Design in nature has been a topic of debate for centuries. We have no intention of trying to argue conclusively on a philosophic basis that it is intelligent design. Rather, we hope to show briefly by example that the need for intelligence in bringing about the various designs in nature is by no means a preposterous proposition. We maintain that there are two recognizable yet intuitively distinct forms of design, that which is easily explainable in terms of physical properties and processes and that which requires intelligent ordering. Some contrasting examples will make the point. When a water droplet freezes around a dust particle, an elaborately designed snowflake results, simply due to physical properties. The same is true for the development of a crystal in a supersaturated solution. Just let the solution cool and then tap it. Order suddenly emerges as the crystal develops. In the American West, there are numerous examples of natural sculpture. Chimneys, arches, bridges, human profiles, etc., all dutifully sketched from the rock by the forces of wind and rain. But one would not confuse such structures with Mt. Rushmore, or the Golden Gate Bridge, or the World Trade Center. These human architectural artifacts show clearly the marks of intelligent design. The sharp geometrical forms and the finely sculpted lines are recognized intuitively as the works of human intelligence. The simple point is that intelligent design is discernably different from natural design.
