evidence for the design of the bacterial flagellum in his book, The Edge of Evolution (The Free Press, New York, 2007, pp. 87-101) – namely, the intricacies of intra-flagellar transport and the precisely co-ordinated timing required for the construction of a single bacterial flagellum. However, the point I want to make here is that the assertion that irreducible complexity, in and of itself, constitutes evidence for design is factually mistaken, as Dr. Douglas Theobald’s elegantly written article on the subject at Talk Origins illustrates so aptly.
8. Is there evidence of decision, or choices, that were made along the way, that can’t be explained by chemistry and physics?
If there were any positive evidence for choices being made in the four-billion-year history of life, then I would certainly regard it as evidence for design. However, in order to infer the existence of a choice, it is not enough to rule out physics and chemistry as explanations; one must also rule out chance. Why, for instance, is life left-handed instead of right-handed? Is this a choice made by life’s Creator, or an accident? Who knows?
Conclusion
I don’t mean to speak disrespectfully of “Jim” Warner Wallace, as I have enjoyed reading his writings. His recent book, A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe, which I have not read yet, appears to have been favorably reviewed and looks intriguing. However, I have to say that Wallace’s eight attributes of design need a lot more work, in order to refine them.
What do readers think? And how would readers modify Wallace’s criteria for design? Over to you.
You’ve become absurd. And boring. You must be losing the argument. A bachelor is unmarried by definition.
Here, you’re confusing something BEING X and somebody KNOWING that the thing is X. Focus just on BEING designed. If we have acceptable criteria for something being designed, then a failure to be designed is simply failing to meet those criteria.
If the criteria are only for when it’s ok for somebody to assert that something is designed, then failure to meet them by something makes it ok for somebody to say that one has insufficient evidence for asserting that that thing is designed.
In the U.S. criminal cases are assigned a particular burden of proof. A person could meet it and still not be a murderer or not meet it and still be a murderer. But we don’t have burdens of truth and of falsity both assigned and operative during the same trial. One thing I don’t like about Warner’s list above is that he’s got some of both tests for design and tests for non-design thrown in. Presumably, the ones about “random processes” and about “natural laws” are thought to be tests for non-design. I think all the others are supposed to be tests for design.
I assume, though I don’t think we’re told, that we’re supposed to use a preponderance of evidence standard. That means that it’s always possible to be wrong anyhow.
That would to proof
Two agreements in a row! I’m feeling so very special now!
So, you going to be coming to our materialist meetings?
But you have already come over to the ID side!!
How does the ability to recognize man-made things, in any way qualify you to recognize God-made things?
Uh…no…you have apparently come over to the materialist/evolution side because you just sank ID.
We can identify man-made items from 20,000 feet going 850 knots. It’s not hard – we know human’s make things and we know what humans make. Bingo! This makes all of the arguments within the “ID framework” irrelevant.
And BTW, this the basis of all similar endeavors. Forensics doesn’t bother with the “ID framework” because we already know that humans use tools (like weapons), how humans use tools (like weapons), and what happens when humans use tools (like weapons). The only questions Forensics seek to answer is: “what human used what tool at what time to do X.” That’s pretty much it. No forensic scientist ever wonders if demons, ghosts, gods, pixies, or invisible flying spaghetti monsters committed some crime. They don’t have to. Because the only designed objects ever found are all known to be designed by humans.
He apparently can, because he believes that malaria and it’s continuing adaptations against treatment are designed. I mean, if they did not evolve then design is all that’s left. And for sure phoodoo thinks they did not evolve. But for some reason he’s reluctant to actually say that his god ensures a certain level of evil in the world at all times, instead preferring to go off on his “so you want nothing bad at all to happen in the world” distraction tangent instead. So let’s not go there.
Everyone here at TSZ who claimed that ID was already sunk was obviously lying.
I don’t think I am, but I do think you raise a point worth discussing. You have your uses walto. 😉
So let me start with a fundamental question. When it comes to the ontological status of some thing, is that something that derives from human criteria or is it something that is inherent in the thing that humans discover?
If you are correct, then someone ought to be able to come up with a criteria for “not-designed.” Everything else would be designed. Right?
Yet no one has done so. And no one can do so. It’s the 800lb gorilla in the materialist room.
Your ‘fundamental question’ is, to me, indecipherable.
That’s because you’re confusing something BEING X and KNOWING that the thing is X.
It seems to me that being and knowing are distinguished in philosophy by ontology and epistemology. I could be full of shit. 🙂
You keep mentioning this thing you call evil. Gee, I sure wish you would tell us what it is and what it isn’t.
Why? Would that allow you to answer the question as to if the thing you worship is ensuring a steady supply of evil?
But I don’t think materia is evil, or good. It just is. I call it evil because for the sake of argument I’m trying to see things your way. And, as far as I understand it, you believe in good and evil and believe that good must be balanced by evil? Or that evil is required for us to grow? And I can’t imagine you think people dying of malaria is good so I’ve chosen to label it evil. If I’m incorrect, please correct me.
Why don’t you just clarify your position re: evil and malaria. Does your deity ensure malaria can continue to infect us as part of it’s plan or not?
OMagain,
Evil is just another form of good isn’t it? So why don’t you like some forms of good?
What a curmudgeon.
I’ve answered enough of your questions. From now on it’s one for one. You answer the question I asked above:
and I’ll answer one of yours.
You believe evil exists, and I’m asking you questions about your belief.
I don’t know. You are the one that says it exists. So tell me about it. Does your deity ensure a constant level of evil? When we cure a disease does it invent another to replace it?
I suggest that you take your own advice.
If the designer is deliberately ensuring that malaria continues to infect people, I’d call that evil. I’d call the people who are working to eradicate malaria good.
It’s not complex stuff.
If you are going to ask me about evil, you are going to have to tell me what you mean by the word.
I personally don’t think evil is a noun, I think its an adjective. It means one form of good.
I have no idea what you mean by it.
I’m happy to use your definition.
So you claim it exists, but you can’t discuss it until I explain what I mean by the word? Why? It’s you that claims it exists. I just label some things evil and some things good, but you think evil exists as a thing in it’s own right?
So you think evil exists and it’s one form of good and at the same time evil exists in the same way adjectives exist? Is that right?
I guess children blinded by parasitic worms just have a perspective not as sophisticated as yours to not realize that their blinding is in the service of your deity’s ideas of a learning environment.
The question is what do you mean by it. And it seems evil is good and good is evil in your world.
Let’s try it a different way. Is your deity responsible for *anything* that happens phoodoo?
Or another way.
Regardless of “good” or “evil” or any of that phoodoo, does your deity adjust malaria to keep it resistant against treatment or not?
I understand your reluctance to answer, I really do, but once you embrace the consequences of your own beliefs you’ll be a better person for it.
I am not claiming it does it doesn’t exist. I guess it depends on what you mean by exist. Does admiration exist? Does cute exist? How about ambivalence?
Do you claim it exist or doesn’t?
Oh?
So when you ask:
I simply say refer to your comment above. Evil exists and it is a necessity to allow free will you say out of one side of your mouth, but you are now claiming it does not exist from the other?
No wonder your position seems incoherent. It is.
When you’ve decided what you think we can continue this.
OMagain,
What does exist mean to you? You seem shy to answer. Does loyal exist?
You said evil exists. What does exist mean to you?
Deflection by word definition. Straight out of the ID cowards playbook.
Evil exists and is a necessity, according to phoodoo. When asked about the logical entailments of that view, his response is to ask me what I mean by “exists”.
Seems to me someone is desperate not to answer.
*gets popcorn*
OMagain,
Yes, I have said it exists in the same way adjectives exist. Its up to people to make their own definition of what is evil. To me its the same thing as good.
And you also must feel something about it exists, because you are always complaining about why God allows it. So Now you are going to have to stop being such a coward and talk about what evil is, and what kind of world you want which lets some things happen, and some things not happen.
OMagain,
Does good exist?
Are you going to keep clutching your peals out of fear of saying something?
I’ve said plenty. It’s you that is scared.
Given I don’t think your god exists, that can hardly be true can it?
I want to know if in your opinion your deity is weaponizing malaria.
If resistance cannot evolve it must be edited/designed in by your deity. Do you agree or disagree with that?
It’s not about what I want to happen in the world or not, or what is good or evil.
It’s simple logic.
Do you believe that resistance in malaria to our treatments can evolve?
If not, where is the resistance coming from?
No, we label some things as good. And some things as bad. That’s all. There is no objective good, no objective bad, no objective morality etc. The last human alive gets to define good and bad.
Now, I’ve answered your questions. Do you have the honor to now answer mine?
I want a world that does not have people like you in it, people that look at the evil things happening in it and thinks “well, without that terrible thing happening how would people be able to grow and have free will”. People like you and WJM who instead of doing something about it make excuses for it because, after all, it’d not be like that if it was not your deity’s will. You and yours are relics of a bygone age of pig-ignorance and hubris.
So, to me, you et al are the evil in the world phoodoo. Any other questions?
Well, you already said evil doesn’t exist in this world, Sooo…if there is a God, at least now we know you can’t blame, because evil doesn’t even exist! Great news! One less barrier to a God, no problem of evil! Now we are getting somewhere Omagain.
I am so proud of you, relinquishing your bitterness finally!
Your “logic” must seem unassailable to you. Good for you.
Whatever you say.
Now, will you answer my question? As if not, it’s back onto ignore for you as there is literally no point engaging.
I blame people like you for what we call evil in the world. I think I’ve made that clear.
Having some doubts are we? Can’t say I’m surprised. Every time you engage in a place like this your unconscious mind learns a little more, even if “you” don’t. That’s why people like Erik keep coming back. At some level they know they are wrong and want to be corrected. Same for you. You must realize at some level the absurdity of your positions and want to be “cured”. You just can’t help yourself.
Dog eats baby’s head. Uncle allows it. But dog is not evil. Act is not evil. Uncle is not evil. But God is evil for allowing it.
No, Omagain gave up on blaming God for evil. Now he blames evil on the people who believe in an evilless God.
Even though Omagain doesn’t think evil exists.
So it depends if the Uncle believes in evil. It could be his fault.
Its perfectly coherent.
And not at all evil!
Loa loa filariasis, phoodoo.
Smallpox, phoodoo.
Sudden infant death, phoodoo.
Hagfish, phoodoo.
Cockroaches, phoodoo.
Spina Bifida, phoodoo
What’s the plan, phoodoo?
More of the same, phoodoo?
Fair Witness,
I guess you share the same philosophy of keiths and Omagain, you want a world where nothing can happen to anyone . Along with that world, you want no choices, no consequences, no compassion, and no kindness. A world where you lie prone and do nothing.
But alas, this world has mortality, and actions. Perhaps one day you will exist in a world that is immortal. A world without physicality.
Seems a bit demanding to insist on everything you want, right now.
It seems your main argument in support of your worldview is to lie and misrepresent the statements of others. Given that I am the owner of my views I am calling you out on your lying. I am not accusing you of lying, I am noting the fact of it.
I’m only interested in your opinion on a single question. The terror you must feel at those repeated requests is apparent in your desperation to misdirect.
Support for people like phoodoo is evil and you know it.
But I’m not asking about “god allowed”. That’s what you and phoodoo wish I was asking. That’s a path I’m not going down.
I’m asking did god train the dog to attack the baby?
Does god keep malaria infectious? As we find treatments does your god then tweak malaria to overcome those treatments? It’s what phoodoo implies but never actually says.
It’s a very simple question. And it’s very telling that you and phoodoo are desperate to avoid even acknowledging the question has been asked.
OMagain,
“Why oh why did God allow dogs to exist…..”
Silence, Whippersnapper!
I am Oz — the Great and Powerful!
That seems like a quote, but in fact it’s you putting words in my mouth. Just like you’ve objected to me doing (except I get to quote your actual words). So it seems you are a hypocrite amongst all your other faults.
I’m not asking why your god allows evil things to exist. That’s not the question. The question is once I’ve tamed my pet dog is your god coming in the middle of the night to train it to bite childrens faces off?