Those who believe in design hold that there is intelligent purpose in life. Each life form is an important unit in the overall pattern, and there is an interdependency of all these forms. The variety of living things, the instincts that they display and the mechanisms or equipment that animals have, on the one hand, for hunting their food and, on the other hand, for survival of their species, exhibit an intelligence that is not their own​—in fact, it is far above anything that even intelligent man could conceive of or devise.

Consider the Evidence from Plant Life

PLANT life is the earth’s greatest “factory,” producing, according to one conservative estimate, 150 billion tons of carbohydrates (sugars) annually. This is more than 200 times the world’s production of steel and cement. Plants constitute the food source for every animal and human on the face of the earth​—a most bountiful provision. Along with the sugar that gives energy, plants also supply vitamins, minerals, medicines and bulk raw material for clothing, building, papermaking, dyes, paints and an almost innumerable host of other things beneficial to man.

We should be very glad that plant life in its myriad varieties appeared on the earth ahead of mankind, for it is essential to all animal and human life. The Bible describes vegetation as coming into existence prior to animals and depicts the Creator as indicating that he had a design in bringing forth vegetation first when he said to the first man and woman: “Here I have given to you all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth and every tree on which there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed. To you let it serve as food. And to every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food.”​—Gen. 1:29, 30.

The Role of Photosynthesis

Plant life includes the vegetable phytoplankton of the sea, basic to sustaining fish and other marine creatures. Vegetation, from grasses to trees, is the foundation of the “food chain” on the land. This is because no animal can manufacture its own food. But plants do this work. By the complex process of photosynthesis, not yet fully understood or duplicated by man, plants convert carbon dioxide, water and sunlight energy into carbohydrates and oxygen. Absorbing sun energy, the plant also utilizes minerals from the soil to make fat, protein, starch, vitamins and other products that provide foodstuffs for animal life. Animals and humans breathe oxygen that “fuels” the conversion of the carbohydrates to produce water and chemical energy, by which the other plant products are assimilated into their bodies.

Propagation of Plant Life

For plants to serve their indispensable purpose as the foundation of all animal life, they, or their fruit, must be eaten. Accordingly, plants must have a means of propagation in order to continue as a food source. They must die, decay and be renewed, reproducing their kind regularly and indefinitely. Do we find design in this arrangement? If so, it cannot be mere coincidence.

Consider the methods of propagation that vegetation employs. Plants usually produce seed prolifically. This is essential, for tons of seeds are eaten as food by insects, birds, other creatures, and by humans. Now, if only one seed, or a few, would be produced by a plant, such would be eaten and that species of plant would disappear. Also, seeds fall on many sorts of terrain and some never germinate. Unfavorable weather, fungus and other factors may prevent many seeds from sprouting. For this reason there must be liberal seed production. Therefore, it is not, as some have said, that “nature is very wasteful.” Rather, it is prolific, and there appears to be design in this liberality. It is necessary that plants produce hundreds, even thousands, of seeds. Some trees yield millions of seeds per acre. Certainly we cannot say that such prodigious seed production does not serve a purpose. And does not purpose require design?

The seeds that are produced must also have strong germinating power, for some may have to survive months of winter, droughts or long periods of unfavorable conditions. Most seeds have remarkable germinating power, as much as 90-percent viability. A seed may be completely dry, its life being suspended. But in its inert condition it can withstand extremes of temperature, in many cases far below freezing, or almost as high as the boiling point of water (though not in water). Even after a lapse of years, seeds will come to life when placed in water or in moist soil. An Indian lotus sprouted and flowered after a dormancy in the seed state for 2,000 years, and cuttings and seeds from it have been sent to botanical institutions throughout the world.

Certainly we cannot say that plants realize the need for continuity of their species. What a monstrous coincidence​—if it is a coincidence—​that all the plants possess this provision! Could “blind,” haphazard forces give such uniform direction for the benefit of all life on earth?

When we look into plant germination or reproduction, we find other complexities, without which the seed could never grow. One of these is the fact that seeds are provided with their own initial supply of food. Each seed contains carbohydrates and other substances that enable the germinating seed to survive long enough to grow roots and leaves so that it can reach maturity in the normal way.

Then there is a great variety of forms of propagation, so that each plant species manages to keep alive in its particular surroundings, according to its own particular nature. Certain plants can be divided or dissected, making two or more root systems, each of which can grow into a healthy plant. Others flourish from a mere cutting, a piece of the plant inserted in the soil. The exposed end of the cutting is able to grow its own roots. The leaves of some plants develop roots at cut places in the leaf. Others, such as potatoes, propagate through tubers; some plants grow from bulbs.

In the distribution or scattering of seeds there is beauty and “scientific” ingenuity. Trees and other vegetation are usually immobile, yet they must have their seeds scattered if they are to cover any appreciable area. Varied and most effective are the means used. The maple tree seed has wings by which the wind can carry it for long distances. Similarly the dandelion, by means of its own parachute-like attachment, virtually floats on the wind. The touch-me-not scatters fine seeds by an explosive discharge. The sandbur and some other seeds are carried on the fur of animals to other growing areas. Some berries and fruits are eaten by animals. Their seeds, however, are not digested, but are dispersed in the body waste of the animals.

Very ingenious is the seed dispersal method of the coconut, which transports its species to more remote shores, even to other islands and continents by sea. We might think that the coconut tree happens to grow in or near the seashore because it needs seawater, but this is not the case. It actually needs fresh water. Hence, its roots are relatively short, only being long enough to reach the fresh water, which is lighter than seawater and so lies on top of the seawater in coastal regions. Yet to disperse its seed the seashore region is best, because the coconuts can float for great distances. By what manner of coincidence did the coconut palm make this unique arrangement? Is it reasonable to think that there was some kind of knowledge that directed this unusual combination of circumstances?

Fertilization Methods

Also, in the fertilization of flowering plants, what ‘blind forces’ would cause some plants to be sexually separated, so that the female plant would have to be fertilized by pollen from the male plant? And how would blind chance then arrange for a carrier of the pollen, especially when this carrier is at times more complex than the plant itself?

Though some pollen is carried by the wind, many plants have to enlist the cooperation of insects. This requires the plants to have food that the insects like, as well as to have a way of attracting them to the food. For this, plants employ a scent agreeable to the insect. Also, in some cases, brilliant colors seem to supply the attraction. Then in the male flower, the stamen containing the pollen must be near the food, so that the insect will brush against it and pick up some pollen in its body hair. In the female flower the pistil must be properly positioned to receive the pollen when the insect visits. Think of the complexity involved. The structure of the flowers, their scent and the proper nectar productivity must be just right. Even this would avail nothing if there were not the complete cooperation of the insect’s instincts and habits, along with its need of and taste for certain food that only the flowers of its choice can supply.

Though such fertilization depends on so many factors, the abundant proliferation of these flowers testifies to the efficacy of their method. And this process is uniformly repeated billions of times over thousands of years. Could coincidence bring about all these requirements and then repeat them exactly, without damaging changes in the pattern over centuries of time?

The Magnitude of ‘Earth’s Greatest Factory’

In the food that it produces, plant life provides earth’s richest storehouse of energy, which it obtains from the sun, the source of nearly all the energy used on earth. But consider how much farther this energy storage extends, as noted in Photosynthesis and Related Products, by Eugene I. Rabinowitch (Volume I, Interscience Publishers Incorporated):

“The reduction of carbon dioxide by green plants is the largest single chemical process on earth. To make clearer what a yield of 10¹¹ tons per year means, we may compare it with the total output of the chemical, metallurgical, and mining industries on earth, which is of the order of 10⁹ tons annually. Ninety per cent of this output is coal and oil, i.e., products due to photosynthesis in earlier ages. Similarly impressive is the comparison of the energy stored annually by the plants, with the energy available from other sources. The energy converted by photosynthesis is about one hundred times larger than the heat of combustion of all the coal mined on earth in the same period, and ten thousand times larger than the energy of falling water utilized in the whole world.”

Considering Benefits from Plant Life Gives Rise to Serious Thought

To sum up: We can be very happy that events have occurred as they have. And it is for the logical and inquiring mind to determine whether the idea of coincidence or of creation by a higher intelligence brought it about. The fact that plant life was introduced before animal life is certainly vital. Was this deliberately or accidentally done? It may be argued that plant life would come before animal life, because animal life could not have existed without it. But upon close observation, plants are found to be extremely complex, not simple, and far, far from a “primeval” molecule. Moreover, plants differ greatly from animals and there is no explanation as to how any of them could by any means have evolved into the most primitive animal.

A fact that argues against blind chance as being able to ensure the continuation of life on earth lies in the ability of vegetation to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It is certain that chance or ‘blind forces’ could not see ahead or provide for drastic changes that might take place in the environment. But a Creator who wanted life to continue on earth could do so. And this advance preparation is apparently what was made at the first in bringing plant life into existence. How so? Note the following example:

There has been considerable fear since the world’s “industrial revolution” began that the production of carbon dioxide brought about by the combustion of fossil fuels would endanger life on earth, perhaps even make life impossible. But recent studies give a much brighter picture. Science News of April 19, 1975, reporting the findings of geologist Fred T. MacKenzie of Northwestern University, says:

“As fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide is given off. By knowing how much fuel is burned worldwide, one can calculate the expected amounts of carbon dioxide given off, and how much should be found hanging in the atmosphere. There is, however, one interesting problem with such calculations. Comparison of actual and expected CO2 levels has revealed that most of it is ‘missing.’

“ . . . The missing CO2 is being incorporated into plants. The biomass of vegetation may have increased by 10 percent since the late 1800’s, he says, when CO2 emissions rose along with rising use of fossil fuels.

“The incorporation of CO2 with available nutrients into plants may represent a global feedback mechanism that helps to prevent imbalances in the atmosphere, MacKenzie says.”

To this it might be added that the ocean is a tremendous carbon dioxide reservoir. It absorbs or releases carbon dioxide as needed. Thus, along with the adjustability of the photosynthetic process, animal life is able to survive.

Who can dogmatically affirm that there is no Creator, who at the very establishment of the earth and life upon it, provided these “safety margins” to handle the situations that would arise?

Furthermore, it is most logical, and certainly essential, that there should be a provision to utilize the sun’s energy. Vegetation does this for our benefit. What cooperation, that the sun, 93 million miles away, would provide just the right radiation and in the right quantity! Again, it is good that vegetation does not compete with animals and humans for food, but, rather, provides food. And plant life does not depend on man. For the most part, it promotes its own growth independent of animal life. The part that man plays even in cultivated plants is very minimal. He can do only a little to help​—the growth itself is automatic and not even fully understood by man. Is it conceivable that blind chance or forces could arrange and bring about such intricacy, complexity and efficiency, whereas intelligent men can see, examine and study and still be ignorant of just how it all works?

[Diagram on page 8]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

photosynthesis simplified

sun

breakdown of water molecules

oxygen to atmosphere

hydrogen and energy-rich compounds

carbon dioxide from atmosphere

hydrogen and carbon form glucose

energy-rich glucose the basic food molecule

[Picture on page 6]

Plants scatter their seeds in many ways​—the dandelion sends forth wind-born “parachutes”

[Picture on page 9]

What “blind force” could cause some plants to need insect help in fertilization, then supply the insects to carry the needed pollen?

Consider the Evidence from the Animal World

THE animal world has to face a problem quite different from that encountered by the plant world. Plants are, for the most part, immobile. Their fixed location makes it essential that they have the adaptability to endure changing and inimical factors in the environment. Then, too, they have to manufacture food from inorganic materials.

Animals usually have great freedom of movement. They cannot make their food, but have to gather it or hunt for it. So they must employ different methods for hunting food and for the propagation and survival of their kind. And these methods vary with species, each being successful.

The bodily structure and the methods used by animals compare well with inventions and devices that man has designed for hunting, protection, and so forth. In fact, man has been able to improve the design of his inventions, such as airplanes, optical equipment, ships and other “advanced” equipment, by studying animal makeup and behavior. Animals are not credited with having the intelligence to devise these things, and certainly they are not able to form or change their own bodies to develop such things. From where, then, did the intelligence come?

Relation of Production of Young to Danger of Extinction

There is evidence that, among oviparousa animals, the number of eggs produced by an individual parent depends on the dangers to which the eggs or the newborn offspring are exposed. For example, the common oyster produces about 50 million eggs at one time. To practically all sea animals these eggs are a tasty dish. And they get opportunity to eat millions of them, for the eggs float for several days before attaching permanently to a site, where they develop to maturity. Though millions of eggs are eaten, enough survive so that the oyster population is maintained. Yet the oyster obviously has no ability to know what happens to the eggs. Similarly, though not as prolific as the oyster, many other sea animals that do not have other means of protecting their eggs lay a prodigious number of them.

On the other hand, the golden eagle lays one to four eggs at a time, and the bald eagle one to three eggs. These birds build nests that are very high and difficult of access, and with their flying ability and their strong talons they can protect their nests. Therefore a great number of eggs would be superfluous.

With regard to the overall effect of such varied production on the part of different species of animals, the Encyclopædia Britannicab states:

“Most animal populations are not, on the average, either increasing or decreasing markedly, and in such populations . . . the natality or reproductive rate equals the total mortality of eggs, young, and adults.”

Some believers in evolution hold that the equality or balance between natality and mortality is an evolutionary mechanism to prevent overpopulation. Others argue from the viewpoint of natural selection. But when a person thinks of all the factors involved​—climate, procreation, food supply, and others—​can he really believe, on any logical basis, that nonintelligent forces assessed and directed this extremely complex situation with such eminent success?

An example of the intricacy in keeping a balance in the ecology is the turtle, which lays 100 or so eggs a year. The female comes ashore in the dark and digs holes in the sand, where she deposits her eggs and covers them. She then leaves them on their own. When hatching time arrives, the young turtle feels the urge to break out of his shell. For this escape he has a special hard point on his head by which he pierces the shell. Then he digs out of the sand and, without hesitation, flaps hurriedly toward the sea. On the way he is in great danger of being caught by predators, especially birds. Though he does not know this, he, nevertheless, urgently moves over all obstacles, and, if picked up and turned around, immediately turns back to get to the protection of his natural element, the sea. Even there he is in danger, and many baby turtles are eaten by fish. Birds and fish therefore are furnished a share of their food by the turtles, but a sufficient number survive to ensure the continuation of the turtle population.

Could blind chance direct every turtle so unerringly and determinedly toward the sea? How does he know that he must break out of his shell and his sandy incubation place? Did it just happen that he has been provided with special equipment to break his shell? Every one of the devices, from his mother’s coming ashore in the dark and burying the eggs so that they are safe from most predators, until the turtle reaches the sea, is essential. If one link in the chain were to fail, the turtle species would be extinct within a very short time.

Protective Measures

The cacique bird of Central America has a way of protecting its young that even the most intelligent human would find a test of his brain power. Forest cats, giant lizards and raccoonlike animals all could easily raid the caciques’ nests, even those built high in the trees. But these birds foil their enemies by enlisting the help of an ally, without the ally’s invitation. They build a colony of nests, often 50 or more, on a single branch of a large tree. They select a branch that holds a large nest of tropical wasps. The wasps do not seem to be annoyed by the nests, or by the activities of the birds, but woe to the intruder that tries to reach the nests!

The caterpillar of the West African moth has dangerous parasitic enemies. These parasites bore through the side of the caterpillar’s cocoon and lay their eggs in the caterpillar’s body. When the caterpillar is full grown, the parasitic larvae devour it. Then, as the parasitic larvae bore their way out of the cocoon, they spin tiny, frothlike cocoons for themselves. So the caterpillar, when spinning the cocoon initially, produces some frothy bubbles, which are attached to the outside, so that it appears that its home has already been invaded. This is an attempt, which no doubt often succeeds, at discouraging the parasitic enemies. How could chance direct the instincts and give this caterpillar’s body the ability to make such a clever camouflage?

Hunting Equipment

A small Caribbean fish named Anableps dowei likes to feed on tidbits floating on the water’s surface. He must be able to watch both above the surface for food and below the surface for enemies. This would be impossible for eyes with a single focus. But Anableps has “bifocals.” By means of two pupils, he can see above water through the short dimension of the lens and under water through the long dimension of the lens. By this means he takes care of the fact that light travels at different speeds through air and water. To keep the upper pupils moist, he ducks his head under water every few minutes.

Another fish that is equipped marvelously for overcoming the light refraction property of water is the archer fish. Almost everyone has noticed that an object under water appears to be closer to the viewer from above the water, or that a pole stuck into the water at an angle looks bent. If one should aim an arrow or a gun at a small object in the water one would need to make quite a complex calculation to hit the object. The archer fish has this problem in reverse. He sees an insect on a hanging branch. He quickly projects his head, or just his mouth, out of the water and shoots down the insect as by “antiaircraft” with a stream of water. In order to do this, he must take aim as he is coming to the surface of the water, compensating for the water’s refraction as he does so. Is this ability for instant mathematical computation built into the archer fish by design, or did a complex pattern of many factors just happen to imprint itself in some early archer fish’s bodily mechanism and thereafter stay with all his descendants?

Bird Aerodynamics

Much study has been made of the aerodynamics of bird flight. Each kind of bird is equipped according to the part it plays in the ecological arrangement. Arctic terns fly 10,000 miles (16,000 kilometers) in their migratory flights. Such migratory birds are equipped for high speeds. Some birds’ wings have a propellerlike action for forward flight. Some stay in the air for hours on soaring or glider wings. On the downstroke, the feathers in a wing flatten out or close together, for the maximum “push” on the air. On the upstroke, the feathers twist and open up to allow the wing to be brought up easily. A group of feathers at the leading edge of the wing prevent turbulence that would cause loss of lift. Men have copied this device on airplane wings.

The hummingbird, while its wings have some features similar to those of other birds, hovers in flight by the “helicopter” principle. But instead of rotating as do a helicopter’s blades, its wings scull back and forth, making up to 60 or 70 strokes a second. Each wing turns at the shoulder joint, the leading edge facing forward on the forward stroke, and swiveling almost 180 degrees so that the leading edge faces backward on the backstroke. Actually, the wings describe a horizontal figure-eight pattern. Each stroke gives lift but no propulsion. By this means the bird can hover motionless while sipping nectar from a flower.

A Marvel of Heat Regulation

The Mallee fowl of Australia accomplishes a feat that humans would find practically impossible without the use of modern sophisticated devices​—he makes his own incubator.

In the dry semidesert that is his home, where temperatures range from 17 degrees Fahrenheit (−8 degrees Celsius) to 115 degrees Fahrenheit (46 degrees Celsius), the male Mallee fowl buries leaves during the winter while they are still moist so that they will not dry out but will decay. In May, with the approach of winter, he digs a hole 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter and 3 to 4 feet (1 to 1.2 meters) deep, raking in the leaf litter from as far as 40 yards (36.5 meters) around. Then, in the cold of August, he covers the heap with soil up to two feet (.6 meter) thick. The female then lays eggs in a hole in the top of the mound.c

A researcher on this matter, H. J. Frith, as reported in Scientific American, August 1959, pp. 54-58, says:

“In the spring [the male Mallee] must reduce the amount of fermentation heat reaching the eggs. He visits the mound before dawn each day and digs rapidly until he nears the egg chamber. After allowing just enough heat to escape he refills the hole with cool sand.

“Later in the summer the sun gets very hot, and much heat moves by conduction from the surface of the mound to the egg chamber. Some heat still moves up also from the organic matter, though fermentation is slowing by this time. The eggs thus tend to overheat, and the bird must do something to reduce the temperature. There is little he can do to slow the fermentation rate, but he does lower the rate of solar conduction. Daily he adds more soil to the mound. As the mound grows higher and higher, the eggs for a while are more thoroughly insulated from the sun. After a time, apparently, the bird can build the mound no higher, and a wave of heat begins to go down toward the eggs again. Now the male bird visits the mound each week or so in the early morning, removes all the soil and scatters it in the cool morning air. When it is cool, he collects it and restores it to the mound. This is strenuous work, but effective in destroying the heat wave in the incubator. The temperature in the egg chamber remains steady at 92 degrees [33 degrees Celsius].

“When autumn comes, the bird is faced with the opposite problem: falling temperature in the mound. The mound no longer generates fermentation heat, and the daily input of solar heat is declining. The bird now changes his activities to meet the challenge. Whereas he had scratched and scattered the sand to cool it in the early morning, often before dawn, he now comes to the mound each day at about 10 a.m., when the sun is shining on it. He digs almost all the soil away and spreads it out so that the mound resembles a large saucer, with the eggs only a few inches below the surface. This thin layer of soil, exposed to the midday sun, absorbs some heat, but not enough to maintain the temperature throughout the night. The saucer must be refilled with heated sand. Throughout the hottest part of the day the bird scratches over the sand he has removed from the mound, exposing all of it to the sun. As each layer gets hot, he returns it to the mound. He times the work so that the incubator is restored with layers of heated sand by 4 p.m., when the sun is getting low.”

This researcher experimented by placing a heating element, operated by a 240-volt generator, in the mound, switching the heat on and off. This kept the male bird busy, but he managed to maintain the temperature at nearly 92 degrees.

What power of blind chance would let this bird know that a temperature of 92 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) was absolutely essential to the incubation of the eggs, and, for that matter, why would this bird want to bring forth offspring at all? In the Mallee fowl’s case it is more a matter of wonder, for when the young bird hatches and digs out of the mound, the parent birds leave it absolutely on its own. They give it no help at all. Yet the male bird has done some of the heaviest work under a blazing sun in order to incubate the eggs, as though the continuation of the Mallee bird species was important to the ecology, which it no doubt is.

Behavior That Is Evidence of Design

There are thousands of other features of animal behavior that can easily be understood as a result of design by a mastermind, but which require thousands of suppositions to justify the theory of chance or coincidence. For example, how did the beaver come to have a tail so suited to his “plastering” work, teeth that can cut down trees, and the motivation to build, first a dam, and then a safe, comfortable home, stocked with a supply of food? How is it that the dams he builds are an adjunct, yes, a necessity, to other animal life in the vicinity? We can hardly say that the beaver is deliberately working for the benefit of other animals.

How did the three-toed jerboa of Asia come to make his permanent burrow with a main entrance, blocked up with sand in the daytime, and with several emergency exits? How did the New Zealand takahe bird know to build several nests, each with two exits, so that she can move from nest to nest? Even a human trying to escape pursuers might overlook making such a plan in advance. We need to note, also, that the animals do not learn such basic patterns from their parents, though in some cases the parents teach the young a few things, including caution, hunting and defensive behavior. Certainly there is no evidence that animals have built on the knowledge or discoveries of their ancestors so as to make advancement in learning, as humans do. Nevertheless, each animal has the behavior pattern necessary for survival of his species.

Design Evident in Differentiation of Kinds

Though many casual readers may not be aware of the fact, Charles Darwin did not believe in evolution in the absolute sense. In the conclusion of his work Origin of Species, he says: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”

But there is no proof that the present great variety of widely differing “kinds” of animals on earth sprang from one, or only a few originally created forms, though many varieties have sprung from the “kinds,” which cannot crossbreed. On this point, H. W. Chatfield, in his book A Scientist in Search of God, writes:

“A crude uncontrolled mating instinct would spell disaster to animal life, but how is the animal world steered upon its virtuous and responsible path if not by the wise intervention of a guiding force which in some way, not understood by us, has interposed a safety embargo to maintain the orderliness of creation? This force has provided the animal world with two sexes with the essential attraction between them to maintain life, but has wisely circumscribed this attraction to prevent its misdirection.

“It may be argued that the 800,000 or so recognized animal species are the result of earlier cross-breeding, and whether this is valid or not, the fact remains that we are able to characterise these distinct species now. If indiscriminate cross-breeding had occurred for the millions of years with which the zoologists and evolutionists are wont to juggle, we should be very fortunate indeed to recognise any individual species at all. The surprise is that after all this time we are able to separate animal life into sharp cut and readily identifiable species.”​—Pp. 138, 139.

As to life on earth, the Bible gives the answer that life is a product of a Master Designer, and not a product of chance. We read: “You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.”​—Rev. 4:11.

And with regard to the reproduction of the different kinds, there is a law governing these, and we know that no law originates by chance or coincidence, but is the product of a lawmaker. This law is that every kind of vegetation and animal must reproduce “according to its kind.” Would you say that the facts point to coincidence, or to design, in life on earth?​—Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25.

[Footnotes]

[Picture on page 12]

The “Anableps dowei” is equipped with “bifocal” lenses​—he can see food on the water’s surface while watching for enemies below

[Picture on page 13]

How does the archer fish compensate for water refraction so that he accurately “shoots down” insects?

[Picture on page 15]

How does the Mallee bird “know” so much about temperature control?

Where Does Man Fit In?

IN TURNING from the wonders and complexities of the animal world to look at human life, we find even greater wonders, for the human body, and particularly the human brain, is of immeasurably greater complexity. In fact, the gulf between the world of animals and that of mankind is much wider than that between insects and apes.

What constitutes this gap? It is found in the difference in makeup physically, mentally and spiritually. Mankind of all tribes and nations, everywhere, has a desire to worship. The most godless of governments have not been able to stamp out this trait. History reveals that humans are always devoted to a god in one sense or another. Even those claiming godlessness may worship the State, money, pleasure, some hero, or a sports star or an entertainment star, or they may set themselves up as “gods.”

Man’s Capacity for Spirituality

The reason is that man, of all living things on earth, has the ability to grasp and understand spiritual things and therefore also has morality, which animals do not possess. Truly, man can be said to have an inborn capacity for spirituality, and he has a need for this capacity to be filled. He appreciates art, beauty and fine qualities. He can, with God’s help, produce the “fruitage of the spirit,” which is “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control.”​—Gal. 5:22, 23.

Purpose, Reasoning, Awareness of Death

The Bible explains this superiority on the part of humankind by saying that man was made ‘in God’s image and likeness.’ (Gen. 1:26, 27) He can reflect some of the qualities of God. Before Adam sinned he was completely, perfectly ‘God’s image and glory.” (1 Cor. 11:7) Not that he was God’s image in appearance or form, but in the desirable attributes of love, reasoning, wisdom, compassion and mercy. He had these and other qualities of God in a measure suited to the place he occupied in God’s creation and the obligations he had to fulfill.

Humans also have purpose in what they do, not as the animals, which do things instinctively. Animals accomplish a purpose, it is true, but not with their power of reason​—it is through either instinct or a short-lived reaction from experience, to take care of an immediate objective. Take, for example, the Bible’s description of ostrich behavior:

“She leaves her eggs to the earth itself

And in the dust she keeps them warm,

And she forgets that some foot may crush them

Or even a wild beast of the field may tread on them.

She does treat her sons roughly, as if not hers—

In vain is her toil because she has no dread.

For God has made her forget wisdom,

And he has not given her a share in understanding.”

​—Job 39:14-17.

In Animals Are Quite Different, “A Study of the Relation between Mankind and the Animals,” Hans Bauer says:

“In contrast with mankind, no animal investigates the reasons for its actions. The animal, when left to its own devices simply seeks its own pleasure and comfort, nothing else. It is true that as a general rule it enjoys doing whatever is of service to its particular constitution. And in very many cases what is of service to it is the establishment of community living [as in the case of termites, ants, bees, birds, etc.].”​—P. 204.

This is not to say that animals have no feelings. The above-quoted book says, on pages 24, 25:

“We have every reason to admit that animals, like human beings, can fear, hate, feel affection and disgust and homesickness, love their native environment, experience anger and terror, possess the social and imitative instincts and feel pleasure, sorrow, joy and depression.”

But these emotions are generally only temporary and are not based on reason. For instance, a dog may stick with and fight for a master that treats him very harshly and that uses the dog to accomplish cruel and wicked purposes.

Only humans have a conception of the future, or plan for the future. They can look forward to time indefinite, to infinity. The Bible says of God’s gift to man: “Even time indefinite he has put in their heart.” (Eccl. 3:11) Animals, on the other hand, live only for the immediate moment or the immediate satisfaction of their desires. Man builds for the future. He uses the information and discoveries of history to plan his future, and most men would like to continue to pursue their purposes to time indefinite. Men “dread” the end of their lives. They know how life turns out​—first, the aging process toward death, then the leaving of loved ones, being unable to carry out their projected works, the ceasing of all enjoyment and being soon forgotten. But animals do not have that “dread,” just as the Bible says with regard to the ostrich.

Man Created to Live Forever and Given Dominion over Animals

The reason for this vast difference is that man was created, not to die, but to live forever on earth. The entering in of sin is what introduced death. (Rom. 5:12; 6:23) However, sin on the part of the man did not introduce sin and death into the animal world. Animals have no knowledge of sin nor a conscience to direct or convict them. Man’s sinful treatment of animals has caused their death in some cases, even the extinction of some species. But geological discoveries prove that animals lived and died long before man appeared on the scene. Obviously, they always had a limited life-span. So whether they die and decay, or are consumed by other animals, it is a natural thing for them to pass off the scene. They have instincts that warn them of danger. This ensures survival of the species. But the animal does not know that fact.

Man was originally given dominion over the animals. (Gen. 1:28) This was because of his great mental superiority. He has often exercised this dominion in a cruel, destructive way. Nevertheless, he is their undoubted master. God reassured Noah after the flood: “A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into your hand they are now given.”​—Gen. 9:2.

In harmony with this statement, animals have a fear of man. Even wild beasts considered dangerous usually do all they can to avoid man. Rare is the animal that seeks out humans to attack them. Usually such a thing happens only when an animal is cornered and feels forced to attack. In fact, in the original perfect state animals were friends of man and were certainly put here for humankind’s good. Only a very small percentage today can be considered harmful, and this is usually because of man’s mistreatment of them, or his wasteful, polluting habits.

So man fits into the earthly scene as the one having dominion, and as the one for whom the entire intricate structure of life exists on earth. While the plant and animal creation glorifies God, man, by his created nature and makeup, if he establishes a good relationship with God, can bring Him far more glory. In answer to our question, we must say: No, life here on earth is not a product of mere chance. In all its counterbalancing forms, and especially in the masterpiece of earthly creation​—man himself—​the marvelous arrangement of living things extols the magnificence of the greatest of designers and builders​—GOD.