The Design in Nature​—What Does It Prove?

ALL of us marvel at things that are designed well. It may be a nicely decorated room, a flower, or a computer. Good design appeals to people.

In connection with design, a line of reasoning often used to prove the existence of God is that design means the existence of a Designer. And many people feel that today’s scientific discoveries have strengthened this argument. Why? Because these help us to appreciate how complex and ingenious the natural world is.

Consider what has been discovered in the world of a single living cell. A century ago the cell was looked upon as a blob of protoplasm surrounded by a simple membrane covering. Today we know that even this outer membrane is a marvel, as it regulates what materials will be brought into the cell or cast out. And inside the cell is an amazing array of interactive material. There are proteins, enzymes, the DNA master blueprint and much, much more that is extremely complex.

The Pattern

Whether we peer into the very small world of atoms and cells, or into the awesome universe with its billions of stars and galaxies, there is a definite pattern. We observe order, intelligence​—yes, design!

Whenever we see design in daily life, we do not hesitate to attribute it to intelligent humans. When we see a house, we acknowledge that it had an intelligent builder. The wristwatch that you may be wearing we acknowledge as the work of a watchmaker. When we see blueprints lying on a table, we know that they were drawn by a draftsman. When we view paintings in an art gallery, we know that they had to be painted by someone. Why, even a table, a chair, a toothbrush or a pencil all had human designers and makers. Now what would you think if you asked, ‘Who made all those things?’ and received the answer, ‘Nobody, for they just happened to come into existence by themselves’?

Yet all such things are relatively simple in design and function compared to atoms, living cells, plants, animals, humans, the universe. If the relatively simple had to have a designer and maker, is it reasonable to conclude that the far more complex did not?

At each level of observation of these things many are moved to agree with the apostle Paul when he said of God: “His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.”​—Romans 1:20.

However, some ask: If this line of reasoning is so logical, why are not more persons convinced of the existence of a Designer, God?

[Pictures on page 3]

From the small world of atoms to the awesome universe we see similar design

Why Are Many Unconvinced?

MANY people observe the design in nature and yet do not believe in the existence of a Designer, a Creator. Why not?

Is this lack of belief due to someone’s having disproved the argument that design requires a Designer? Is there evidence so contrary to this that the design in nature no longer convinces the informed, reasoning mind?

Or does the argument still stand, stronger than ever? Is it, instead, what the apostle Paul said, that persons who refuse to accept what is obvious are “inexcusable”?

Design in History

A brief look back into history on this matter can be helpful. To begin with, there have been many atheists down through the years. But up until about a century ago they were not able to influence religious and scientific thought seriously.

Great scientists of the past, such as Isaac Newton (called by science writer Isaac Asimov “the greatest scientific mind the world has ever seen”), believed in God. They did not consider disbelief a necessary credential of their scientific ability.

To the contrary, Newton and many other scientists, as well as great thinkers in other fields, pointed to the design in nature as proof of the existence of the Master Designer, God. That was the prevailing idea for centuries.

The Violence in Nature

Then something happened to the concept that the universe is the work of a loving Designer.

By the middle of the nineteenth century, writers such as Darwin, Malthus and Spencer were calling attention to the violence in nature. Was it not true, they said, that the big animal was eating the little animal? Was it not true that on the jungle floor each day and night there was a pitched battle for survival?

Certainly it was a fact that animals preyed on one another. Hence, this line of reasoning continued: Was not this savage battle for survival the real truth about life on earth? Why, even in the realm of mankind, were not animalistic wars, selfish struggle and ‘the law of the jungle’ the real forces that shaped history? There was not the harmony and peace manifest in nature that one would expect of a loving Grand Designer.

George Romanes, a friend of Darwin’s, described nature this way: “We find teeth and talons whetted for slaughter, hooks and suckers moulded for torment​—everywhere a reign of terror, hunger, sickness, with oozing blood and quivering limbs, with gasping breath and eyes of innocence that dimly close in deaths of cruel torture.”

Darwin’s theory of purposeless struggle and survival of the fittest​—not design by God—​was swept into popular acceptance. And from this a new historical concept was born: Social Darwinism.

Notice how H. G. Wells evaluated the situation in his Outline of History: “There was a real loss of faith after 1859 [the year Darwin’s Origin of Species was published]. . . . Prevalent peoples at the close of the nineteenth century believed that they prevailed by virtue of the Struggle for Existence, in which the strong and cunning get the better of the weak and confiding . . . And just as in a pack it is necessary to bully and subdue the younger and weaker for the general good, so it seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue.”

Many were quick to accept this line of thought. One reason why was the deserved antagonism that they already felt toward many churches for suppressing scientific inquiry. Worse yet, they could see that the prominent religions fomented and justified wars and bloodshed. Hence, Wells accurately commented: “The true gold of religion was in many cases thrown away with the worn-out purse that had contained it for so long.”

‘God Is Responsible’

As to the argument that design proves a Designer, it was then reasoned: ‘If you say that those talons, hooks and teeth, the reign of terror, hunger and sickness were designed by God, then you must accept that this God of yours is responsible for suffering and violence. Yet you say he is love. Which is it?’

Such persons thus concluded: ‘You see, the only plausible explanation is struggle, survival of the fittest, blind, unguided evolution.’

Thus the design-equals-a-Designer argument was supposedly laid in its grave. To use that argument was to bring charges of cruelty against God. And, pitifully, in their usual fashion, the religious leaders of both Christendom and heathendom gave no real answer to this problem.

Since that time the pattern has remained much the same. When the question of a Designer comes up, often the violence-in-nature dilemma is invoked. For example, philosopher Bertrand Russell said in his book Why I Am Not A Christian:

“When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”

Let us analyze more deeply this line of thinking, since it is often used against the idea of the design in nature requiring a Designer.

[Pictures on page 5]

How does the “law of the jungle” among humans and animals fit in with a loving Designer?

It Is Still Designed!

DOES the struggle in the animal and human realm really rule out a Designer, a Creator? A close look at the matter will reveal that the answer is, No. The argument that design needs a Designer has not really been refuted.

Indeed, using the struggle in nature to disprove the existence of a Designer does not come to grips with the matter. To disprove the existence of a Designer requires more than passing a moral judgment on the use of the things designed.

Design Means a Designer

To illustrate: when you see jet aircraft, it may displease you to think that they can be made to transport atom bombs as well as passengers. However, regardless of their function, modern jet airplanes are very complex. They have highly sophisticated equipment, such as computers, navigation aids and powerful engines.

Would anyone say that jet planes are not the product of intelligent human design simply because they can be used to kill and destroy? Would anyone in his right mind suggest that, instead, they grew out of a heap of scrap metals by themselves?

Design is design, no matter what purpose it currently serves. The more complex the design and the more that all its many parts must work simultaneously, the more compelling the proof of an intelligent designer. Nothing in the whole of human experience contradicts this conclusion.

There is no reason to shy away from applying this principle to the animals that at present prey upon one another. Their teeth and claws were obviously designed. So were the hands and the brains of humans, which also can be turned to horrible use.

Consider how these organs come about. A single sex cell begins to multiply after conception and produces a cluster of copies of itself. These then begin to differentiate and produce only specialized cells and tissues. These may be as soft as the fur of an animal or as hard and razor sharp as its teeth and claws.

All of that is nothing less than exquisite design at work. Even those not inclined to credit a Designer for such workings use superlatives to describe them. For instance, Time magazine spoke of cell differentiation this way: “At a critical moment early in the life of an embryo, identical cells miraculously (no other word will do) begin to take on specialized roles​—some forming tissue for the heart, for example, others that of the liver or skin.” Do not such miracles bespeak the existence of the Miracle Worker or Designer?

We quickly admit a designer when we see a camera, a radio, a robot’s artificial hand, a water pump, a computer. These things obviously were the work of intelligent humans. By what logic, then, can it be claimed that similar, but infinitely more complex things​—the eye, ear, hand, heart, brain—​were not designed by someone of far greater intelligence?

The Problem

The problem Bertrand Russell raised about the Klan, or the Fascists, has nothing to do with the argument as to whether a Designer exists; rather, the problem has to do with the use of what was designed. With humans, free will comes into play, and this free will is itself a marvelous product of design. But why have humans so often used free will to do bad? And the animals, were they designed to kill and maim? Too, why has the Designer permitted all of this?

Really, the problem is not a question of whether a Designer exists; rather, it is a moral question. Man’s implanted sense of right and wrong is strong enough so that at times he is not satisfied by any explanation that does not address the questions of violence and killing and God’s permission of wickedness.

The next article will deal with the way things now work in nature in contradiction to God’s goodness. But, in the meantime, the design-equals-a-Designer argument stands unrefuted. As the book The Universe: Plan or Accident? observes:

“The recognition of design in nature is no ephemeral scientific conclusion based upon the researches of a decade or two in the history of science​—a conclusion which might at any time be reversed were a few new facts to come to light. Rather it is a conclusion which has stood the test of thousands of years; a conclusion so certain that if it should one day transpire that it was a gigantic mistake, man would have every ground for doubting whether valid conclusions of any kind can be reached by thinking.”

No, do not be afraid to trust your reasoning powers when they lead you to the same conclusion reached by the apostle Paul who said: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.”​—Hebrews 3:4.

However, what of the killing and violence in nature? Could that be part of the design of a loving God?

[Blurb on page 8]

For thousands of years people have recognized the design in nature

[Picture on page 6]

While jet aircraft can be made to transport people or nuclear bombs, both types of aircraft are the products of intelligent design

[Pictures on page 7]

We acknowledge these as the products of intelligent human designers

Far more marvelous things had to be designed by a superior intelligence

When All Nature Will Be in Harmony

DESPITE the abundant evidence showing that the design in nature requires an intelligent Designer, many persons do not believe that God exists. They feel that a loving Creator would not have designed the violence, killing and wickedness so prevalent on earth.

However, what if God did NOT design the violence and killing? What if he is NOT responsible for the gross wickedness among humans? Instead, what if he detests these things and promises that he will absolutely put them to an end in his own due time?

Who Is Responsible?

A company may manufacture a knife for cutting vegetables. If someone uses this knife to kill another person, who is responsible? Is the manufacturer of the knife condemned? No, the one who misused the knife is guilty.

The human hand is used wonderfully for ever so many constructive tasks. It builds houses, plants trees, picks up needles, tenderly holds babies. But if a man uses his hands to strangle another person, could we charge that the hand was improperly designed? No, it is not the designer who is to blame but the owner.

If a builder constructs a beautiful home and gives it to tenants who vandalize it, who is at fault? Would you charge the builder with the crime? No, you would hold the vandalizers responsible for the wrong. And surely you would not deny that the builder existed just because the tenants were delinquent.

It is contrary to reason and to justice to condemn the innocent. It is contrary to reason to condemn body parts or organs that God designed for a good purpose if they are used differently at present.

In the Bible we have a clear record of God’s purpose for human and animal life on earth, and why they are in chaos today. Further, that record tells us how all nature will soon come into complete peace and harmony.

Not Designed That Way

Did the human and animal creations always behave the way they do now? Have they always hurt and maimed and killed? Were they designed to do that?

The answer to these questions is: NO, not at all!

Indeed, is God even the ruler of this present system of things? Is he guiding the nations in their dealings with one another? Again, the answer to these questions is: NO, not at all!

Well, then, just how was it long ago? Why are things the way they are now? Who, indeed, does rule this world? And just how will God bring all nature into complete peace and harmony?

The Way It Was

When God created humans and animals to live on this earth, he did not purpose for them to be killers. They were created to have peaceful relations with one another. Thus conditions were altogether different from what they are today. The record tells us that “God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.”​—Genesis 1:31.

The human creation was to have in loving subjection “the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (Ge 1 Verse 28) None of the animals in the garden of Eden were killers. They were not a threat to man, nor was man a threat to any animal.

God’s Word clearly says regarding the first humans: “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.” (Genesis 1:29) Hence, man did not use animals for food.

What was the food of the animals? The inspired record states: “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.” Or, as Today’s English Version of the Bible puts it: “For all the wild animals and for all the birds I have provided grass and leafy plants for food.”​—Genesis 1:30.

So when God designed humans, he put them in a peaceful paradise called Eden. He made them to be at peace with the animals, with no violence or killing for food among animals or man. And humans were to keep it that way by caring for themselves, the animals and the garden paradise that they and their offspring would spread to encompass eventually the entire earth.​—Genesis 1:27, 28.

The Key

How could humans keep this peaceful paradise and live forever on earth, as was their prospect? By obeying God’s laws. That was the key. Why was that so important? Because God did not design humans to be independent of their Maker and still be successful. The Bible clearly says: “To earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”​—Jeremiah 10:23.

Mankind’s problems began when our first parents misused their free moral agency. They were seduced by a rebellious spirit creature to believe that they could determine right and wrong without God’s help. They chose independence from God. But that was not the Designer’s fault. “Perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he,” the Bible says. The responsibility for the consequences of rebellion lies with the rebels: “They have acted ruinously on their own part; they are not his children, the defect is their own.”​—Deuteronomy 32:4, 5; Genesis 2:15–3:24.

Since humans wanted independence, God gave it to them. However, no longer would he sustain them in perfection. So imperfection and death came into being. (Romans 5:12) And God permitted this​—for a period of time—​so that all could see what the course of independence would cost mankind, the animals and the earth. For these thousands of years God has allowed this so that once and for all time the sad consequences of rebellion would be manifest.

Thus, independence from God and his laws is what turned man into the way of imperfection, violence and death. Also, as man turned toward lawlessness, the earthly creation, too, became chaotic. Man lost his loving dominion over the animals. Since humans could not control themselves peacefully, it is no surprise that the animals are in the same condition.

The animals​—who had a vegetarian diet in Eden, as did humans—​began to live off one another, some even eating humans when possible. (Genesis 1:30) And, as a concession for his survival, man was authorized to eat animal flesh for food after the Flood.​—Genesis 9:2-4.

Not Designed to Kill

Yet, what about the features of animals and humans that are used for maiming and killing? Since God created a vast variety of different features, many of them could be adapted to the new situation to help in survival.

For instance, most animals would continue to eat vegetation, as is the case down to this day. An example is the powerful gorilla, with its awesome fangs​—fangs still used to rip and consume heavy vegetation. But others adapted themselves to eating flesh. Yet predators make up only a very small percent of the animals.

Man, too, has adapted. In his imperfection and waywardness, he often uses his mind and hands to maim and kill. He has even cannibalized other humans for food. And his teeth can be adapted to eating meat, though that was not included in his diet in Eden.

But what of the “balance of nature”? If there was no killing, how would this be maintained? For one thing, it was man who was to live forever on earth. That promise was not given to animals. They would die when their life span was completed.

Also, many animals have built-in mechanisms that reduce their fertility when overcrowding occurs. And this is without God’s direct intercession now. Surely, when God’s time comes for all the earth to be brought back into that peaceful Edenic condition, it will be no great thing for the Grand Designer of animals and humans to control their numbers without violence.

An example of how God can subdue the violence in animals was the peace that existed among beasts and humans for about a year in Noah’s ark.

Keep in mind that what exists today is not what it was like in the paradise of Eden. That environment was vastly different. Many foods were likely different. Probably the animals with hardier teeth had rougher food. Their teeth were designed for that.

Certainly there are questions that cannot now be answered about the exact conditions in Eden. But this does not argue that there was no Designer.

Who Rules This World?

Also, what of the contention, such as Bertrand Russell’s, that anyone who was all-wise and all-powerful should not have made such a mess of this world? He assumed, as do others, that if there is a God he is responsible for this world.

However, the Creator, Jehovah God, is not this world’s ruler. This present system of things is run by men independent from him, and it is manipulated by that unseen spirit rebel, Satan the Devil. The Bible calls Satan “the god of this system of things.” (2 Corinthians 4:4) Jesus called Satan “the ruler of this world.” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) The oversight of the nations is what Satan offered Jesus in an attempt to get him to rebel against God.​—Luke 4:5-8.

Hence, all the chaos and violence committed by humans is the responsibility of rebellious humans and wicked spirit forces. God is not responsible.

The Restoration

The Bible speaks of the “restoration of all things.” (Acts 3:21) It shows unmistakably that the miserable experiment in independence from God will shortly come to an end. Both the wicked spirit forces in heavenly places and rebellious humans on earth will be cleared out, paving the way for “new heavens and a new earth . . . and in these righteousness is to dwell.”​—2 Peter 3:13; see also Proverbs 2:21, 22; Revelation 19:11-21.

Then will begin the restoration of Edenic conditions​—of Paradise. (Luke 23:43) That will mean the restoring of peace and harmony between humans and animals, they no longer using one another for food. The Bible states at Isaiah 11:6-9: “The wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand. They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain.”

In the human realm, total peace will also be a reality: “He [God] is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; the [war] wagons he burns in the fire.”​—Psalm 46:9.

Hence, with good reason does the inspired Bible prophecy say this about the Grand Designer’s soon-to-come new order: “The meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.”​—Psalm 37:11; Matthew 5:5.

While the consequences of rebellion will thus be erased, the idea that our first parents, Adam and Eve, rebelled against God causes some people to wonder. They have been taught to regard Adam and Eve as mythical characters. So can we have confidence that they really existed?