From Hidden Giants

There’s a Danish artist called Thomas Dambo who created six large recycled sculptures and cleverly hid them in some of his favorite places around his hometown of Copenhagen. He intentionally chose locations off the beaten path where people don’t often go. The sculptures can be found by using a treasure map or by reading a poem engraved in a stone near each sculpture that provides hints on how to find the others.

Can you imagine going out for a walk in the forest and coming across the hidden giant in the photo above? That would be a fun surprise!

My first thought when I saw this photo was probably the same thought that you had: someone built a wooden statue of a giant in a forest. Yes, I realize it’s a thought so obvious it’s barely worth mentioning. But hidden inside that thought is, I believe, a surprisingly convincing piece of evidence for the existence of God. So let’s freeze that moment in time when we first recognized the statue and analyze what sort of intuition and  logical deductions actually led us to that “obvious” thought.

According to neuroscientists, the human brain effortlessly detects and classifies objects from among tens of thousands of possibilities  within a fraction of a second. So within the first 300-500 milliseconds after viewing the giant wooden statue we would come to recognize a series of shapes—rectangles, triangles, eyes, face, head, arms, legs—and our brain would combine them and recognize them as a humanoid figure. In fact, if we were to stumble upon this giant in person we might even be startled for a moment thinking we were looking at an immense living figure in the middle of the forest. But within milliseconds we would also notice the giant is made of wood and, knowing wooden giants aren’t living things, we would quickly conclude this is a just statue.  And from there, because we know that, unlike the trees it’s hidden among, wood does not naturally grow into the complex shapes that make up this statue,  we would arrive at the only logical conclusion given the data: someone built a wooden statue of a giant in a forest.

Sounds pretty straightforward, right?  But isn’t it interesting that we would conclude that “someone” built it, rather than “something”?  We know intuitively that natural forces are incapable of creating something of this complexity on their own. A windstorm didn’t indiscriminately whisk up a bunch of loose sticks in the forest and drop them by chance into the shape of this giant.  This statue is clearly the result of intention and volition, the product of a mind.  In other words, it was designed.  And the only agents we know of in the universe that have the intelligence to design something of this complexity are human beings.

A rudimentary deduction, indeed, but it opens up some intriguing larger questions: How did we know that the figure was a product of design, not chance? What exactly is design? How do we define a “designed” thing? In a recent conversation with some atheist friends on Twitter the following question was asked:

This turned out to be a deceptively complex question. As a guy who has made his living designing things the concept of design seemed to me a properly basic knowledge; one of those things that we all just “know when see it”. But the more I tried to nail down an answer, the more it got away from me. So I decided to see if the dictionary could help. defines “designed” as follows:

And under the definition of the root word design you’ll find, among other entires, “to intend for a definite purpose”, “to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan”, and “to assign in thought or intention; purpose”.

Modern artist Jackson Pollock at work

So behind the concept of “design” we find a great deal of emphasis on the property of intentionality. This makes sense because how could something be both designed and unintended? Even in the case of modern art—such as Jackson Pollock’s seemingly random technique of pouring and dripping paint onto the canvas—the final product still contains many elements of design that are contingent on the artist’s intent, such as color, proportion, and space.

So design requires intent, and we know intention requires a mind.  Therefore evidence of design is evidence of a mind.  And when we’re considering objects such as a wooden giant or a house or a motorcycle we can easily see intent on the part a designer. But what about objects like the sun or the universe itself? There it’s not so obvious if intent exists or not.

In order to determine whether or not something was designed without knowing if it was intended we can analyze it for evidence of design. Common design elements include organization, form, patterns, repetition, balance, rhythm, harmony and unity. Designed things contain these elements and non-designed things have an absence of them. In designed things we find organization and patterns. In non-designed things we find randomness and disorganization, a lack of form and patterns.

As an example, consider the beautiful garden below:

This garden is full of design evidence; organization, form, patterns, repetition, harmony and unity. Because these elements of design are present we know that this garden was designed by a mind.

On the other hand, a non-designed garden would be a wild overgrowth of nature; an arbitrary collection of weeds and plants growing randomly, assembled without form or organization:

An undesigned garden

So let’s take our investigation for evidence of design back to our hidden giant:

In the statue above we see a wealth of obvious design evidence; form, repetition, patterns, balance, and so on.  The reason we instantly knew someone built this statue was because we instantly recognized the presence of design.  And from there we inferred upward to a mind as the ultimate source of that design.

But what about the little boy next to the giant? He shows all the same elements of design as the giant, and he is far more complex.  We know the wooden giant was designed so the human being next to it must also have been designed. To claim the statue is the product of a mind but the human being is the product of a mindless, unguided evolutionary process would be illogical.

And what about the forest in which the boy and the giant are standing? Physical nature is teeming with design! Trees, leaves, mountains, oceans, planets, galaxies—even the laws of physics and chemistry—all display staggering levels of design and thus evidence of a mind that designed them.

Consider these examples:

Designed Not Designed?!

Designed: Roof Tiles

Fish Scales – Not Designed?

Designed: Stained glass window

Exotic flower –  Undesigned?

Designed: Lamp

The sun – Happened by chance?

Designed: Rope Ladder

Nucleic Acid Double Helix (DNA) – Came from a random, mindless process?

To claim that the designs on the left are the result of a mind while the designs on the right are the result of a mindless, unguided process is logically incoherent. The only way one could arrive at that conclusion is by starting with the presupposition “god does not exist” and then disregarding all the evidence to the contrary. Mindless, unguided processes lead to random, arbitrary, disordered outcomes.

Therefore, given the vast amounts of design evident in the universe, including in living things, the only logical conclusion is that the universe was designed. Since we’ve established that design requires a mind, we can conclude that the universe, and life itself, was intended and designed by a mind. And what kind of mind would it take to design a universe of such inconceivable complexity? I submit the answer is the mind of a Creator God.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
Romans 1:20

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *