The Conception of the Intelligent Designer is as Old as Genesis

Many English translations have in Genesis 1:4:  

God saw that the light was good; 

and God separated the light from the darkness. (NASB)

This translation does not do justice to the figure of speech the author utilized to convey his idea. The best translation goes like this:: 

And God saw the light, that it was good: 

and God divided the light from the darkness.

This is an unusual order of speech for: God saw that the light was good. The author uses this construction in several other occasions: (cf. Genesis 6:2; Genesis 12:14; Genesis 13:10)The statement was written in this manner to serve a purpose. 

Using this order converts the statement into an antiptosis.  An antitopsis is a special case of a rhetorical device or, simply put, a figure of speech.  This figure of speech is considered a type of enallage in which one grammatical case is substituted for another.  Substitution of this type is one of four ways (the other ones being addition, subtraction, and transposition) in which discourse can be handled for rhetorical purposes. 

What does the author want to teach his readers?

We can see that the change from God saw that the light was good to God saw the light, that it was good places more emphasis on the condition of 'goodness' of the light. Though we may assume that an omniscient God must know how to create anything in a manner that fits his standard of good, the author does not take us in that direction in this section. The author has God looking at his creations (day by day) and evaluating its agreement to God's will. Thus we find a shortened unadorned version of this first evaluation after each creative act on the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days: and God saw that it was good.  (See the note below for a reason the author does not have God perform his analysis on the 2nd day.) 

In other words, the author shaped his statement with the help of a figure of speech with the intention of persuading his readers that God's concern was not just the creation of each individual object but its suitability in the greater Divine Purpose. Calvin in his Complete Commentary on the Bible after stating that the idea is that God examines his creation so that "He might take pleasure in it;" then adds that the author's intention was to teach his readers that "God has made nothing without a certain reason or design." 

After all anything that a perfectly good God brings about has to be good. The author, however, describes a God extremely concerned with His creations reaching certain standards. This means that He has a very definite end in Mind. 

Despite the dismissive judgments against the lack of a scientific theoretical base for the cosmological affirmations in Genesis 1(as the Archbishop of Canterbury did in 2006) , it seems that the author offered the earliest version, much more earlier than Aristotle, of the philosophical proposal of an Intelligent Designer.  Our God in Genesis  examines each step to ensure that His ultimate goal would be achieved. Science has demonstrated that there are several critical universal constants that has been fine-tuned for live to emerge. 

In other words, the process of creation was directed to bringing about life, and specially human beings. When on the sixth day this is finally realized, the author once again repeats the seal of divine approval, once as and God saw that it was good after the creation of the animals of the earth, and after the creation of man and woman after God's own image, the author concludes with an amplified version of God's approval by saying: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

The Divine Principle in the presentation The Principle of Creation teaches that God created the universe with human beings in mind. When they finally arrived, God gave the highest blessing possible which appears in Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (p. 21)

The incredibly simple presentation of this process written by the author of Genesis displays a powerful insight into God's work. 

If our Heavenly Parents was described as being extremely concern that every step of His creation conforms to his ultimate goal, how much more will he not look for a way to realize his purpose concerning the salvation of his lost children as it states in I Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Thus, the Divine Principle in its presentation of God's Work in the Providence of Restoration cites Isaiah 46:11 where it says  I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

Note: If you have an English translation of the Septuagint, the most important important Greek translation of the Old Testament, you might think I am wrong for that version of the Old Testament included an additional repetition of "and God saw that it was good" after God's work of the second day concluded. However, that addition is not found in any original Hebrew or ancient version.

Then why is the statement not included after God's work on the second day is concluded? Calvin made an observation that helps to resolve this question. On the second day God begins to divide the 'waters' into those from above and those from below, but if we pay attention God does not finishes working with the waters under the heaven. He does this on the first half of the third day, where he forms the Seas (1:10). Then immediately, the author repeats his formula of approbation. After God concludes the second creative act of the third day once again God expresses his approval. (The ancient Rabbis and other Christian commentators have a second explanation for the omission but my personal opinion is that Calvin's observation makes the most sense.)