Is good design “proof of God?”

Intelligent design is divine!

Did you know there are proofs of God’s existence? Neither did I. That is until my daughter informed me at dinner the other night. Camille is a student at Marin Catholic High School. Therefore, in addition to a standard curriculum she is also taking a theology class. It is one of her favorite courses. I’m not surprised. Whether one believes in God or not, religion and spirituality are fascinating subjects.

And so, when I’d remarked, somewhat cavalierly, that all religions are based entirely on faith my daughter was compelled to interject. There are so-called “Proofs of God,” she said. Among the most commonly cited examples is the notion of “beautiful design.”

The “Design Proof” suggests that our world is too perfectly engineered to be a happenstance of nature. Turns out it wasn’t just her teacher saying so… Peter Kreeft, a Professor of Philosophy at Boston College makes the “argument for design” as follows:

“The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health.”

It is summed up nicely on the UK website, Philosopher.org:

“Is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God.”

Bringing it all down to earth, my daughter suggested baby animals are cute because God made them cute. Interesting notion. Why are babies adorable looking? Science suggests it might be to ward off predators. I don’t know. Baby seals are pretty darn cute and sharks love ‘em to death. Are cuteness and beauty God-given?

Cute by design?

I have long been familiar with “Intelligent Design” as a faith-based take on Evolution. As a matter of fact, on glass-half-full days I believe it. But the argument for design as proof of God sharpens the point. As a creative professional, I’ve long valued design more than most aspects of our business, even copywriting. After all, good design mitigates bad copy far better than stellar copy saves crap design.

In a God-like way, designers make things beautiful. Steve Jobs certainly agreed. For him, and his company, design was God. Apple’s millions of obsessed devotees more than support the notion. The company inspires cult-like behavior because of its product’s impeccable designs. Period.

Is good design a proof of God or just a lovely coincidence? Yes, I first wrote about this last year but I continue to wonder about it now. Truly a fascinating subject…

Exceptional design is truly awesome but is it “Proof of God?”

I designed you, brother!

Did you know there are proofs of God’s existence? Neither did I. That is until my daughter informed me at dinner the other night. Camille is a freshman at Marin Catholic High School. Therefore, in addition to a standard curriculum she is also taking a theology class. It is one of her favorite courses. I’m not surprised. Whether one believes in God or not, religion and spirituality are fascinating subjects.

And so when I’d remarked, somewhat cavalierly, that all religions are based entirely on faith my daughter was compelled to interject. There are so-called “Proofs of God,” she said. Among the most commonly cited examples is the notion of “beautiful design.”

The “Design Proof” suggests that our world is too perfectly engineered to be a happenstance of nature. Turns out it wasn’t just her teacher saying so… Peter Kreeft, a Professor of Philosophy at Boston College makes the “argument for design” as follows:

“The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health.”

It is summed up nicely on UK website, Philosopher.org:

“Is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God.”

Bringing it all down to earth, my daughter suggested baby animals are cute because God made them cute. Interesting notion. Why are babies adorable looking? Science suggests it might be to ward off predators. I don’t know. Baby seals are pretty darn cute and sharks love ‘em to death. Are cuteness and beauty God-given qualities?

Cute by design?

I have long been familiar with “Intelligent Design” as a faith-based take on Evolution. As a matter of fact, on glass-half-full days I believe it. But the argument for design as proof of God sharpens the point. And I kind of dig it. Why wouldn’t I? As a creative professional, I’ve long valued design more than most aspects of our business, even copywriting. After all, good design mitigates bad copy far better than stellar copy saves crap design.

The most tempting “Apple” in the Garden…

Designers make things beautiful. And that is God-like. Steve Jobs certainly agreed. For him, and his company, design was God. Apple’s millions of obsessed devotees more than support the notion. The company inspires cult-like behavior because of its product’s impeccable designs. Period.

What do you think? Is good design a proof of God or just a lovely coincidence?

At long last, the winners for “Sweet by Design.”

Debbie Pahls’ inspired cover “Wallpaper” is the winner of my novel slash social media experiment, Sweet by Design. Her design will be the cover of my new novel. She also wins an iPad, the better prize! Debbie Pahls is a freelance art director in Kansas City and my new best friend. Congratulations, Debbie.

Second place, and the iPod Shuffle goes to Dana Lambert’s exceptional cover design, entitled “Frame.”

In the words of celebrity judge, M.J. Rose:

“It was close between the frame and the wallpaper – wallpaper won. So integrated and creative… Most important, the elements work together to create a whole that is compelling, unusual and provocative… Nuanced and balanced. Well done! ”

I completely agree. As did many of you. Both Pahls and Lambert received the lion’s share of write-in votes. At one point or another I regarded each of the finalists as a personal favorite. Any one of them would make fabulous covers. Thank you all -readers, designers and the just plain curious. I could not have done it without you. Literally.

Pahls, on her cover:

“This typographical solution integrates the title of the book “Sweet by Design” and the name of the author as part of a damask wallpaper pattern. The sweet, flowery vintage feel of the wallpaper would fit in well in Audrey’s Chicago Gold Coast residence, and it is a nod to Jeffrey’s profession as an interior designer. This wall covering is beautiful and elegant, however it is a layer that is beginning to pucker and peel. It is starting to reveal the not-so-pretty wall that is it hiding behind it. This visual is symbolic of Jeffrey peeling away his layers to get to the truth and revealing his reality.”

The wait is over. Presenting the finalists for the “Sweet by Design” cover contest.

What a week for yours truly…But like the man said, the show must go on! The “novel slash social media experiment,” Sweet by Design is finally over. It took a bit longer than I’d anticipated; reformatting the novel for WordPress was time-consuming. And since I was adding links and photography along with text the task grew even harder. But it was worth it.

In terms of the cover contest, it appears the added time allowed for some pretty terrific 11th hour creations, several ‘sweet’ designs submitted in the last 24 hours. Frankly, most of the covers were damn good -arguably better than my silly book! All 70 of them can be viewed on the blog and will remain there indefinitely. Thank you, each and every entrant, reader and observer for making my So-Me experiment a success. More people read at least part of SBD than the combined total readers for my previous two novels combined.

I’d also like to thank my co-judge, best-selling author and digital publishing pioneer, M.J. Rose. Her input was a key factor in helping me choose the winning entries.

This is how the judging worked. The panel was divided into three voting parts. M.J. had a third of the vote, me another third, and your voting comments represented the final third. Pretty simple. Through this process, we came up with eight finalists, one of which will be chosen for the cover of my novel, Sweet by Design as well as win the author’s unused iPad. The second place vote getter gets an iPod Shuffle. Those two winners will be announced next week. I promise!

Please visit Sweet by Design for designer credits, book chapters and other tidbits. Enough blather… Without further ado, here are the finalists:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Gap logo fiasco gives folks in Adland fits, but what do we think of our own logos?

Holy logo changes, Batman!

A lot of us were upset by the Gap’s new logo, especially the design and advertising community. The Gap logo fiasco (sounds like a bad rap act, doesn’t it?) made me think about that old saw: “the pot calling the kettle black.” Or the much older saying: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

I want you to do something. Open your wallet and take out a business card. If you don’t have one go online to your company’s website. Now look at your agency’s logo. Really look at it. Consider it as you did the Gap’s. Does it feel old and familiar like the clothier’s original logo or new and remote like their updated one?

Chances are it’s one or the other. Ergo, like the Gap, two scenarios exist: leave well enough alone or make a change. Both options are problematic. While the old logo might seem old-fashioned modernize it and, well, we’ve seen what could go wrong. Granted, the new Gap logo really did suck but even if it didn’t you know hater’s gotta hate.

So what about your firm’s logo? Is it badass or just plain bad? I dragged a random sample of well-known ad agency logos off the web. Is yours one of them? Do you think any of these are truly great…or truly awful?

Maybe when it comes to logos we ought to mind our own business.

An old logo is like a birthmark. It becomes part of us, attached in every sense of the word. A new logo is like a tattoo, brazen and intentional. Unlike the familiar birthmark your new mark draws attention to itself, much of it often critical. And even if the new mark is aces five or ten years down the road and it’s old and familiar anyway.

Just for fun, here’s a site that finds logos everywhere with lots to be desired yourlogomakesmebarf. And here’s one that offers to convert anyone’s current identity to one resembling Gap’s short-lived logotype, including mine! craplogo.me