{"id":2455,"date":"2018-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-10-21T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/the-anthropic-principle-the-universe-is-designed-for-us-5619\/"},"modified":"2025-08-20T11:59:16","modified_gmt":"2025-08-20T16:59:16","slug":"the-anthropic-principle-the-universe-is-designed-for-us-5619","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/the-anthropic-principle-the-universe-is-designed-for-us-5619\/","title":{"rendered":"The Anthropic Principle: The Universe Is Designed for Us"},"content":{"rendered":"<blockquote><p>The Anthropic Principles in cosmology states that the Universe as a whole appears to have been designed for humans to inhabit it. The existence of a Universe Designer still stands as the most logical explanation for its origin, and the naturalistic community cannot help but concede it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<table border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"1\" cellpadding=\"1\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">Image credit: NASA\/JPL-Caltech<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/The-Anthropic-Principle-JM2.jpg\" alt=\"\" \/><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>The Anthropic Principle in secular cosmology is a recognition by scientists that the Universe appears to be just right for life, and specifically, humans.<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn1\" name=\"_ednref1\">1<\/a><\/sup> Stephen Battersby, writing in <em>New Scientist<\/em>, discusses the anthropic principle and our \u201cGoldilocks universe,\u201d asking, \u201cWhy does the universe have properties that are \u2018just right\u2019\u2026?\u201d<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn2\" name=\"_ednref2\">2<\/a><\/sup> In the words of Princeton professor emeritus and theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, \u201cAs we look into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.\u201d<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn3\" name=\"_ednref3\">3<\/a><\/sup> Bottom line: the Universe appears to be <strong>designed<\/strong> for us to live in it.<\/p>\n<p>Atheistic philosopher Paul Ricci summed up the Teleological Argument for the Existence of God well when he said, \u201c[I]t\u2019s true that everything designed has a designer\u2026. \u2018Everything designed has a designer\u2019 is an analytically true statement.\u201d<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn4\" name=\"_ednref4\">4<\/a><\/sup> There are an infinite number of examples of design that present themselves to us when we study the natural realm\u2014a problem for Ricci and his atheistic colleagues, to be sure. While we typically examine evidences of design on Earth and our solar system, when we look at the design in the Universe as a whole, the number of evidences increases.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Naturalists: \u201cThe Universe Looks Designed!\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Consider the following points in addition to the many specific examples of design we see in the Universe. It is one thing for theists to provide positive evidences for the existence of design in the Universe, but it makes the job much simpler for theists when naturalists themselves <strong>admit<\/strong> evidences for design. A positive acknowledgement from hostile witnesses is powerful testimony to the truth of the theists\u2019 position.<\/p>\n<p>According to cosmologist Bernard Carr of Queen Mary University in London, when the evidence in the Universe is examined, a supernatural explanation is demanded. He warned cosmologists to accept the inevitable implications of the evidence: \u201cIf you don\u2019t want God, you\u2019d better have a multiverse.\u201d<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn5\" name=\"_ednref5\">5<\/a><\/sup> The multiverse has, therefore, been latched onto by many naturalists to try to explain away the \u201cdifficulties\u201d facing physicists without resorting to God. Among other issues with the multiverse idea: (1) belief in the multiverse is belief in unseen realms beyond the known, natural Universe\u2014i.e., belief in the supernatural. How can a person be a \u201cnaturalist\u201d and yet believe in a supernatural realm? (2)\u00a0 there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of the multiverse.<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn6\" name=\"_ednref6\">6<\/a><\/sup> Theoretical physicist, faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Waterloo, Lee Smolin, said, \u201cWe had to invent the multiverse,\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn7\" name=\"_ednref7\"><sup><sup>7<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> and according to Lawson Parker, writing in <em>National Geographic<\/em>, it was from our \u201cimagination.\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn8\" name=\"_ednref8\"><sup><sup>8<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> The use of our imagination to determine where we came from certainly sounds like today\u2019s \u201cscience\u201d is moving ever further into the realm of fiction.<\/p>\n<p>What kind of \u201cdifficulties\u201d are physicists encountering that are forcing them to conclude that something outside of the Universe exists, and therefore, that they need to \u201cinvent\u201d the multiverse to avoid God? Many have articulated well the problem. Read on to see a great lesson by naturalists on the need for a supernatural Designer of the Universe.<\/p>\n<p>According to Tim Folger, writing in <em>Discover<\/em> magazine, \u201cThe idea that the universe was <strong>made just for us<\/strong>\u2014known as the <strong>anthropic principle<\/strong>\u2014debuted in 1973.\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn9\" name=\"_ednref9\"><sup><sup>9<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Since then, the mountain of evidence supporting the principle has drastically grown in elevation. Consider the following examples:<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn10\" name=\"_ednref10\">10<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>In a 2011 article, under the heading \u201cSeven Questionable Arguments\u201d for the multiverse, cosmologist George F.R. Ellis of the University of Cape Town, co-author with Stephen Hawking of the book <em>The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time<\/em>, discussed argument number four: \u201cA remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things\u2026. I agree that the multiverse is a possible valid explanation for [fine tuning examples\u2014JM]\u2026; arguably, it is the only scientifically based option we have right now. But we have no hope of testing it observationally.\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn11\" name=\"_ednref11\"><sup><sup>11<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> [Notice that the multiverse is \u201cthe only <strong>scientifically<\/strong> based option,\u201d and yet \u201cwe have no hope of testing it <strong>observationally<\/strong>.\u201d Doesn\u2019t the inability to test observationally make the theory <strong>un<\/strong>scientific?]<\/li>\n<li>By 2014, Ellis and Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University Joseph Silk went even further:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 40px;\">The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of nature, such as the fine-structure constant that characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in <strong>the small range that allows life to exist<\/strong>\u2026. Some physicists consider that the multiverse has no challenger as an explanation of many otherwise <strong>bizarre coincidences<\/strong>. The low value of the cosmological constant\u2014known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than the value predicted by quantum field theory\u2014is difficult to explain, for instance.<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn12\" name=\"_ednref12\"><sup><sup>12<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>John Rennie, the editor for <em>Scientific American<\/em>, noted, \u201cThe basic laws of physics work equally well forward or backward in time, yet we perceive time to move in one direction only\u2014toward the future. Why?\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn13\" name=\"_ednref13\"><sup><sup>13<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Cosmologist and Professor of Physics at California Institute of Technology Sean Carroll, along the same lines, noted that \u201c[i]f the observable universe were all that existed, it would be nearly impossible to account for the arrow of time in a natural way.\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn14\" name=\"_ednref14\"><sup><sup>14<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Apparently, according to naturalists, Something beyond the \u201cobservable universe\u201d exists.<\/li>\n<li>According to Smolin,<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 80px;\">Everything we know suggests that the universe is <strong>unusual<\/strong>. It is flatter, smoother, larger and emptier than a \u201ctypical\u201d universe predicted by the known laws of physics. If we reached into a hat filled with pieces of paper, each with the specifications of a possible universe written on it, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would get a universe anything like ours in one pick\u2014or even a billion. The challenge that cosmologists face is to make sense of this<strong>specialness<\/strong>. One approach to this question is inflation\u2014the hypothesis that the early universe went through a phase of exponentially fast expansion. At first, inflation seemed to do the trick. A simple version of the idea gave correct predictions for the spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. But a closer look shows that <strong>we have just moved the problem further back in time<\/strong>. To make inflation happen at all requires us to <strong>fine-tune the initial conditions<\/strong> of the universe.<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn15\" name=\"_ednref15\"><sup><sup>15<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Tim Folger quotes cosmologist and Professor of Physics at Stanford University Andrei Linde in <em>Discover <\/em>magazine:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 80px;\">\u201cWe have a lot of really, really <strong>strange coincidences<\/strong>, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,\u201d Linde says. Physicists don\u2019t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea\u2026. Call it a fluke, a mystery, a <strong>miracle<\/strong>. Or call it <strong>the biggest problem in physics<\/strong>. Short of invoking <strong>a benevolent creator<\/strong>, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse\u2026. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable <strong>non-religious<\/strong> explanation for what is often called the \u201cfine-tuning problem\u201d\u2014the baffling observation that the laws of the universe <strong>seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life<\/strong>\u2026. [Andrei Linde:] \u201cAnd if we double the mass of the electron, life as we know it will disappear. If we change the strength of the interaction between protons and electrons, life will disappear. Why are there three space dimensions and one time dimension? If we had four space dimensions and one time dimension, then planetary systems would be unstable and our version of life would be impossible. If we had two space dimensions and one time dimension, we would not exist,\u201d he says\u2026. [I]f there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? \u201cIf there is only one universe,\u201d Carr says, \u201cyou might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don\u2019t want God, you\u2019d better have a multiverse.\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn16\" name=\"_ednref16\"><sup><sup>16<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Stuart Clark and Richard Webb, writing in <em>New Scientist<\/em>, said,<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 80px;\"><strong>We can\u2019t explain the numbers that rule the universe<\/strong>\u2026the different strengths of weak, strong and electromagnetic forces, for example, or the masses of the particles it introduces\u2026. Were any of them to have even marginally different values, the universe would look very different. The Higgs boson\u2019s mass, for example, is just about the smallest it can be without the universe\u2019s matter becoming unstable. <strong>Similar \u201cfine-tuning\u201d problems bedevil cosmology<\/strong>\u2026. Why is the carbon atom structured so precisely as to allow enough carbon for life to exist in the universe.<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn17\" name=\"_ednref17\"><sup><sup>17<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Theoretical physicist and professor at Columbia University Brian Greene, commenting on Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind\u2019s thinking about the multiverse, said,<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 80px;\">[The] multiverse is a highly controversial schema, and <strong>deservedly so<\/strong>. It not only recasts the landscape of reality, but shifts the scientific goal posts. Questions once deemed profoundly puzzling\u2014<strong>why do nature\u2019s numbers, from particle masses to force strengths to the energy suffusing space, have the particular values they do?<\/strong>\u2014would be answered with a shrug\u2026. <strong>Most physicists, string theorists among them, agree that the multiverse is an option of last resort<\/strong>\u2026. \u00a0Looking back, I\u2019m gratified at how far we\u2019ve come but disappointed that <strong>a connection to experiment continues to elude us<\/strong>.<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn18\" name=\"_ednref18\"><sup><sup>18<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Mary-Jane Rubenstein, writing in <em>New Scientist<\/em>, said,<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 80px;\">Here\u2019s the dilemma: if the universe began with a quantum particle blipping into existence, inflating godlessly into space-time and a whole zoo of materials, then <strong>why is it so well suited for life<\/strong>? For medieval philosophers, the purported perfection of the universe was the key to proving the existence of God. The universe is so fit for intelligent life that <strong>it must be the product of a powerful, benevolent external deity<\/strong>. Or, as popular theology might put it today: all this <strong>can\u2019t be an accident<\/strong>. Modern physics has also wrestled with this \u201c<strong>fine-tuning problem<\/strong>,\u201d and supplies its own answer. If only one universe exists, then it is strange to find it so hospitable to life, when nearly any other value for the gravitational or cosmological constants would have produced nothing at all. But if there is a \u201cmultiverse\u201d of many universes, all with different constants, the problem vanishes: we\u2019re here because we happen to be in one of the universes that works. No miracles, no plan, no creator.<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn19\" name=\"_ednref19\"><sup><sup>19<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The eminent atheistic, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, Paul Davies, said, \u201cHow did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software&#8230;?\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn20\" name=\"_ednref20\"><sup><sup>20<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> In a more extensive discourse on the subject in <em>The New York Times<\/em>, Davies said,<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 80px;\"><strong>[W]here do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do?<\/strong>When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as \u201cgiven\u201d\u2014imprinted on the universe like a maker\u2019s mark at the moment of cosmic birth\u2014and fixed forevermore&#8230;. Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from \u201cthat\u2019s not a scientific question\u201d to \u201c<strong>nobody knows<\/strong>.\u201d The favorite reply is, \u201cThere is no reason they are what they are\u2014they just are.\u201d The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply <strong>anti-rational<\/strong>. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality\u2014the laws of physics\u2014only to find that reason then deserts us, <strong>it makes a mockery of science<\/strong>. Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in <strong>reasonless absurdity<\/strong>? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as <strong>ingenious order and rationality<\/strong>&#8230;. Clearly, then, both religion and science are <strong>founded on faith<\/strong>\u2014namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws.<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn21\" name=\"_ednref21\"><sup><sup>21<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 40px;\">In conclusion, Davies highlighted the fact that naturalists have a <strong>blind<\/strong> faith when assuming that the laws of science could create themselves free from an \u201cexternal agency\u201d: \u201c[U]ntil science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn22\" name=\"_ednref22\"><sup><sup>22<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Bottom line: there must be a rational origin of the laws of science, and there is no <strong>natural<\/strong> explanation for them.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 40px;\">In a 2014 interview with <em>Scientific American<\/em>, George Ellis gave a stinging response to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University, who argues in his book, <em>A Universe from Nothing<\/em>, that physics has ultimately answered the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Among other criticisms, Ellis said,<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 80px;\">And above all Krauss does not address <strong>why the laws of physics exist<\/strong>, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). <strong>Who or what<\/strong> dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? <strong>He does not begin to answer these questions<\/strong>.<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn23\" name=\"_ednref23\"><sup><sup>23<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 40px;\">Quantum physicist Michael Brooks agreed with Ellis in his criticisms of Krauss\u2019 book. Writing in <em>New Scientist<\/em>, he said, \u201c[T]he laws of physics can\u2019t be conjured from nothing&#8230;. Krauss contends that the multiverse makes the question of what determined our laws of nature \u2018less significant.\u2019 Truthfully, <strong>it just puts the question beyond science<\/strong>\u2014for now, at least.\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn24\" name=\"_ednref24\"><sup><sup>24<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> The laws of science are evidence of a supernatural Mind\u2014a grand Law Writer.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>In <em>Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed<\/em>, Richard Dawkins said concerning the possibility of intelligent design:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 80px;\">It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the Universe, a civilization evolved by, probably, some kind of Darwinian means, to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it\u2019s possible that you might find evidence for that, <strong>if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some kind of designer<\/strong>. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe.<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn25\" name=\"_ednref25\"><sup><sup>25<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 40px;\">So, according to Dawkins, when we look at our chemistry\u2014our molecular biology\u2014(1) there could be evidence of design there, and (2) that design would imply the existence of a designer\u2014a direct admission of the validity of the Teleological Argument. Granted, Dawkins does not directly endorse God as that Designer. Instead, he irrationally postulates the existence of aliens.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 40px;\">Ultimately, since there is no evidence for the existence of aliens, there can hardly be any evidence for their establishing life on Earth. Such an idea can hardly be in keeping with the evolutionist\u2019s own beliefs about the importance of direct observation and experiment in science. Such a theory does nothing but tacitly admit (1) the truth of the Law of Biogenesis\u2014in nature, life comes only from life (in this case, aliens); and (2) the necessity of a creator\/designer in the equation.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 40px;\">However, notice: since aliens are beings of nature, they too must be governed by the laws of nature. Stephen Hawking acknowledged that the laws of physics \u201care <strong>universal<\/strong>. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and <strong>everything else in the Universe<\/strong>.\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn26\" name=\"_ednref26\"><sup><sup>26<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger submitted his belief that the \u201cbasic laws\u201d of science \u201chold true in the most distant observed galaxy and in the cosmic microwave background, implying that these laws have been valid for over thirteen billion years.\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn27\" name=\"_ednref27\"><sup><sup>27<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> In the interview with Stein, Dawkins went on to say concerning the supposed alien creators, \u201cBut that higher intelligence would, itself, had to have come about by some ultimately explicable process. <strong>It couldn\u2019t have just jumped into existence spontaneously<\/strong>.\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn28\" name=\"_ednref28\"><sup><sup>28<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> So, the alien creators, according to Dawkins, have been strapped with the laws of nature as well. Thus, the problem of abiogenesis is merely shifted to the alien\u2019s abode, where the question of the origin of life must still be answered.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 40px;\">Bottom line: life is evidence of design, and by implication, an intelligent designer. Writing in <em>New Scientist<\/em>, Dawkins admitted, \u201cThe more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the <strong>obvious alternative<\/strong> to chance is an intelligent Designer.\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn29\" name=\"_ednref29\"><sup><sup>29<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Sadly, the atheist simply cannot bring himself to accept the clear cut, \u201cobvious alternative\u201d that is staring him in the face.<\/p>\n<p>Notice: Physicists cannot help but acknowledge the evidence that undergirds the Teleological Argument for the existence of God. The Universe seems to have been perfectly designed\u2014with detailed fine-tuning\u2014just for us. Design demands a designer. Resorting to belief in the multiverse is a concession by naturalists that <strong>we have been right all along<\/strong>: there exists an \u201cunseen realm.\u201d But rather than concede God, naturalists invent the evidence-less, imaginary multiverse. Ironically, all the while, the multiverse is itself a <strong>supernatural<\/strong> option\u2014albeit, one without any rules concerning how we should behave, making it attractive to many.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Naturalists: \u201cThe Design Around Us is Amazing\u2014Let\u2019s Copy It.\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>One area of scientific study where scientists are, many times unconsciously but forcefully, admitting the presence of design in the Universe, is in the field of biomimetics, or biomimcry\u2014as well as the related field known as bio-inspired design. Biomimicry is an attempt to engineer something\u2014design something\u2014using the natural world as the blue print. Engineers are becoming more and more aware of the fact that the world around us is already filled with fully functional, superior designs in comparison to what the engineering community has been able to develop to date.<\/p>\n<p>The Web page for George Washington University\u2019s Center for Biomimetics and Bioinspired Engineering admits, \u201c[D]espite our seeming prowess in these component technologies, <strong>we find it hard to outperform Nature in this arena<\/strong>; Nature\u2019s solutions are smarter, more energy-efficient, agile, adaptable, fault-tolerant, environmentally friendly and multifunctional. Thus, there is much that we as engineers can learn from Nature as we develop the next generation machines and technologies.\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn30\" name=\"_ednref30\"><sup><sup>30<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>It would be difficult to better summarize the decisive evidence for design that is clearly evident to professional designers (engineers) when they look at the natural realm. This same mindset about nature\u2019s design, however, is becoming widespread in the engineering community. So consequently, biomimicry is becoming a major engineering pursuit. The field of biomimicry is growing by leaps and bounds, with research centers being established all over the world, with their express purpose being to mimic the design of nature.<\/p>\n<p>Some engineers are going even further. Realizing that nature\u2019s designs are so impressive that many times we simply cannot mimic them, they are attempting instead to control nature to use it as they wish, rather than mimic it.<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn31\" name=\"_ednref31\"><sup><sup>31<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Animals, for instance, possess amazing detection, tracking, and maneuvering capabilities which are far beyond the knowledge of today\u2019s engineering minds, and likely will be for many decades, if not forever. An insect neurobiologist, John Hildebrand, from the University of Arizona in Tucson, admitted, \u201cThere\u2019s a long history of trying to develop microrobots that could be sent out as autonomous devices, but I think many engineers have realised [sic] that they can\u2019t improve on Mother Nature.\u201d<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn32\" name=\"_ednref32\"><sup><sup>32<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Of course, \u201cMother Nature\u201d is not capable of designing anything, since \u201cshe\u201d is mindless\u2014but notice that the desire to personify nature and give it design abilities is telling. While mindless nature has no ability to design anything, the Chief Engineer, the God of the Bible, on the other hand, can be counted on to have the best possible engineering designs. Who, after all, could out-design the Grand Designer? In spite of the deterioration of the world and the entrance of disease and mutations into the created order, after several millennia, His designs still stand out as the best\u2014unsurpassed by human wisdom.<\/p>\n<p>Do not miss the implication of practicing biomimicry and autonomous biological control. They are a tacit concession by the scientific community that nature exhibits design. Engineers are the designers of the scientific community. When we engage in biomimicry, we are, whether consciously or not, endorsing the concept that there is design in nature. It would be totally senseless to try to design something useful by mimicking something that was random and chaotic. For the highly educated, brilliant designers of the scientific community to copy nature, proves that nature must be much more than the product of random chance and accidents.<a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn33\" name=\"_ednref33\"><sup><sup>33<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<h2><strong>Design Without a Designer?<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Famous skeptic and science writer Michael Shermer, who has a monthly column in <em>Scientific American<\/em>, admitted that \u201cwe perceive nature to be intelligently designed.\u201d<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn34\" name=\"_ednref34\">34<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn34\" name=\"_ednref34\"><\/a> To most people, the preponderance of evidence makes that design conclusion obvious. Shermer said, \u201cSince the most common reason people give for why they believe in God is the <strong>good design<\/strong> of the world, Intelligent Design creationists are tapping into the <strong>intuitive understanding<\/strong> most people hold about life and the universe.\u201d<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn35\" name=\"_ednref35\">35<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn35\" name=\"_ednref35\"><\/a> The acknowledgement of universal design is so widespread that well-known British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins even admitted, \u201cIt is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to\u2026find [Darwinism] hard to believe.\u201d<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn36\" name=\"_ednref36\">36<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn36\" name=\"_ednref36\"><\/a> Psychologist Paul Bloom of Yale University and University of Pennsylvania acknowledged, \u201cThere is by now a large body of research suggesting that humans are natural-born creationists. When we see nonrandom structure and design, we assume that it was created by an intelligent being.\u201d<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn37\" name=\"_ednref37\">37<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn37\" name=\"_ednref37\"><\/a> We can\u2019t help it, of course; as rational beings we must concede that the available evidence indicates that \u201cnonrandom structure and design\u201d are, without exception, the products of a designer.<\/p>\n<p>With that in mind, a casual perusal of nearly any article by evolutionary biologists that discusses the complexity of various species reveals that they cannot help but intuitively acknowledge a designer. Such writings are riddled with the term \u201cdesign,\u201d apparently without the naturalistic writers following out the implications of that term. Phrases like, \u201cThis feature of the salamander is <strong>designed<\/strong> to do this,\u201d are common place. Is it not true that the moment one acknowledges the existence of design, he is admitting the existence of a designer at some point\u2014just as acknowledging a poem implies the existence of a poet? We simply cannot escape the evidence for design in nature and the reasoning ability that God has put within us that presses us to acknowledge His existence, ensuring that those who wish to find Him will (Acts 17:26-28).<\/p>\n<p>Some atheists have apparently noticed the tendency of naturalists to use such terminology. So, rather than try to rectify atheistic terminology, they embrace it and simply try to redefine the word \u201cdesign.\u201d Kenneth Miller is an evolutionary biologist at Brown University and co-author of the popular Prentice Hall high school biology textbook that is used extensively in the United States. In his 2008 book, <em>Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America\u2019s Soul<\/em>, he admits that structural and molecular biologists, as they study the natural order, routinely mention the presence of design in their explorations. He, himself, though a naturalist, admits that the human body shows evidence of design, pointing out examples like the design of the ball and socket joints of the human hips and shoulders, and the \u201cs\u201d curve of the human spine that allows us to walk upright. In spite of such admissions, he irrationally claims that they should not be considered to be self-defeating for naturalists. According to Miller, the evidence for design in nature should be embraced. In an article published by Brown University, he said, \u201cThere is, indeed, a design to life\u2014an evolutionary design.\u201d<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn38\" name=\"_ednref38\">38<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn38\" name=\"_ednref38\"><\/a> Merriam-Webster defines an oxymoron as \u201ca combination of contradictory or incongruous words (such as <em>cruel kindness<\/em>).\u201d<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn39\" name=\"_ednref39\">39<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn39\" name=\"_ednref39\"><\/a> Another example: \u201cnaturalistic evolutionary design.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>If there is a painting, there must have been a painter. If there is a fingerprint, there must have been a finger that made it. If there is a building, there must have been a builder. If there is an engine, there must have been an engineer. If there is a creation of some sort, there must have been a creator for it. And if there is design, there must have been a\u2026. If a person completes that sentence with any other word besides \u201cdesigner,\u201d is he not being the epitome of irrational? While we understand Miller\u2019s dilemma as a naturalist and his desire to find a way to dismiss the incessant, forceful, ironic admissions of design by his naturalistic colleagues, he must attempt to do so through some other avenue besides merely attempting to redefine the word \u201cdesign\u201d in such a way that it does not require intent and purpose\u2014a mind.<\/p>\n<p>The silliness of irrationally postulating that the clearly designed Universe could have designed itself through evolution has not been lost to many in the engineering community. Typically, in the first semester of engineering school, an introductory course presents broad concepts about engineering. Students may learn the basic differences in the engineering fields (e.g., civil, electrical, mechanical, chemical, structural, etc.). They may spend some time considering ethical dilemmas that engineers have often faced in their careers. First-year students also usually give consideration to the design process. Even in its basic form, the design process proves to be very complex, even before considering the specialized scientific knowledge required to design a given item.<\/p>\n<p>Many steps are necessary in order to get a product to the public. Consider one introductory engineering textbook\u2019s template for the design process:<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn40\" name=\"_ednref40\">40<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn40\" name=\"_ednref40\"><\/a><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>1. Problem symptom or expression; definition of product need; marketing information<\/p>\n<p>2. Problem definition, including statement of desired outcome<\/p>\n<p>3. Conceptual design and evaluation; feasibility study<\/p>\n<p>4. Design analysis; codes\/standards review; physical and analytical models<\/p>\n<p>5. Synthesis of alternative solutions (back to design analysis for iterations)<\/p>\n<p>6. Decision (selection of one alternative)<\/p>\n<p>7. Prototype production; testing and evaluation (back to design analysis for more iterations)<\/p>\n<p>8. Production drawings; instruction manuals<\/p>\n<p>9. Material specification; process and equipment selection; safety review<\/p>\n<p>10. Pilot production<\/p>\n<p>11. Production<\/p>\n<p>12. Inspection and quality assurance<\/p>\n<p>13. Packaging; marketing and sales literature<\/p>\n<p>14. Product<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The design process is unquestionably lengthy, technical, complex, and calculated. To claim that an efficient design could be developed without a designer is insulting to the engineering community. Where there is design\u2014complexity, purpose, planning, intent\u2014there is a designer.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Truly, the Universe is replete with decisive evidences of design. So much so, that even atheists cannot help but concede that truth. It is noteworthy that leading naturalists are unwilling to suggest that the laws of nature could create themselves.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Physicists <\/strong>know there must be a supernatural origin for physics laws.<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn41\" name=\"_ednref41\">41<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn41\" name=\"_ednref41\"><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Similarly, more and more leading scientists are acknowledging that the existence of life is no accident either.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Biologists <\/strong>know there must be an intelligence behind it.<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn42\" name=\"_ednref42\">42<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn42\" name=\"_ednref42\"><\/a><\/li>\n<li><strong>Engineers <\/strong>are so awed by the clear-cut evidences for design on the Earth that they have developed entire centers devoted to biomimicry\u2014copying the designs that are evident in nature, effectively plagiarizing the work of God when they fail to give Him due credit as the Chief Engineer.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Cosmologists<\/strong> gush with incredulity when they see the perfection of the created order as well, knowing that the \u201cfine-tuning\u201d<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn43\" name=\"_ednref43\">43<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn43\" name=\"_ednref43\"><\/a> that is evident in the Universe seems to have resulted in it being \u201ccustom tailored\u201d<sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn44\" name=\"_ednref44\">44<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_edn44\" name=\"_ednref44\"><\/a> for humans.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>But how can there be \u201cfine-tuning\u201d if no One exists to tune in the first place? How can the Universe be \u201ccustom tailored,\u201d and yet there be no Tailor? The Anthropic Principle\u2014defined by cosmologists\u2014is a blatant admission by the naturalistic community that theists have been right all along: the Universe is replete with evidences of design. If one is to be rational\u2014drawing appropriate conclusions from the evidence\u2014he must recognize that there are implications to realizing that the Universe is finely tuned and tailor made. The design in the Universe demands the existence of a Universal Designer and, further, the Universe was designed, specifically, with humans in mind.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Endnotes<\/strong><\/h2>\n<div>\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref1\" name=\"_edn1\">1<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref1\" name=\"_edn1\"><\/a> Robert Lamb (2010), \u201cWhat Is the Anthropic Principle?\u201d <em>HowStuffWorks<\/em>, <a href=\"https:\/\/science.howstuffworks.com\/science-vs-myth\/everyday-myths\/anthropic-principle.htm\">https:\/\/science.howstuffworks.com\/science-vs-myth\/everyday-myths\/anthropic-principle.htm<\/a>.<\/p>\n<div id=\"edn2\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref2\" name=\"_edn2\">2<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref2\" name=\"_edn2\"><\/a> Stephen Battersby (2006), \u201cTop 10: Weirdest Cosmology Theories,\u201d <em>New Scientist<\/em>, August 9.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn3\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref3\" name=\"_edn3\">3<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref3\" name=\"_edn3\"><\/a> Freeman J. Dyson (1971), \u201cEnergy in the Universe,\u201d <em>Scientific American<\/em>, 224[3]:59.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn4\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref4\" name=\"_edn4\">4<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref4\" name=\"_edn4\"><\/a> Paul Ricci (1986), <em>Fundamentals of Critical Thinking<\/em> (Lexington, MA: Ginn Press), p. 190.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn5\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref5\" name=\"_edn5\">5<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref5\" name=\"_edn5\"><\/a> As quoted in Tim Folger (2008), \u201cScience\u2019s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory,\u201d <em>DiscoverMagazine.com<\/em>, November 10, http:\/\/discovermagazine.com\/2008\/dec\/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn6\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref6\" name=\"_edn6\">6<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref6\" name=\"_edn6\"><\/a> cf. Jeff Miller (2017), \u201c7 Reasons the Multiverse Is Not a Valid Alternative to God [Part I],\u201d <em>Reason &amp; Revelation,<\/em> 37[4]:38-47, http:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/pub_rar\/37_4\/1704w.pdf.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn7\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref7\" name=\"_edn7\">7<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref7\" name=\"_edn7\"><\/a> Lee Smolin (2015), \u201cYou Think There\u2019s a Multiverse? Get Real,\u201d <em>New Scientist,<\/em> 225[3004]:25, January 17.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn8\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref8\" name=\"_edn8\">8<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref8\" name=\"_edn8\"><\/a> Lawson Parker (2014), \u201cCosmic Questions,\u201d <em>National Geographic<\/em>, 225[4], April, center tearout.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn9\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref9\" name=\"_edn9\">9<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref9\" name=\"_edn9\"><\/a> Folger, emp. added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn10\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref10\" name=\"_edn10\">10<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref10\" name=\"_edn10\"><\/a> Much of the following material appeared also in Jeff Miller (2017), \u201cAtheists\u2019 Design Admissions,\u201d <em>Reason &amp; Revelation<\/em>, 37[12]:134-143, <a href=\"http:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&amp;issue=1261\">http:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&amp;issue=1261<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn11\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref11\" name=\"_edn11\">11<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref11\" name=\"_edn11\"><\/a> George F.R. Ellis (2011), \u201cDoes the Multiverse Really Exist?\u201d <em>Scientific American<\/em>, 305[2]:42.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn12\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref12\" name=\"_edn12\">12<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref12\" name=\"_edn12\"><\/a> George Ellis and Joe Silk (2014), \u201cDefend the Integrity of Physics,\u201d <em>Nature,<\/em> 516[7531]:322, December, emp. added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn13\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref13\" name=\"_edn13\">13<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref13\" name=\"_edn13\"><\/a> \u201cEditor\u2019s Note\u201d in Sean M. Carroll (2008), \u201cThe Cosmic Origins of Time\u2019s Arrow,\u201d <em>Scientific American<\/em>, 298[6]:48, June.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn14\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref14\" name=\"_edn14\">14<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref14\" name=\"_edn14\"><\/a> Sean M. Carroll (2008), \u201cThe Cosmic Origins of Time\u2019s Arrow,\u201d <em>Scientific American<\/em>, 298[6]:57, June.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn15\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref15\" name=\"_edn15\">15<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref15\" name=\"_edn15\"><\/a> Smolin, p. 24, emp. added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn16\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref16\" name=\"_edn16\">16<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref16\" name=\"_edn16\"><\/a> Folger, emp. added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn17\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref17\" name=\"_edn17\">17<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref17\" name=\"_edn17\"><\/a> Stuart Clark and Richard Webb (2016), \u201cSix Principles\/Six Problems\/Six Solutions,\u201d <em>New Scientist<\/em>, 231[3092]:33, emp. added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn18\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref18\" name=\"_edn18\">18<\/a><\/sup> Brian Greene (2015), \u201cWhy String Theory Still Offers Hope We Can Unify Physics,\u201d <em>Smithsonian Magazine<\/em>, January, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.smithsonianmag.com\/science-nature\/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637\/?no-ist\">http:\/\/www.smithsonianmag.com\/science-nature\/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637\/?no-ist<\/a>, emp. added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn19\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref19\" name=\"_edn19\">19<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref19\" name=\"_edn19\"><\/a> Mary-Jane Rubenstein (2015), \u201cGod vs. the Multiverse,\u201d <em>New Scientist<\/em>, 228[3052\/3053]:64, December 19\/26, emp. added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn20\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref20\" name=\"_edn20\">20<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref20\" name=\"_edn20\"><\/a> Paul Davies (1999), \u201cLife Force,\u201d <em>New Scientist <\/em>on-line, 163[2204]:26-30, September 18.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn21\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref21\" name=\"_edn21\">21<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref21\" name=\"_edn21\"><\/a> Paul Davies (2007), \u201cTaking Science on Faith,\u201d <em>The New York Times<\/em>, November 24, emp. added, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2007\/11\/24\/opinion\/24davies.html?_r=0\">http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2007\/11\/24\/opinion\/24davies.html?_r=0<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn22\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref22\" name=\"_edn22\">22<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref22\" name=\"_edn22\"><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn23\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref23\" name=\"_edn23\">23<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref23\" name=\"_edn23\"><\/a> As quoted in John Horgan (2014), \u201cPhysicist George Ellis Knocks Physicists for Knocking Philosophy, Falsification, Free Will,\u201d <em>Scientific American Blog Network<\/em>, July 22, emp. added, <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/cross-check\/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-falsification-free-will\/\">http:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/cross-check\/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-falsification-free-will\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn24\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref24\" name=\"_edn24\">24<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref24\" name=\"_edn24\"><\/a> Michael Brooks (2012), \u201cThe Paradox of Nothing,\u201d <em>New Scientist<\/em>, 213[2847]:46, January 11, emp. added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn25\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref25\" name=\"_edn25\">25<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref25\" name=\"_edn25\"><\/a> Ben Stein and Kevin Miller (2008), <em>Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed <\/em>(Premise Media), emp. added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn26\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref26\" name=\"_edn26\">26<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref26\" name=\"_edn26\"><\/a> \u201cCuriosity\u2026,\u201d emp. added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn27\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref27\" name=\"_edn27\">27<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref27\" name=\"_edn27\"><\/a> Victor J. Stenger (2007), <em>God: The Failed Hypothesis<\/em> (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books), p. 115.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn28\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref28\" name=\"_edn28\">28<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref28\" name=\"_edn28\"><\/a> Stein and Miller, emp. added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn29\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref29\" name=\"_edn29\">29<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref29\" name=\"_edn29\"><\/a> Richard Dawkins (1982), \u201cThe Necessity of Darwinism,\u201d <em>New Scientist<\/em>, 94:130, April 15, emp. added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn30\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref30\" name=\"_edn30\">30<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref30\" name=\"_edn30\"><\/a> \u201cCenter for Biomimetics and Bioinspired Engineering: COBRE\u201d (2012), <em>George Washington University<\/em>, emp. added, http:\/\/cobre.seas.gwu.edu\/.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn31\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref31\" name=\"_edn31\">31<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref31\" name=\"_edn31\"><\/a> Jeff Miller (2011), \u201cAutonomous Control of Creation,\u201d <em>Reason &amp; Revelation<\/em>, 31[12]:129-131.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn32\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref32\" name=\"_edn32\">32<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref32\" name=\"_edn32\"><\/a> J. Marshall (2008), \u201cThe Cyborg Animal Spies Hatching in the Lab,\u201d <em>New Scientist<\/em>, 2646:41, March 6.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn33\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref33\" name=\"_edn33\">33<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref33\" name=\"_edn33\"><\/a> For specific examples of biomimicry and bio-inspired engineering, see http:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/APContent.aspx?category=12&amp;topic=66.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn34\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref34\" name=\"_edn34\">34<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref34\" name=\"_edn34\"><\/a> Michael Shermer (2007), <em>Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design<\/em> (New York, NY: Henry Holt), Kindle edition, p. 61.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn35\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref35\" name=\"_edn35\">35<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref35\" name=\"_edn35\"><\/a> Ibid. pp. 39-40.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn36\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref36\" name=\"_edn36\">36<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref36\" name=\"_edn36\"><\/a> Richard Dawkins (1986), <em>The Blind Watchmaker<\/em> (New York: W.W. Norton), p. xi.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn37\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref37\" name=\"_edn37\">37<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref37\" name=\"_edn37\"><\/a> Paul Bloom (2009), \u201cIn Science We Trust: Beliefs About the Natural World that are Present in Infancy Influence People\u2019s Response to Evolutionary Theory,\u201d <em>Natural History Magazine<\/em>, 118[4]:18-19.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn38\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref38\" name=\"_edn38\">38<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref38\" name=\"_edn38\"><\/a> As quoted in: Brown University (2008), \u201cThere is \u2018Design\u2019 in Nature, Biologist Argues,\u201d <em>ScienceDaily<\/em>, http:\/\/www.sciencedaily.com\/releases\/2008\/02\/080217143838.htm.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn39\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref39\" name=\"_edn39\">39<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref39\" name=\"_edn39\"><\/a> \u201cOxymoron\u201d (2017), Merriam-Webster On-line, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/oxymoron\/\">https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/oxymoron\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn40\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref40\" name=\"_edn40\">40<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref40\" name=\"_edn40\"><\/a> cf. <em>Introduction to Engineering at Auburn University: Manufacturing\u2014Industrial and Systems Engineering<\/em>\u00a0(2004), (Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing), pp. 10,32.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn41\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref41\" name=\"_edn41\">41<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref41\" name=\"_edn41\"><\/a> cf. Miller, 2017.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn42\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref42\" name=\"_edn42\">42<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref42\" name=\"_edn42\"><\/a> cf. Jeff Miller (2013), \u201cDirected Panspermia and Little, Green (Non-Existent) Men from Outer Space,\u201d Apologetics Press, <a href=\"http:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/APContent.aspx?category=9&amp;article=4620&amp;topic=93\">http:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/APContent.aspx?category=9&amp;article=4620&amp;topic=93<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn43\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref43\" name=\"_edn43\">43<\/a><\/sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref43\" name=\"_edn43\"><\/a> Folger; Clark and Webb, p. 33; Rubenstein, p. 64.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"edn44\">\n<p><sup><a title=\"\" href=\"#_ednref44\" name=\"_edn44\">44<\/a><\/sup> Folger.<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"1\" cellpadding=\"1\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/store.apologeticspress.org\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/Does-God-Exist-Cover-pptx1.png\" alt=\"\" \/><\/a><\/td>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/store.apologeticspress.org\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/SvE-Cover-Revised-web.jpg\" alt=\"\" \/><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\" colspan=\"2\">Suggested Resources<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Anthropic Principles in cosmology states that the Universe as a whole appears to have been designed for humans to inhabit it. The existence of a Universe Designer still stands as the most logical explanation for its origin, and the naturalistic community cannot help but concede it. Image credit: NASA\/JPL-Caltech The Anthropic Principle in secular&#8230; <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/the-anthropic-principle-the-universe-is-designed-for-us-5619\/\">Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2456,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,55,127,12],"tags":[],"kids-category":[],"people":[286],"bible-book":[],"language":[168],"age-group":[173],"publication":[],"class_list":["post-2455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-creation-vs-evolution","category-design-in-the-universe","category-design-in-the-universe-existence-of-god","category-existence-of-god","people-jeff-miller-phd","language-english","age-group-adults"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/The-Anthropic-Principle-JM2.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2455","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2455"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2455\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":37058,"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2455\/revisions\/37058"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2456"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2455"},{"taxonomy":"kids-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kids-category?post=2455"},{"taxonomy":"people","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/people?post=2455"},{"taxonomy":"bible-book","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/bible-book?post=2455"},{"taxonomy":"language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/language?post=2455"},{"taxonomy":"age-group","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/age-group?post=2455"},{"taxonomy":"publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication?post=2455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}