Jacques Monod shared a Nobel Prize for his work on the lac operon. . This work played a crucial role in the development of molecular biology and ultimately led to the birth of evo-devo. In 1971, Monod wrote a classic book entitled, Chance and Necessity. It begins as follows:

The difference between artificial and natural objects seems immediately and unambiguously apparent to all of us. A rock, a mountain, a river, or a cloud – these are natural objects; a knife a handkerchief, a car – so many artificial objects, artifacts. Analyze these judgments, however, and it will be seen that they are neither immediate nor strictly objective. We know that the knife was man-made for a use its maker visualized beforehand. The object renders in material form the preexistent intention that gave birth to it, and its form is accounted for by the performance expected of it even before it takes shape. It is another story altogether with the river or the rock which we know, or believe, to have been molded by the free play of physical forces to which we cannot attribute any design, any project, or purpose. Not, that is, if we accept the basic premise of the scientific method, to wit, that nature is objective and not projective.

Hence it is through reference to our own activity, conscious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object’s “naturalness” or “artificialness.” Might there be objective and general standards for defining the characteristics of artificial objects, products of a conscious purposive activity, as against natural objects, resulting from the gratuitous play of physical forces? To make sure of the complete objectivity of the criteria chosen, it would doubtless be best to ask oneself whether, in putting them to use, a program could be drawn up enabling a computer to distinguish an artifact from a natural object.

Such a program could be applied in the most interesting connections. Let us suppose that a spacecraft is soon to be landed upon Venus or Mars; what more fascinating question than to find out whether our neighboring planets are, or at some earlier period have been, inhabited by intelligent beings capable of projective activity? In order to detect such present or past activity we would have to search for and be able to recognize its products, however radically unlike the fruit of human industry they might be. Wholly ignorant of the nature of such beings and of the projects they might have conceived, our program would have to utilize only very general criteria, solely based upon the examined objects’ structure and form and without any reference to their eventual function.

There are two things to notice about this passage. First, I am struck by the similarities to ID101. I’ll let readers see if they can spot any points of convergence.

Second, and more importantly, this sentence stands out:

Hence it is through reference to our own activity, conscious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object’s “naturalness” or “artificialness.”

Maybe it is simply not possible to make such judgments without accessing this subjective element. After all, recognizing design may indeed be akin to recognizing another mind. For how do we recognize other minds if not by recognizing what they design?

This would explain why science has never come up with an objective method for detecting the existence of design.

Instead of assuming it is possible to objectively identify design, let’s instead assume that reference to our own activity, conscious and projective, intentional and purposive- as makers of artifacts-is necessary. And build from there.

If this is the case, then those who have read The Design Matrix can begin to appreciate the methodology I have outlined within. The method I advocate embraces the truth that Monod mentions and builds on it:

The Design Matrix is a method by which you can score a particular feature according to four different criteria to assess and quantify the strength of a design inference. Since detection of design may involve subtleties embedded in complexity and ambiguity, the Design Matrix taps into the most complex and sensitive “instrument” that we can work with to detect such subtleties—the human brain. Since we are by nature designers, we all have a certain awareness of design. The Design Matrix allows one brain’s score to be thoroughly assessed by other brains, perhaps helping us to eventually reach consensus or to better understand why consensus has not been reached. - p. 268