Design Language from Evolutionists

This article compiles a selection of examples in which proponents of evolutionary theory employ design-oriented language, despite their rejection of a designer. While my comments are minimal, it is admittedly difficult to refrain from occasional sarcasm given the irony of such language.

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is particularly well known for employing design terminology, as though it is nearly impossible for him to describe evolutionary processes without invoking concepts that imply intentionality. He writes:

“It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe.”¹⁾ Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence for Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, W. W. Norton (New York, NY: 1987), p. xviii

Indeed, Darwinism is not easily believed, especially given its frequent reliance on the very design language it seeks to refute.

Dawkins has also stated:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”²⁾Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence for Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, W. W. Norton (New York, NY: 1987), p. 1

To speak of the appearance of design is to acknowledge that living systems exhibit observable characteristics typically associated with intentional creation. Since science is grounded in observation, dismissing such appearances while still recognizing them risks undermining the scientific method itself.

In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins explains:

“The purpose of this book is to resolve this paradox to the satisfaction of the reader to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design.”³⁾ Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence for Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, W. W. Norton (New York, NY: 1987), p. 29

Here, one must question whether Dawkins is functioning as a scientist committed to observation, or as a philosopher committed to explaining away what is plainly evident.

In A Devil’s Chaplain, he further asserts:

“As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature.”⁴⁾ Richard Dawkins, A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love, Mariner Books (New York, NY: 2004), p. 10

Dawkins’ reasoning seems paradoxical: natural selection can generate a universal “illusion” of purpose, yet belief in God is dismissed as delusion.

In The God Delusion, he writes:

“Natural selection … has lifted life from primeval simplicity to the dizzy heights of complexity, beauty, and apparent design that dazzle us today.”⁵⁾ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin (Boston, MA: 2006), p. 73

One might question how any biologist could describe life’s origins as “simple,” given that even the most basic cellular structures are highly complex. Furthermore, the “primeval simplicity” he describes is unobserved in the present day, whereas complexity, beauty, and apparent design are readily observable. Nonetheless, Dawkins urges:

“After Darwin, we all should feel, deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design. The illusion of design is a trap that has caught us before, and Darwin should have immunized us by raising our consciousness.”⁶⁾ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin (Boston, MA: 2006), p. 114

Here, Dawkins advocates for a deep suspicion toward the very features that empirical observation reveals most clearly—an approach that appears to invert the scientific method. He later admits:

“One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect over the centuries has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.”⁷⁾ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin (Boston, MA: 2006), p. 157

The difficulty of such an explanation is itself telling.

In The Selfish Gene, he observes:

 “When you were first conceived you were just a single cell, endowed with one master copy of the architect’s plans.”⁸⁾ Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (30^th Anniversary ed.), Oxford University Press (Oxford, 2006), p. 23

Despite using architectural metaphors, Dawkins does not accept the existence of an actual architect or literal plans. In New Scientist, he likewise states:

“Darwinian natural selection can produce an uncanny illusion of design. An engineer would be hard put to decide whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant. So powerful is the illusion of design, it took humanity until the mid-19^th century to realise [sic] that it is an illusion.”⁹⁾ Richard Dawkins, “Big ideas: Evolution,” New Scientist, (November 17, 2005) Issue 2517, p. 33

Finally, in his foreword to The Theory of Evolution, Dawkins claims:

“Natural selection is the only workable explanation for the beautiful and compelling illusion of ‘design’ that pervades every living body and every organ.”¹⁰⁾Richard Dawkins, in John Maynard Smith, The Theory of Evolution (Canto edition), Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK: 1993, 2000), p. xvi

Paradoxically, in his effort to deny intentional design, Dawkins presents some of the most vivid and compelling design metaphors in modern scientific literature.

Leslie Orgel

Leslie Orgel, an influential figure in the development of what later became known as the RNA World hypothesis, devoted much of his career to investigating abiogenesis—the origin of life from non-living matter. Notably, he coined the term specified complexity, which later became central to the Intelligent Design movement. Orgel wrote:

“Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.”¹¹⁾ Leslie Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecular and Natural Selection, John Wiley & Sons (New York, NY: 1973), p. 189

That Orgel did not consider such specified complexity to be evidence of design remains puzzling. Similarly, Geri Richmond of the University of Oregon once remarked:

“It’s such a wonderful example of how exquisite nature is as a designer and builder of complex systems.”¹²⁾cited by W. McCall, Sponge has natural glass fiber optics, San Fransico Chronicles, August 8, 2003, p. A2

Once again, the language of design emerges even in discussions intended to affirm purely naturalistic explanations.

Francis Crick

Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA, wrote:

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”¹³⁾Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit, Basic Books (New York, NY: 1990), p. 138; also repeated in “Lessons from Biology,” Natural History, (November 1988), Vol. 97, p. 36

This statement appears to function less as an empirical conclusion and more as an ideological directive, urging biologists to interpret evidence within a predetermined evolutionary framework. In doing so, Crick seems to encourage the rejection of the apparent design that observational science reveals—a position reminiscent of Richard Dawkins’ characterization of design as an illusion.

On the subject of biological complexity, Crick conceded:

“The second property of almost all living things is their complexity and, in particular, their highly organized complexity. This so impressed our forebears that they considered it inconceivable that such intricate and well-organized mechanisms would have arisen without a designer. Had I been living 150 years ago I feel sure I would have been compelled to agree with this Argument from Design.”¹⁴⁾Francis Crick, “Lessons from Biology,” Natural History, (November 1988), Vol. 97, p. 32

Yet, despite this historical sympathy, Crick had by his own time embraced a fully materialistic framework, perhaps having undergone what Dawkins metaphorically described as an “immunization” against design arguments. His further admission is telling:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”¹⁵⁾ Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY: 1981), p. 88

If the origin of life “appears… to be almost a miracle,” then it is arguably more coherent to attribute such an event to a miracle-working God than to a miracle-producing nothingness.

Stephen Hawking

Interestingly, Stephen Hawking expressed a view that parallels Crick’s acknowledgment of apparent fine-tuning:

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e., the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life…. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”¹⁶⁾ Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Bantam Books (New York, NY: 1988), p. 131

Yet Hawking himself did not embrace theism. Instead, such fine-tuning was treated as one of those recurring “traps” in which nature seems to mimic intentionality, while the theistic explanation was dismissed.

Bill Nye

Bill Nye, a familiar figure to many from his television programs, argues:

“Evolution is also not random; it’s the opposite of random. One of Darwin’s most important insight is that natural selection is a means by which small changes can add complexity to an organism.”¹⁷⁾ Bill Nye, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, St. Martin’s Press (New York, NY: 2014), p. 23

If evolution is indeed “the opposite of random,” then logically it must involve some form of directionality or goal-oriented process—features commonly associated with design, which evolutionary theory traditionally seeks to exclude.

Nye further states:

“Although a change in a gene usually happens at random, the next generation of that gene is subject to forces that are anything but random.”¹⁸⁾ Bill Nye, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, St. Martin’s Press (New York, NY: 2014), p. 29

Throughout the chapter, Nye supports his case for evolution through analogies to human engineering—comparing natural selection to corporations designing products such as airplanes. His analogy reaches its peak in the following claim:

“Airplane designs have been tried and discarded, just like bottom-up evolution, and the solution looks (not surprisingly) similar to the one that emerged from evolution [i.e. an owl]. … We are the result of evolution, and therefore so are our creations.”¹⁹⁾ Bill Nye, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, St. Martin’s Press (New York, NY: 2014), p. 31

However, such reasoning inadvertently undermines his position. If airplanes, which are unquestionably the products of intelligent engineering, are analogically equivalent to biological entities such as owls, then the analogy implicitly supports intelligent design rather than refutes it.

Nye’s language frequently slips into teleological terminology. For example:

“The way to peer into life’s past is to examine fossils and to determine when a branch was first created by assessing the age of rocks when a certain fossil was formed.”²⁰⁾ Bill Nye, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, St. Martin’s Press (New York, NY: 2014), p. 79

The term “created” inherently carries connotations of design. Similarly, he writes:

“You don’t have to dig into the past to see examples of good-enough design…. This is another consequence of being shaped by natural selection…. There’s no evolutionary pressure to produce designs that are better than they need to be…. No entity at the top of the Human Being Design Shop is anticipating what feature we will need in the future…. Nature’s good designs outcompete her not-so-good designs.”²¹⁾ Bill Nye, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, St. Martin’s Press (New York, NY: 2014), p. 165-166

The repeated use of “design” language aligns with the classical teleological argument (from the Greek telos, meaning “end,” “goal,” or “purpose”), which presupposes intentionality and foresight—qualities inconsistent with an undirected natural process.

Nye even acknowledges, at the cellular level:

“At the cellular level, humans and monkeys and pigs and mice are very much alike in construction and design.”²²⁾ Bill Nye, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, St. Martin’s Press (New York, NY: 2014), p. 199

He stops just short of calling biological organisms “masterpieces of engineering”—though the physicist H. S. Lipson makes precisely that claim:

“We now know a great deal more about living matter than Darwin knew. We know how nerves work and I regard each nerve as a masterpiece of electrical engineering. And we have thousands of millions of them in our body. We know how muscles expand and contract and we know how our hearts beat. But we do not know how we think. The brain has parts specifically designed for this purpose.”²³⁾H. S. Lipson, “A Physicist’s View of Darwin’s Theory,” Evolutionary Trends in Plants, (1988), Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 6

Here again, the terminology—“specifically designed”—is explicitly teleological, and it stands in tension with the assertion that life is the product of undirected processes.

Stephen Jay Gould

Stephen Jay Gould remains one of the more engaging evolutionary authors, and I find his works both intellectually stimulating and unusually candid for a committed evolutionist. While I will share only a single quotation here to preserve his broader reception among atheist readers, it is worth noting that his writings are frequently cited in creationist literature. Gould observes:

“Good design is usually reflected by correspondence between an organism’s form and an engineer’s blueprint. In Science (vol. 203, p 1355) I encountered a striking example of good design: an organism that builds an exquisite machine within its own body. The machine is a magnet; the organism a ‘lowley’ bacterium.”²⁴⁾Stephen J. Gould, “A natural precision designer: Bacteria with built-in magnets reveal biology’s meticulous engineering,” New Scientist, (November 8, 1979), Vol. 84, No. 1180, p. 446

This comment reflects a degree of candor often absent in evolutionary discourse, as Gould openly acknowledges the extraordinary design-like qualities found in nature.

Robin J. Wootton

Dr. Robin J. Wootton, whose doctoral research focused on insect wings and flight, provides an illuminating examination of insect aerodynamics. In his article, he notes:

“Insects include some of the most versatile and maneuverable of all flying machines. Although many show rather simple flight patterns, some insects—through a combination of low mass, sophisticated neurosensory systems and complex musculature—display astonishing aerobatic feats. Houseflies, for example, can decelerate from fast flight, hover, turn in their own length, fly upside down, loop, roll and land on a ceiling—all in a fraction of a second.”²⁵⁾ Robin J. Wooton, “The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings,” Scientific American (November, 1990), Vol. 263, p. 114

While creationist literature often highlights the precision of hummingbird flight, the equally remarkable capabilities of common insects—such as the housefly—are less frequently discussed.

Wootton further explains:

“But the comparison can be taken too far. Insect wings are far more subtly constructed than sails and distinctly more interesting. Many, for example, have lines of flexion across the wing, as already in the fossil cicadas. They also incorporate shock absorbers, counterweights ripstop mechanisms and many other simple but brilliant devices, all of which increase the wing’s aerodynamic effectiveness.”²⁶⁾ Robin J. Wooton, “The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings,” Scientific American (November, 1990), Vol. 263, p. 117

Such intricate features prompt the question: what engineer designed these mechanisms? His description reads like a catalogue of purposeful engineering solutions.

Wootton concludes:

“The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their design appear. Earlier comparisons with sails now seem quite inadequate. The wings emerge as a family of flexible airfoils that are in a sense intermediate between structures and mechanisms, as these terms are understood by engineers. Structures are traditionally designed to deform as little as possible; mechanisms are designed to move component parts in predictable ways. Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegant assembled to allow appropriate deformation in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technological parallels—yet.”²⁷⁾ Robin J. Wooton, “The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings,” Scientific American (November, 1990), Vol. 263, p. 120

David M. Raup

David M. Raup extends the discussion from small-scale biological flyers to large prehistoric reptiles. He writes:

“Thus, some pterosaurs were larger than all flying birds and even many small airplanes. They achieved this size and were still able to fly because their design was nearly optimal.”²⁸⁾David M. Raup, “Conflict Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History (January 1979), Vol. 50, p. 24

He also observes:

“Thus, the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today.”²⁹⁾ David M. Raup, “Conflict Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History (January 1979), Vol. 50, p. 24

Raup ultimately acknowledges:

“So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare. The best evidence comes from the many cases where it has been shown that biological structures have been optimized—that is, structures that represent optimal engineering solutions to the problems that an animal has of feeding of escaping predators or generally functioning in its environment. The superb designs of flying reptiles and of trilobite eyes are examples. The presence of these optimal structures does not, of course, prove that they developed from natural selection but it does provide strong circumstantial argument.”³⁰⁾ David M. Raup, “Conflict Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History (January 1979), Vol. 50, pp. 25-26

Elaine Morgan

Elaine Morgan notes the profound gap between humans and their closest evolutionary relatives:

“In short, the chief mystery does not lie in any one of these anomalies, not even the wonderful brain or the dexterous hands or the miracle of speech. It lies in the sheer number and variety of the ways we differ from our closet relatives in the animal kingdom.”³¹⁾Elaine Morgan, The Scars of Evolution, Oxford University Press (New York, NY: 1994), p. 6

The use of the term miracle here raises an interesting question: can an atheist consistently refer to such differences as “miraculous” without invoking the supernatural?

P. A. M. Dirac

Finally, P. A. M. Dirac, Nobel Prize–winning physicist and an avowed evolutionist, reflects on the remarkable mathematical order of the universe:

“There is one other line along which one can still proceed by theoretical means. It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power. You may wonder: Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in construction of the universe. Our feeble attempts at mathematics enable us to understand a bit of the universe, and as we proceed to develop higher and higher mathematics we can hope to understand the universe better.”³²⁾P. A. M. Dirac, “The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature,” Scientific American (May 1963), Vol. 208, p. 53

Such statements suggest that even some leading scientific minds, while firmly committed to evolutionary theory, cannot avoid language evocative of design.