**** This file may be copied, but is distributed on the understanding

that it will not be modified or edited, and will not be used for

commercial purposes. Further, it may not be copied without due reference

to the original publication source, author, year, and name and address of

the publisher.

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Dr.

Montgomery, AL 36117

Phone (205) 272-8558


(Part I)


Wayne Jackson


There is a principle in logic that may be called the "Law of

Teleology." Teleology has to do with design. The law, simply

stated, is this: where there is design, there must be a designer.

Even unbelievers have been forced to acknowledge this principle.

Paul Ricci, a skeptical professor of philosophy and logic, has

written: "`Everything designed has a designer' is an analytically

true statement" (Ricci, 1986, p 190). Since design demands a

designer, it necessarily follows that if design is discovered in

the fabric of Earth's environment, one would have to conclude, if

intellectually honest, that there must be a grand Designer

ultimately responsible for this circumstance.

But how is "design" to be defined? Design, at least in part, has

to do with the arrangement of individual components within an

object to accomplish a functional or artistic purpose. An

automobile contains design because its many units, engineered and

fitted together, result in a machine that facilitates

transportation. A beautiful painting evidences design when paints

of various colors are combined, by brush or knife upon canvas, so

as to effect an esthetic response. Every intelligent person

instinctively recognizes the presence of design.


Multiplied thousands of examples of design are to be found in

the various organisms of biological life that populate our planet.

In this series of articles, the primary point of focus will be

upon that unique creature known as `Homo sapiens', or man

(i.e., mankind). Before giving consideration to the human body as

an argument for design, hence, a Designer, it is fitting that the

traits of a living organism be delineated. What are those factors

which distinguish the organic (living) from the inorganic

(nonliving)? What is the difference between a living creature and

a lifeless lump of clay?

It is generally agreed by scientists that an object may be

defined as living when: (1) it is capable of metabolism, that is,

it receives and breaks down elements outside of itself for the

production of energy; (2) it experiences true growth, i.e., the

multiplication of cells; (3) it is able to reproduce itself in

independent organisms that replicate the original type. (4) it

exhibits responsiveness (i.e., it reacts to external stimuli); and

(5) it is capable of autonomous movement (Simpson et al., 1957, pp

16-17). An automobile moves, but it is propelled by forces

exterior to itself; a living organism is able to locomote itself.

There is no scientific information which explains the presence

of life on Earth in a naturalistic way. The well-known Law of

Biogenesis argues that life derives only from previously existing

life. The notion that life accidentally initiated itself eons ago

(i.e., spontaneous generation) is totally without scientific

basis, although it is widely advocated by evolutionists. Professor

Edwin Conklin of Princeton University compared the random origin

of life to an explosion in a print shop producing an unabridged

dictionary (Conklin, 1963, p 62). Sir Fred Hoyle, one of Great

Britain's most prominent scientists, has argued that the chance of

higher life forms emerging accidentally is comparable to the

chance that a Boeing 747 jet could be assembled by a tornado

sweeping through a junk yard (Hoyle, 1981a, p 105). Dr. Hoyle

also likened the random construction of life to that of 10.(50)

(one followed by fifty zeros) blind men simultaneously solving

scrambled Rubic cubes (Hoyle, 1981b, pp 521-527). All evidence

thus points to the fact that life could not have generated itself.

It must be concluded that this biological phenomenon commenced as

a result of a supernatural act of creation. For a further

discussion of "spontaneous generation, " see Thompson and Jackson

(1986, pp 59-68).


How did man's marvelous body come into being? Is he the

consequence of blind, natural forces? Or has he been divinely

designed by a Creator? The biblical writers take the view that

the human body was fashioned by God (Genesis 2:7). In Psalm 139,

David declared: "I will give thanks unto you [Jehovah]; for I am

fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; and that

my soul knows right well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I

was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of

the earth" (14-15). The expression "lowest parts of the earth" is

an idiom for the womb. The psalmist thus described the uterine

development of the human body. Of particular interest in this

passage is the expression "curiously wrought." It derives from a

Hebrew term which denotes that which is woven or embroidered. In

Exodus 26:36 the word describes the beautifully embroidered

curtain/door of the tabernacle. In the context of Psalm 139, the

term is "applied by a natural metaphor to the complex and

intricate formation of the body" (Kirkpatrick, 1906, p 789). Derek

Kidner notes that this passage is a reminder of the value that God

places on us, "even as embryos" (1975, p 466).

There is an interesting passage in the New Testament that

complements the affirmation of David. In his first epistle to the

Corinthians, Paul encourages unity among the Christians in that

city. The apostle uses the unity of the human body as an example

of the type of oneness that should characterize the people of God.

In that connection, Paul writes: "But now God set the members each

one of them in the body, even as it pleased him" (12:18). W.E.

Vine observed that the aorist tense form of the verbs in the Greek

New Testament "marks the formation of the human body in all its

parts as a creative act at a single point of time, and contradicts

the evolutionary theory of a gradual development from

infinitesimal microcosms" (1951, p 173).


Remember that our initial definition of "design" stressed the

arrangement of multiple parts into an organized unit for the

accomplishment of a specific purpose. That is precisely the nature

of the human body. We would rarely agree with noted evolutionist

George G. Simpson, but for once we must concur that in man one

finds "the most highly endowed organization of matter that has yet

appeared on the earth ..." (Simpson, 1949, p 293).

For organizational purposes, the body may be considered at four

levels. (1) The smallest unit of life within the body is the cell

(from a Latin word meaning "room"). A cell is a microscopic unit

of organized life. Cells come in different types, sizes, and

shapes, depending upon the kind of work they were designed to do.

(2) A group of the same kind of cells that carry on the same

activity is called a tissue. There are several kinds of tissue in

the body (e.g., muscle tissue, nerve tissue, etc.). (3) A group of

different tissues, all working in unison, is called an organ.

Organs, such as the heart, liver, eyes, etc., conduct special

activities within the body. (4) A group of organs orchestrated so

as to carry on a special bodily function is called a system. There

are some ten major systems within the body (e.g., the digestive

system, the circulatory system, etc.). It is therefore quite clear

that the physical body has been marvelously designed and

intricately organized for the purpose of facilitating human

existence upon the planet Earth. In this series of studies, some

of the various features of the human body will be considered as

examples of design which must obviously point to the Grand



"The adult human body is estimated to contain 60,000 billion

cells, every one of them subject to the rules and regulations of

the group" (Pfeiffer, 1964, p 15). (Question---who was the rule-

Maker?) William S. Beck asserts that the human body contains as

many as 100 trillion cells (1971, p 189). Cells come in different

sizes and shapes. On average, each of them is less than a

thousandth of an inch in length. Some 40,000 red blood cells will

fit into the letter O. "We have about a million cells in every

square inch of our skin, and about thirty billion in our brains"

(Gore, 1976, p 358).

The shape of the cells is "related to their function; human

red-blood cells are saucer-shaped and fairly flat, permitting the

ready transfer of the oxygen and carbon dioxide they carry through

the body, while nerve cells have long, thin extensions to transmit

messages" (Pfeiffer, 1964, p 9). Would anyone question the fact

that the transmission features of a telephone system were

designed? Why, then, would one deny the obvious design in the even

more complex transmitting apparatus of the nerve cells? John

Pfeiffer admits: "... all cells are built according to a

fundamental design, which provides them with certain common

features apparently necessary to life" (1964, p 10; emp. added).

Rick Gore describes the cell as a "microuniverse" which abounds

with "discrete pieces of life, each performing with exquisite

precision" (1976, p 358). He characterizes cell division as a

process of "supreme design," and this evolutionist marvels at the

"wisdom [that] is built into the cell's surface" (1976, p 373). A

mere random occurrence? Never!

The cell may be studied under three major categories. (1) There

is the membrane which encloses the cell. (2) There is the watery

cytoplasm, containing specialized features, which constitutes the

bulk of the interior. (3) Within the cytoplasm is the nucleus, the

control center of the cell.

The cell membrane consists of very thin (about three-millionths

of an inch) sandwich-like layers of protein and fat which form an

outer protective coating. It is a semi-permeable, filter-like

structure which allows only certain elements to enter or exit the

cell. Dr. Ernest Borek, a Professor of Microbiology at the

University of Colorado School of Medicine (an evolutionist),

described the cell membrane as follows: "The membrane recognizes

with its uncanny molecular memory the hundreds of compounds

swimming around it and permits or denies passage according to the

cell's requirements" (1973, p 5). Surely this "uncanny molecular

memory" must have been planned by a Mind!

There are a number of specialized components within the cell's

cytoplasm. For example, there are about one thousand mitochondria

in each cell which act like "miniature power plants," burning

ingested food to produce energy. Tiny networks, known collectively

as the endoplasmic reticulum, are "believed to be a transport

system designed to carry materials from one part of the cell to

another" (Pfeiffer, 1964, p 13, emp. added). Again, note

Pfeiffer's use of the word "designed"---a slip no doubt! Also in

the cell are microscopic units called ribosomes. These are little

factories which manufacture protein. Pfeiffer characterizes the

cooperative effort between the ribosomes and the endoplasmic

reticulum as a "joint operation" between "manufacturing and

trucking" firms (1964, p 22). And yet, all of this is supposed to

have evolved purely by chance? Incredible! Additionally, cells

have bag-like structures called Golgi bodies. It is believed that

the Golgi bodies package and store proteins which the cell

"exports." There are also small organelles called lysosomes which,

among other things, function as efficient garbage disposal units.

Clearly, the integrated mechanism of this part of the cell evinces

intelligent design.

The nucleus is the "brain" of the cell. It is separated from

the cytoplasm by a membrane. Within the nucleus are chromosomes---

long, threadlike bodies that consist of proteins and a chemical

called deoxyribonucleic acid (`DNA'). `DNA' is a super-molecule

that carries the genetic information necessary for the replication

of the cell. In humans, the strands of `DNA' in each cell, if

unraveled, would be about six feet long, yet they are less than a

trillionth of an inch thick (Weaver, 1984, p 822). It is estimated

that if all the `DNA' strands in the adult human were tied end-to-

end, they would reach to the Sun and back (186 million miles) 400

times. If decoded and translated into English, the `DNA' in a

human cell would fill a 1,000 volume set of encyclopedias of

approximately 600 pages each (Gore, 1976, p 357). Yet, amazingly,

all of the `DNA' necessary to make every human being on Earth

today (more than 5 billion people) could fit into a container

about the size of an aspirin tablet!

A `DNA' molecule is composed of nucleotides. These are chemical

combinations of sugar-phosphate and four bases---adenine, thymine,

guanine, and cytosine. These bases bond the nucleotides in the

spiral `DNA' molecule. In a strand of `DNA', the nucleotides are

arranged in a specific order in what looks like a twisted ladder.

The order of arrangement forms the "blueprint" that regulates the

production of all living things. Atomic physicist George Gamow

described the `DNA' code as a "well-planned structure in which

each atom or atomic group sits in its predetermined place" (1966,

p 264). The fascinating question is, who "planned and

predetermined" it?

It is interesting that whereas `DNA' is composed of the same

constituents wherever it is found---in a maple tree, a mouse, or a

man---the "program" in each case says, "make a mouse, make a man,

etc." Moreover, in each of the billions of cells within the human

body, the entire blueprint for the whole person is contained. Yet,

amazingly, each cell has been engineered to make only a specific

part of the body, such as the eye, bone, liver, connective tissue,

etc. There are some very important points that need to be made

with reference to these data.

First, though the `DNA' contains a very definite code for the

production of living things, the message per se does not reveal

its origin. The `DNA' code has been compared to the information

stored on the floppy disk of a computer, or in a computer

microchip. One writer, in describing how much more information a

`DNA' molecule contains than a much larger microchip, says: "We

marvel at the feats of memory and transcription accomplished by

computer microchips, but these are gargantuan compared to the

protein granules of deoxyribonucleic acid, `DNA'" (Block, 1980, p

52). The important point here is this: A programmed message is not

self-explanatory in terms of its origin. One must assume that

someone wrote the initial program. A program does not write

itself! Similarly, it is obvious that Someone has programmed the

data in the <MS>DNA'. In their highly acclaimed book, `The Mystery

of Life's Origin', Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen raise this

interesting question: "...an intelligible communication via radio

signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence

of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on

the `DNA' molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an

intelligent source?" (1984, p 211). James Coppedge expressed the

matter like this: "By all the rules of reason, could there be a

code which carries a message without someone originating that

code? It would seem self-evident that any such complex message

system, which is seen to be wise and efficient, requires not only

an intelligence but a person back of it" (1973, p 138).

Second, even though `DNA' contains the code of life, it is

unable to directly implement the code into the production of

tissue. This is accomplished by another substance called

ribonucleic acid (`RNA'). Thus, `DNA' and `RNA' work together

to assemble the human body. `DNA' is like an architect who designs

a house, and then turns the blueprint over to a contractor

(`RNA') to do the construction. Again, it must be stressed---the

cooperative labor of these components argues very eloquently for

design, hence, a Designer!


Let us conclude this article by calling attention to a

fundamental form of logical argument known as the `a fortiori'

principle. This principle attempts to show that what is

demonstrably true in one instance is even more likely to be true

in another.

For example, a pair of pliers and a computer are both tools. If

one assumes that it took a designer to make the pliers, it surely

will follow that it took a designer to make the computer, since

the computer is much more complicated than the pliers. That is

simple logic.

With this principle in mind, examine the following quotations

with reference to the living cell. Benjamin Miller and Ruth Goode,

two evolutionists, have written:

"The cell has been likened to a power plant, a furnace, a

chemical laboratory. In its reproductive functions it has been

described as a factory complete with manager's office, files of

blueprints and plans, intercommunication system, assembly line

with foremen and workers."

"None of these fanciful analogies does justice to the living

cell. All of these man-made systems put together, however

ingenious and efficient, could not reproduce the functioning of

this single unit of life, too small to be seen with the un

aided eye (1960, p 162)."

If the living cell is more "ingenious" than any "man-made"

system, the question then becomes who made the cell? Are we to

conclude that it just happened? That is wholly illogical. Note

this quotation from the `World Book Encyclopedia': "...a cell can

be thought of as a tiny chemical factory. It has a control center

that tells it what to do and when. It has power plants for

generating energy, and it has machinery for making its products or

performing its services" (Rubenstein, 1979, 3: 250b). Do factories

happen by chance? Pfeiffer has written that the cell "utilizes a

tightly organized system of parts that is much like a tiny

industrial complex. It has a central control point, power plants,

internal communications, construction and manufacturing elements"

(1964, p 16).

Surely these quotations represent inadvertent concessions that

the living system must have had a Designer. Evolutionists

constantly find themselves acknowledging design in nature.

Militant evolutionist and Harvard professor, William S. Beck,

entitled an entire book `Human Design' (1971), though he obviously

did not accept the logical conclusion of that appellation. The

human body is not a fortuitous accident birthed by that mythical

lady, "Mother Nature." Rather, "It is HE that hath made us" (Ps

alm 100:3).


Beck, William S. (1971), `Human Design' (New York: Harcourt,

Brace, Jovanovich).

Block, Irvin (1980), `Science Digest', September/October---

Special Issue.

Borek, Ernest (1973), `The Sculpture of Life' (New York: Columbia

University Press).

Conklin, Edwin (1963), `Reader's Digest', January.

Coppedge, James F. (1973), `Evolution: Possible or Impossible?'

(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Gamow, George (1964), `One, Two, Three...Infinity' (New York:

Viking Press).

Gore, Rick (1976), `National Geographic', September.

Hoyle, Fred (1981a), `Nature', November 12.

Hoyle, Fred (1981b), `New Scientist', November 19.

Kidner, Derek (1975), `Psalms 73-150' (London: Inter-Varsity


Kirkpatrick, A.F. (1906), `The Psalms' (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press).

Miller, Benjamin and Ruth Goode (1960), `Man and His Body' (New

York: Simon and Schuster).

Pfeiffer, John (1964), `The Cell' (New York: Time).

Ricci, Paul (1986), `Fundamentals of Critical Thinking'

(Lexington, MA: Ginn Press).

Rubenstein, Irwin (1979), `World Book Encyclopedia' (Chicago:

World Book---Childcraft International).

Simpson, George G. (1949), `The Meaning of Evolution' (New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press).

Simpson, George G., C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1957),

`Life: An Introduction to Biology' (New York: Harcourt, Brace).

Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen

(1984), `The Mystery of Life's Origin' (New York: Philosophical


Thompson, Bert and Wayne Jackson (1986), `Essays In Apologetics',

Vol. II, (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Vine, W.E. (1951), `First Corinthians' (Grand Rapids, MI:


Weaver, Robert F. (1984), `National Geographic', December.


Copyrights by Apologetics Press 1992








**** This file may be copied, but is distributed on the understanding

that it will not be modified or edited, and will not be used for

commercial purposes. Further, it may not be copied without due reference

to the original publication source, author, year, and name and address of

the publisher.

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Dr.

Montgomery, AL 36117

Phone (205) 272-8558


Downloaded from:

The Christian Connection of Palm Beach

300 - 14,400 bps N81

(407) 533-5216 24hrs

Index - Evolution or Creation

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231