Share
A- A A+
Free Email News
By Design
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati

US $15.00
View Item
Discovery of Design
by Donald DeYoung & Derrik Hobb

US $14.00
View Item
God the Master Designer DVD
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati

US $13.00
View Item

Feedback archiveFeedback 2012

Building a better biology?

Published: 10 November 2012 (GMT+10)

Skeptics often complain about a perceived lack of optimal design in various biological structures, and think they can do it better. However, such complaints are long on rhetoric, but short on substance. Building a better biology is not as easy as some skeptics seem to think it is. CMI’s Lita Cosner responds to today’s correspondent with comments interspersed.

Erin writes:

Hello people, I am a Christian and I love science. I have a question, or series of questions I would like to run by anyone of you who are versed in the sciences, biology, and physics, and, who are fellow Christians. I enjoy your books and materials, as well.

123rf.com/Bojana Ilic

The essential core of my question is this: We look at nature, the human body, and even evangelism, and we see alot of ineffeciency, at least what appears to be inefficient, to us. I see two classes of arguments put forth: The atheists will look at the world and say “The human body is inefficient, compared to “Theoretically Ideal” engines and mechanisms, and “I would design things better than your God”. The second statement put forth is that the human body and nature are very efficient, for the tasks they have to carry out. Its like: Human flesh is too easy to damage, and yet, the human body is also incredibly strong and flexible. When compared to electronic circuits, human neurons and neural synapses function at the slower chemical-reaction speeds, and yet, neurons, synapses, and the data processing systems of biology are much more intricate and powerful than artificial machines, in other ways. So which is it? Thats part of my question.

As a Christian, I know that the universe is young (ie a few thousand years old) and was created in six 24 hour days. I know that molecules to man Evolution is false, even though “micro evolution”: Change within a basic Kind, is real. I know that when God created everything originally it was perfect, good, and, the death and problems came with the fall of Adam and Eve. And, I know Jesus will return one day and restore and regenerate the universe.

When an atheist says “If I were to design a human body, I would have made it super efficient, not weak and frail like our bodies.” What should I say? The atheist engineer told me “I would have made humans able to get energy from solar power, which is all around us, instead of having to eat food meals or starve. I would have made human bodies with super strong and light carbon fiber skeletons and tougher polymer skins, so we would not be easilly damaged like proteins and bones are. I would have used some method other than blood and hemoglobin and a brain that needs oxygen to survive, this is a weak system.” You get the picture. How would you respond to this atheist? He also said: “While I deny your Gospel, I could think of a more efficient means to spread it, than what appears in your Bible. If I were God, I would write Gospel verses on the clouds every day in all languages, so noone could deny it, and, instead of having inefficient fallen humans do it, I would have angels appear and tell people to turn to Jesus, that would be more convincing.” How would you respond to him?

human body

123rf.com/Alexey Belous

Sincerely,

Erin

Thank you

CMI Information Officer Lita Cosner’s responses are interspersed:

Dear Erin,

My comments are interspersed below:

Hello people, I am a Christian and I love science. I have a question, or series of questions I would like to run by anyone of you who are versed in the sciences, biology, and physics, and, who are fellow Christians. I enjoy your books and materials, as well.

I’m glad you enjoy our resources.

The essential core of my question is this: We look at nature, the human body, and even evangelism, and we see alot of ineffeciency, at least what appears to be inefficient, to us. I see two classes of arguments put forth: The atheists will look at the world and say “The human body is inefficient, compared to “Theoretically Ideal” engines and mechanisms, and “I would design things better than your God”.

This shows a lot of ignorance on the atheist’s part, which I’ll get to more below. For now I’ll refer you to our Design Questions and Answers page which has a lot of instances where scientists have looked to nature to improve their own designs.

The second statement put forth is that the human body and nature are very efficient, for the tasks they have to carry out. Its like: Human flesh is too easy to damage, and yet, the human body is also incredibly strong and flexible.

But of course, they usually attribute this to random selection over millions of years.

When compared to electronic circuits, human neurons and neural synapses function at the slower chemical-reaction speeds, and yet, neurons, synapses, and the data processing systems of biology are much more intricate and powerful than artificial machines, in other ways.

The brain is a problem for evolutionists, because in their view it’s over-evolved.

The brain and nervous system is an incredibly complex, extremely well-designed system which has a computing power orders of magnitude beyond anything we can imagine building at present. In fact, the brain is a problem for evolutionists, because in their view it’s over-evolved. Why would a dumb hunter-gatherer need the potential to play chess or play the mandolin? If the brain evolved, we would expect it to work just well enough to give us a survival advantage, what we actually see is extravagantly more than that.

So which is it? Thats part of my question.

We see evidence of a human body that was incredibly well-designed, but is affected by the Curse and 6,000 years of genetic entropy.

As a Christian, I know that the universe is young (ie a few thousand years old) and was created in six 24 hour days. I know that molecules to man Evolution is false, even though “micro evolution”: Change within a basic Kind, is real.

But we discourage people from calling it ‘microevolution’ because it gives the wrong idea that it’s the sort of change that evolution requires. See our Arguments Creationists Shouldn’t Use page. In fact, natural selection and speciation (which do happen, and actually are an important part of how we explain how all land animals today are descended from passengers on Noah’s Ark) involve the opposite of what evolution requires (see the links for an explanation).

I know that when God created everything originally it was perfect, good, and, the death and problems came with the fall of Adam and Eve. And, I know Jesus will return one day and restore and regenerate the universe.

Yes, that’s a broad outline of the creation, fall, restoration theology that runs throughout Scripture.

When an atheist says “If I were to design a human body, I would have made it super efficient, not weak and frail like our bodies.” What should I say?

Well, first of all, he would have to propose something better. And this body would have to develop from a single cell (the fertilized egg) to adult, viable at every stage of development. The ‘recipe’ would have to be able to be encoded in DNA, and use organic materials. It would also have to be able to repair itself and reproduce.

The atheist engineer told me “I would have made humans able to get energy from solar power, which is all around us, instead of having to eat food meals or starve.

This atheist engineer obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about. From where would the physical material come out of which our bodies are constructed? Even plants don’t run on solar power alone; they need nutrients from the soil. Photosynthesis is only one part of the equation. And how much surface area would humans require if we were to get all our energy from sunlight? Our resident biologist tells me that the average plant gets just under 14 food calories (14 kcal) per day per square meter of surface area. Plants do not have to move. They do not have to instantaneously interact with their environments. And, importantly, they do not have to think. These processes require tremendous amounts of energy (about 2,000 food calories per day). To get 2,000 food calories per day through photosynthesis, human beings would require a flat surface 36 feet by 36 feet, or the size of a modest home. This doesn’t include the requirements for extra energy to lug around this huge amount of extra mass plus the supporting structure required to hold it aloft!

A surface area of ~1500 square feet would have huge problems with heat management and all this photosynthesis would require a tremendous amount of water for the fixing of carbon and to account for water loss though the stomates that need to be kept open in order for carbon dioxide to get in (i.e., we would need roots). These are only the first considerations. What this person has proposed is nothing short of a total reengineering of what it means to be human. So what he is really saying is, “If I were to create humans, I would not create humans,” which is nonsensical.

I would have made human bodies with super strong and light carbon fiber skeletons

Could they repair themselves the way our bones can? Our bones are already super light and strong. And don’t forget they contain the marrow, without which we’d die pretty quickly.

and tougher polymer skins, so we would not be easilly damaged like proteins and bones are.

Our skin is remarkably strong for its thickness, and it works well. Consider that we go around most days without a single injury. It takes a sharp instrument or considerably force to break the skin, and the ingenious blood clotting mechanism can create a temporary protective covering over most minor wounds.

I would have used some method other than blood and hemoglobin and a brain that needs oxygen to survive, this is a weak system.”

Again, he has to come up with a system that works as well, within the constraints of biological development and upkeep. And the brain would have to be plastic (not the material, the ability to change and develop according to use).

Moreover, it’s extremely unlikely that brains could be constructed that don’t need oxygen in this world. Brains are energy-expensive organs, so they need a highly effective and highly abundant terminal electron acceptor1 to be able to produce enough energy through cellular respiration to function. Oxygen is the best candidate around. It has a higher reduction potential than any other terminal electron acceptor used in biology. This means it is more efficient at producing the electrochemical gradient2 needed to produce ATP, the cells ‘energy currency’, than any other biological terminal electron acceptor, which is why practically all multicelled creatures respire using oxygen. It is also highly abundant—it is the most abundant element in the crust and sea by weight; and the second most abundant in the air.

We don’t have the right to ask Him to do cheap parlor tricks and sky writing to convince us.

You get the picture. How would you respond to this atheist? He also said: “While I deny your Gospel, I could think of a more efficient means to spread it, than what appears in your Bible. If I were God, I would write Gospel verses on the clouds every day in all languages, so noone could deny it, and, instead of having inefficient fallen humans do it, I would have angels appear and tell people to turn to Jesus, that would be more convincing.” How would you respond to him?

I would explain to him that Someone more important than angels gave us the Gospel, God Himself (God the Son) came down as one of us to give us the message (Hebrews 2). We don’t have the right to ask Him to do cheap parlor tricks and sky writing to convince us, and if they aren’t convinced by the Scriptures, miracles won’t convince them either (cf. the Pharisees who had Jesus killed, and continued to reject Him after the Resurrection).

Sincerely,

Erin

Thank you

I hope these comments are helpful.

Sincerely,

Lita Cosner

Dear people,

Thank you so very much for the responses and answers to my questions that I was asked.

This was very helpful.

God bless you

Erin

Related Articles

Further Reading

References

  1. A compound that receives or accepts an electron during oxidation of a carbon source (e.g. during cellular respiration or photosynthesis). All organisms obtain energy by transferring electrons from an electron donor to an electron acceptor. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_acceptor. Return to text.
  2. The separation of oppositely charged ions by a membrane which produces both a concentration gradient and an electric charge gradient across the membrane. This is often generated by actively transporting one or more such ions across a cell membrane. See http://www.biologyaspoetry.com/terms/electrochemical_gradient.html. Return to text.

Expand this site. Besides the over 8,000 fully searchable articles on this site, we want to add many more ways to reach a media-soaked culture. But it requires expertise to do it. Help us expand our methods of outreach. Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Sam H., Australia, 10 November 2012

Lol at living things being 'badly designed' as soon as man can make even an electron from nothing is the time when i would listen to them-which is never.

Jack C., Australia, 10 November 2012

Thank you for a very clearly spelled out response to the absurd thesis by some atheists that the human body is weak and inefficient, which in fact is the opposite. I like to ask such atheists how does a "human" made up of carbon fibre or titanium reproduce itself? Perhaps the atheists are talking about robots building robots, in which case it's a totally different story and the atheists are totally confused and so have derailed their own arguments.

Mike W., United Kingdom, 10 November 2012

Lita, you stated "But of course, they usually attribute this to random selection over millions of years."

Surely, if you're refering to natural selection, evolutionists would say that's not random, it's the mutations that are undirected?

Cheers.

Lita Cosner responds

I meant 'random' as in, not having a particular goal in mind. But the distinction may be helpful to bear in mind.

Frederico L., Brazil, 10 November 2012

As a engineer myself, I can understand the intellectual pride of the referred "Atheist engineer". What if the world were designed according to this engineer's counsel? Would he recognize God's design?

In manmade systems, design can be clearly recognized, even if we think it can be optimized or even if we can see design failures.

"Optimal design" is a concept not as objective as it may seems. Optimized for what and in what sense?

Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? (Rm 11:34)

Why should God have designed indestructible machines and with indefinite autonomy?

God may well have chosen to design systems that are dependant on each other, as He indeed made in our world. That kind of design could always be classified as suboptimal or deffective, depending on the observer.

But how what is molded can say to its molder: "Why have you made me like this?" (Rm 9:20)

In biological machines, we can clearly see God's design, even after the results of the Fall or if, in our pride, we think we can find weaknesses in the design.

We can see the world perfectly designed to show God's activity, goodness and wisdom, as well as to show our dependency on Him.

We need Christ for your salvation from Sin and Curse, and those who trust Him will be eternally grateful and dependent on Him.

Curtis C., United States, 10 November 2012

I'd just like to add a few things. Most importantly, it is very heartening that God trusts those who are called to do our own thinking and research and arrive at the right conclusions, and more importantly to choose to truly love him with freewill and faith, not just like robots via skywriting or the like. This way, on Judgement Day he can say to many of us, "Well done, faithful servant" -- a very exciting honor to receive from the Almighty!

Secondly, no matter how resilient this atheist imagines he could design a body, it's all relative. There would still be some means to damage and kill it. Given that death was impossible before sin, and will be made impossible again in the future (although we don't know what bodies will be like then), it's basically irrelevant. He gave us the maximum resilience possible, when balanced with other considerations that would have been more important pre-Fall, and many still are.

Also, indirectly God -did- design us to get energy from solar power. Plants do this, and originally that was all we were to eat. The nutrients stored in food plants got there partly through solar energy. It could be compared to a long-range electric car charging its battery at a non-mobile array of solar panels -- much more efficient than trying to drag around all that mass of the solar panels as it moves around.

Chebs K., United States, 10 November 2012

There is a difference between Adaptation and Macro-Evolution.

For instance:

Adaptation happens at different scales. For an individual organism, adaptation is behavioral and physiological. For example, if it is cold, an organism can move into the sun as well as generate more thyroid hormone to produce more heat.

Evolving would mean natural selection selects for the genes that code for the physiological mechanisms of survival and reproduction of fertile offspring who can pass on these DNA instructions.

Lita Cosner responds

Note though that we recommend against using the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution, as it implies that the two are the same sort of process, and that a lot of micro-evolutionary change will result in macro-evolution. But see The evolution train's a-comin' (Sorry, a-going'—in the wrong direction).

Jason K., United States, 10 November 2012

I would just like to add that this atheist engineer is apparently designing his human to live in a world where things like a super strong skeleton and tough skin are needed and where starvation is a possibility. However, when God created humans He had a much nicer world to put us in where such things wouldn't be necessary. This is like driving a luxury car on sand dunes and then complaining that your car isn't designed well enough, even though it wasn't designed to drive in the desert in the first place.

Lita Cosner responds

But of course, God did design the human body to survive remarkably well in the post-Fall world; our immune systems help us recover from illnesses, there are mechanisms in our bodies to help us recover from broken bones and other injuries, etc. But you're right; if Adam hadn't sinned, we wouldn't even have to discuss why the human body breaks down sometimes.

James M., United Kingdom, 10 November 2012

As an engineer I wish I could design a washing machine, car, mobile phone, anything that would last over 40 years without needing parts replaced, could repair itself, look after itself, use materials it had gathered itself to run and use for any maintenance. Something like an iPhone is a great product but it isn't made from the best materials in the world, there are better cameras, bigger screens, longer lasting batteries but you choose optimum components for the size, price, weight and use. The combination of design features in the human body is fantastic and I haven't come across a suggestion that would be a true overall improvement on the original fully working design.

michael S., United Kingdom, 10 November 2012

I would like to point out something important to Erin. There is something in logic called, a "vacuous truth" or a "vacuous statement".

Such an argument, DEPENDS on something FALSE in order for that argument to work.

for example, "If I were God(false), I would design system X more efficiently(true)."

But the point is - I am not God, therefore I am not capable of designing anything in the first place, therefore we can dismiss what I say. This is a vacuous argument because I will never be God. (false/vacuous)

Another example of a vacuous or meaningless statement, is the following;

"If I were superman, I would solve the world's problems."

BUT I will never be superman, so again, "if I were superman" is a vacuous/false assertion that can tell us nothing.

It's important to remind your atheist friends that the most important part of their argument is the part that is false, which is the only reason their arguments APPEAR to work, but in reality, hold no meaning.

Hypothetical conjecture is not relevant to reality.

Paula S., United States, 10 November 2012

"The atheist engineer told me “I would have made humans able to get energy from solar power, which is all around us, instead of having to eat food meals or starve."

Apparently this person never left a houseplant in a dark corner and forgot to water it for a few weeks.

Jesse M., United States, 11 November 2012

What this scoffer does not realize is that God was working signs and wonders in front of the people of Israel day in and day out for 40 years, and after a while, people took those things for granted and forgot the One who was doing them. This led to unbelief amongst many of them. Likewise, if God were writing on the sky on a daily basis, it would not seem miraculous to us and people would forget the One who was doing it and just ignore it. Also, God sent down the Holy Spirit after Jesus' ascension in order to bear witness of Him. I also have heard that in some of the areas of the world where the people are not reached by the gospel, people already know about Jesus due to special revelations.

Gareth H., United Kingdom, 11 November 2012

Super example of how evolutionary teaching eliminates the ability to think, in those who blindly accept it as fact. Nice letter from Erin and wonderful response from Lita. Keep up the super work.

Steven G., Canada, 11 November 2012

"I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." [Psalms 139:14 NIV]

But what do we hear from the anti-theist?

"I don't want an eye with a blind spot"

"I want x-ray vision"

"I should be solar powered"

"I don't want skin it might tear"

"I should be able to swim in lava"

"I don't like oxygen the air is full of it"

"I should be able to survive a nuclear blast"

"If I were designing the human body it would have a knife, scissors, bottle opener, can opener, tweezers, nail file, magnifying glass, flamethrower, rocket launcher, and of course a toothpick."

There's just no pleasing some people.

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."'

[Luke 7:33-34 NIV]

Christian R., Canada, 11 November 2012

When an atheist says “If I were to design a human body, I would have made it super efficient, not weak and frail like our bodies.” What should I say?

Well, first of all, he would have to propose something better. And this body would have to develop from a single cell (the fertilized egg) to adult, viable at every stage of development. The ‘recipe’ would have to be able to be encoded in DNA, and use organic materials. It would also have to be able to repair itself and reproduce.

I would just like to point out that the rebuttal you make here is flawed. To say that "this body would have to develop from a single cell (the fertilized egg) to adult, viable at every stage of development" mixes up the evolutionary worldview and the creationist worldview. He is proposing that, if our Christian worldview is true we should see more well-designed bodies. The response then says that: In order to design these better bodies they would have to be viable within an evolutionary framework. It does not make sense.

Maybe a better response would be to argue that the body is designed according to a given purpose. Though the atheist may envision a different purpose than that of our creator, he cannot argue that our bodies are not perfectly designed for their intended function.

In addition one can point out (as was done in the article) some of the trade-offs that are made. Yes, we do not have super-strong carbon polymer skin, but our skin is self-repairing and renewing, and other similar arguments.

Thanks CMI for this article.

Lita Cosner responds

I think you may have mistook my meaning a little bit. When I said "viable at every stage of development," I meant from zygote to adult, not from single-celled ancestor to human (although the evolutionist has to account for the latter as well as the former).

Ivan J., Australia, 15 November 2012

As much as lying around in the sun for my daily energy requirements may have some appeal, nothing beats tucking into a good steak!

God gave us gastronomic pleasures, as well.

David B., Australia, 15 November 2012

As marvellous as the human body is it is designed to fail, for not to do so would render the process of salvation through faith unnecessary. As for better ways of preaching, we are told that God chose the foolishness of preaching as his means to spread the message to those who would hear, (1 Cor. 1:20-31 which also highlights why people do not accept God, and 2 Cor. 17:21) that God might have the glory and not the preacher. Would angels proclaiming the word be more effective? Even though the people saw the works of the Son of God (not God himself for, how could one immortal [cannot die] die? Or be tempted like a person? [angels cannot be tempted]) they didn't believe, they only wanted more.

Lita Cosner responds

While I would agree that the failing human body often powerfully points us to the need for the Gospel, I would disagree that it was 'designed' to fail, because this would imply that God built death into creation at the beginning. Rather, the Fall and the Curse meant that perfectly-designed human body would fail.

Nathan B., Australia, 16 November 2012

My response to the idea posed in this article has it's slant toward those with faith in Christ Jesus in that first it discounts the “fall” and “sin” and “curse”.

Understandably this will be scoffed at by those who do not believe.

It is in this position that any production of evidence for “inefficiency” is meaningless since they are merely proving the current state and condition of the entire universe.

Secondly even discounting the above reality, we need to understand prophecy. It is wider and deeper than any one of us has even cared to comprehend.

Prophecy being both foretelling (requiring time) and forth telling (requiring a message) we are blind to the fact that everything in the universe declares the glory of God (forth telling).

Forth telling is quite telling in that it foretells things we neither yet comprehend or understand.

Numerous examples from Old / New Testament show us not only deliberate displays of prophecy and fulfilment but everyday living as a display of prophecy and fulfilment.

Our bodies are amazing declarations in the light of Revelation and as my Hebrew teacher explained to me the Hebrew language is based upon physiology.

Thus it is not much of a stretch that prophecy is found displayed in the physical realm all around us.

Take Marriage.

It is one woman and one man not because of a long standing human outmoded moral tradition but a perpetual attitude that we should have as a forth telling of relationship between Christ and Church. Even failing in our marriages reflect this is relevant since the church is not in a perfect condition of love with Christ. I know I'm not?

Thus for man to state that even one aspect of creation (fallen or not) can be improved is a display of ignorance and a usurpation of the true intentions of creation.

Jay M., United Kingdom, 16 November 2012

I once had a similar argument from an atheist who said he would give humans the ability to breath through the skin, like frogs, thus preventing drowning. I had some idea of how to answer, but decided not to because I wasn't 100% sure. How would you respond to him?

Lita Cosner responds

I asked one of our staff biologists to help with this one. For one thing, frogs have a much higher surface area to mass ratio, making respiring through skin a good option for something like a frog, but not so great for something the size of a human. Also, water has much less oxygen than air, so doing this underwater would require even more surface area. Fish do not respire through their skin--they need specialized gills with a counter-current exchange mechanism. There are no warm-blooded animals that extract oxygen from water. Anything with a high metabolic rate, like whales, seals, and so on, breath air.

Alfred B., United States, 16 November 2012

Hi Lisa Costner. I love CMI. I am a science teacher in Christian education for 25 years. I was so excited to find CMI a few years ago. Anyway, my point. You told Erin to tell her engineer friend that Someone more important "came down to us". I know what you meant, but I still have advisaries who will say, "We have been searching the cosmos up there for centuries and we find no God, heaven,angels etc. So where did Jesus come down from?" I teach my students to say that He entered our universe or our dimension, our domain anything but down here. I also don't want imply multi universes. I was wondering if there is better way to present the power and majesty of His arrival here to save us?Great response to the engineer's obvious lack of biology/physiology. Thanks again for your efforts!

Don R., Canada, 16 November 2012

I would like to meet the engineer who said the body is poorly designed and ask him to show me a better lubricating surface than exists in every human joint. As an anatomy professor I showed my university students how "boundary lubrication" occurs automatically as one cartilage surface moves over another. With joint movement, as the pressure squeezes fluid out of the compressed cartilage and lubricates the advancing edge of the pressurized area, nourishing joint fluid moves in where the pressure is released. No engineer has ever made a better system. Of course, in time, the cartilage does wear out (secondary to the fall), and in my 81st year I am having a little trouble. But no one can make a machine that has survived more trauma over so many years than this ex- skydiver has experienced.

Carol M., United States, 17 November 2012

Thanks for an excellent article. I agree that belief is a choice often independent of the evidence. You note that the Pharisees did not believe even after the resurrection. But before the resurrection of Jesus was the resurrection of Lazarus, and how did they respond? They wanted to kill Lazarus as well as Jesus! Talk about twisted thinking! I pray for those (some friends and family among them) who deny the reality of God. They are turning their backs on His grace and missing out on the best life has to offer, both now and forever.

Stephen D., Sweden, 19 November 2012

I just wanted to say thankyou guys for writing such an excellent article. Truly the word 'design' here by the so-called engineer is relative to his worldview. Humans can work in mines, or in space, run at some 10m/s, go underwater for extended periods, climb mountains and balance with acrobatics, and even do extreme things with snowboards etc. I think the range of what humans can do is extraordinary. Good luck getting a robot or some plastic rubber thing to do all that! Not to mention its just amazing on how little a human get eat and still survive...

Hans G., Australia, 19 November 2012

I always have to smile by those arguments from evolutionists that God made a bad job with creation.

Do they recognize there is a God but didn't designed well or they are saying a God couldn't design so badly, therefore there is no God.

Ok, then, WHO did this bad jobs......? Let me think.....think....evolution would be the only option....

Now we know who walks with all those bad designs around....

Guy L., Canada, 20 November 2012

No design can be evaluated in a ‘’vacuum’’. A design is ‘’an achievement’’ if it can perform whatever duty it was designed for. Even a supersonic air plan is a wreck if I need to carry a tank… But, Adam and Eve are an achievement considering God’s criteria’s, and yes they may not look so good considering ‘’arbitrary and purposeless’’ human criteria’s. In the first place, if I would design Adam and Eve, would I give them the freewill and the possibility to reject and curse me? But God did and it was no mistake. What need for God to make us invulnerable (super skin and bones and etc) and like ‘‘gods’’?

David B., Canada, 2 December 2012

It is said that a camel is a horse that is designed by a committee.

I shudder to think what a human would look like if designed by other humans ;)

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Copied to clipboard
8927
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.