Intelligent design proponents often use an argument from analogy to support their claim that biological artifacts are designed. Since biological systems have many similarities to human designs, that is taken as evidence that they are designed. Detractors then typically counter to the effect that no intelligent designer would design in such a halting, inefficient, or contingent way. This counter argument is, however, based on a presumption of some particular design motif, in most cases one grounded in our age of technology. Perhaps it is because in many cases biological systems look like marvelous machines or factories. The technology environment is, however, not the only environment in which design takes place.

One way to characterize design motifs is to examine three factors that are always in play: specification, constraint, and accident. The motif of a design process depends on the levels of these three factors. In technology design, the first two factors are maximized and the last minimized. Design of technology is tightly specified and constrained. Usually this is because of economics. However, even in the design of machines, systems, software, etc. the element of accident is a factor. By accident I mean something specific that is unexpected. In technology design, accidents are typically unwanted ("Houston, we have a problem"). However in good designs contingency plans are always formulated to react to accidents. A metaphor for this type of design motif might be Engineer/Solution.

What might some others be? A few to illustrate the point might be Artist/Art, Gardener/Garden, and Author/Story. Each of these carries with it varying levels of the three factors: specification, constraint, and accident. While typically the Artist/Art motif would be less tightly specified and constrained, realistic art might be an exception. When it comes to accident I'm reminded of Jackson Pollack's work. Although he denied the accident, it was obviously an intrinsic part of his designs, whether it be how the work turned out or how Pollack dealt with the accident.

In the Gardener/Garden motif the gardener lays out the garden, chooses the plants, colors, and textures but the accident plays an important role in how the garden turns out. Rain, sun, pests, diseases, soil conditions, growth rates, etc. are all accidental factors that affect the garden and if they threaten the overall purpose of the gardener may cause him to react. Ultimately, however, part of the gardener's pleasure and fulfillment is watching the interplay of specification, constraint, and accident.

The Author/Story motif has a uniqueness in that the designer and the designed are one and the same. This motif has, in my view, the best "fit" with the natural world both from an observational and intuitive standpoint. Any fiction writer will affirm, I think, that in this motif the author creates the story but at some points in the story the characters take on a life of their own and often surprise the author herself. Both the author and the characters change as the story unfolds. This design motif usually strikes a balance between specification, constraint, and accident.

I know there are many other ways to characterize design. The point is that rejecting an argument for design based on "an intelligent designer wouldn't have designed this way" can only come from a shallow understanding of design. Now it probably isn't necessary to know the design motif in play in nature to recognize design. Either the observations of nature "fit" the patterns we have assimilated concerning intelligence and design or they don't'. If they do then it is reasonable to claim analogy as evidence.

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 7th, 2005 at 8:39 pm and is filed under Engineering, Intelligent Design. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/design-motifs/trackback/