The Creation Project

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Hey everyone, and welcome to the Creation Podcast, where we
discuss the science that confirms scripture. I'm your host, Renee,
and you're listening to the fourth episode of a four
part series on building a new theory. We're often told
that science is objective. But if that's true, then how
can two intelligent, rational people look at the same pieces
of evidence and yet come up with completely different explanations

(00:28):
and not just different, but mutually exclusive. What causes this
divide and is there anything we can do about it?
Earlier in the series, we first looked at the power
and purpose of theory. Then we examined how the current
reigning theory, evolutionary selectionism, is purposefully crafted to be anti design. Finally,
we learned how to reverse Starwin's thinking to create a

(00:50):
theory of biological design that actually works. Today, we're going
to look at the benefits of a new theory of
biological design and discuss how it impacts the way we
view organisms. Joining me again is Ice, our president, Doctor
Randy Galuza, Doctor g Welcome back to the podcast.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
Wow, it's always a pleasure to be with you.

Speaker 1 (01:07):
Awesome. Well, as we discussed in previous episodes, theories are
incredibly influential in the way that we view the world
around us. And of course the biggest theory right now
in biology is evolution, which sadly says that creatures formed
over millions of years and they were just created through
random processes. Well, at ICR, we of course believe that's

(01:29):
not true. That the Bible says what it says, and
we take it at its word. And it's a really
exciting time because we are actually on the brink of
pioneering a brand new theory of biological design and so
there are a lot of benefits to that which we're
going to talk about today. So to kick things off,
you know, with evolution, there are a lot of mystical concepts,

(01:50):
as you talk about in your article, and so how
would you say a new theory of biological design replaces
those elements of mysticism and evolution.

Speaker 2 (02:01):
It's very very powerful and replacing them because we go
from an engineering perspective, which is very very objective, and
it brings a lot of clarity and precision to anything
that it touches, whatever that is. That's what the big
value of engineering. So when we start looking at organisms
with the assumption that they look engineered, because they were engineered.

(02:25):
In fact, you can even turn that into a hypothesis.
I hypothesize that the reason why birds look so highly
engineered is because they were engineered to fly. I hypothesized
that the reason why fish looks so highly engineered to
live underwater is because they were engineered to live underwater.
And then you could do some tests, well, if they

(02:45):
really were engineered, do they have features that were consistent
with what an engineered entity would look like. So you've
turned it into a hypothesis, and then you can actually
test that. You can even make predictions on things. So
what we're trying to do is you already mentioned, you know,
we want to change the way people look at stuff.
That's what a theory does. It shapes the way we

(03:06):
look at And you did a great job summarizing. You
know what. Evolutionary selectionism says that these organisms were not
purposefully created. They are not completed products. They are constantly
a work in progress. They are fixer uppers. They are
always always being worked on by nature and being cobbled

(03:29):
together by nature in some way or another. That's their
way of looking at creatures, and they have a specific
reason for looking at them. Well, Max Plank said, and
this is really good. If you change the way you
look at a thing, the thing you look at changes.
So you just change your perspective of how you're looking

(03:50):
at whatever it is, and then suddenly you see things
about it that you never saw before. You start thinking
about it in ways that you never thought before. So
we want to start looking at creatures from this engineer perspective.
And as you mentioned, one of the major benefits is
it gets the mysticism ount. So we're going to push
back right away, almost on a misconception. The average person

(04:15):
thinks that when evolutionary thinking came, it got religion out
of biology, it got the supernatural out of biology, and
it became very, very rational. But the exact opposite actually happened.
They introduced another type of agency. Rather than God's agency
as a creative thing, they introduced an agency that they

(04:37):
personify onto nature itself, and in so doing they introduced
a lot of mystical thoughts. And that's why, over the years,
almost from the beginning of the theory itself, evolution has
always been charged with being a concoction of just so stories.
Well that the draft's neck is long, because it needed

(04:59):
to do this just so, or that there's always been
a phantom in their machine, a ghost in the machine
or some kind of phantom breader which can bring out
all of these kinds of things. That is not a
new thought. In fact, that thought has been around almost
from the beginning of the theory.

Speaker 1 (05:17):
Yeah, and it's so interesting, just as you're talking about
it's introducing mysticism back into science. And you know, I
have a quote here from the perpetual Secretary of the
French Academy of Sciences who said this two years after
Darwin's Origin of Species was published, and he said, finally

(05:37):
mister Darwin's work has appeared. One cannot help but be
struck by the author's talent. How many obscure ideas, how
many false ideas? What metaphysical jargon and appropriately thrown into
natural history, which falls into gibberish as soon as it
strays from clear and sound ideas. What pretentious and empty language,
What childish and outdated personifications? Oh, oh, solidity of the

(06:01):
French mind? Where have you gone? So it's interesting this
was two years, as you were saying, right when the theory
is being developed, right after it's created, we have people
already speaking out on the mysticism, they see an evolution, right.

Speaker 2 (06:14):
You know, that's actually quite surprising, isn't it? That just
two years and the head of the French Academy, as
you said, was he was waiting for Darwin's work to
get published, and he recognizes that Darwin is a very
talented man. He's particularly talented at telling a good story,
which is what his theory is. He's going to unravel

(06:34):
his stories and say, oh, here's a human breeder and
it can change these creatures. And if you look at
nature like a human breeder, then it can change creatures too,
and it can select four work on things. And that's
what the evidently the head of the French Academy of
Sciences at that time is pushing back at you. You
can't project onto nature the ability to act like a

(06:57):
human being, or more broadly, the ability to act like
God without having this personification. And I can tell he's
worried about the French people being taken over with this
kind of thinking, and therefore he doesn't want that to
grasp it. I don't know whether that gentleman was a
believer or a not, but I know he doesn't want
mysticism introduced back into science. He wants to be able

(07:21):
to study science on really purely rational grounds. And even us,
as creation is, we do too. We believe that when
God created, he worked miracles and he did supernatural things
at the beginning. But once he made you, and he
made me, and he made all the creatures, we operate
by very rational, predictable processes that we can actually study.

(07:44):
And that's the value of engineering is we start to
take creatures apart, piece by piece, we start to look
at all their parts, we start to see how they
fit together. That's called reverse engineering. And therefore it's a
very rational, methodical process that we can undergo. And we're
not we're not believing that at any one moment God

(08:05):
introduces a miracle to do such and things. We certainly
believe in the sovereignty of God and his providential care
of all things. But he made organisms to operate in
a rational way, and he made he made nature to
operate by laws which are consistent day to day to
day to day. So we like all of those things,

(08:27):
but we don't like we don't like the magic that
Darwin brought in, and it's magic that is absolutely essential
to his thinking. For instance, they consistently talk about what
selection can do, and they point out there's the selection events,
but nobody has ever seen a selection event. It's it's

(08:50):
something they talk about, but nobody's ever seen it. They
talk about forces shaping and molding creatures that they call
selection pressures, but nobody has ever quantified a selection pressure.
In fact, nobody can quantify it. They talk about something
that is being selected, or sometimes they call it the
unit of selection. Nobody has ever identified a unit of selection.

(09:15):
They talk about genetic changes per se being random, but
nobody has a test to determine which one of those
things is random or not. Personifications of nature supposedly acting
on and favoring, and something being under selection. All of
these things are mysticism, which has been reintroduced back into science,

(09:38):
and every one of those concepts is absolutely essential to
evolutionary theory. And if it isn't, you just ask an
evolution as well. If if you say nature really isn't selecting,
then why don't you drop the term selection altogether? Just
leave it behind. And they're not going to do that
because they know they need that term, They know that

(10:00):
need that concept of selection pressures. Therefore, they can't leave
it behind because it's essential to their narrative on how
they view things happening. We're saying engineering brings a major
benefit to science and that we get rid of all
of that stuff lock stock and barrel. It's gone. You
don't need it. You can explain things far better without it.

Speaker 1 (10:22):
Yeah, and it's so interesting that you were talking about.
You know, what we're doing is creationists is we're you know,
picking the creatures apart and seeing how they were designed
and seeing how they were engineered. And you know, we
can do the same thing with evolution. We pick it apart.
We pick apart these arguments that evolutionists are making, and
we can see they're not coherent. They really start to
fall apart, especially with things like selectionism. When we look

(10:45):
at natural selection and we hear, oh, this is what
made creatures the way they are today. But when you
look at natural selection itself, it's like, okay, nature selecting,
what does that mean? And the definitions start to get
really fuzzy.

Speaker 2 (10:57):
They get really fuzzy, and they become very detrimental science
because they've start being used as causes. Why is this?
And evolutionists or even actually all selectionists will say it's
because of it was favored. It was because it was
selected for or were selected against. It's because it was

(11:18):
a trait that was under selection. And they're not just
using it as a metaphor, they're using it as an
actual cause. And I read hundreds of their papers and
I highlight every time that this is their causal explanation.
It is because of this, And what engineering brings is

(11:38):
we bring a type of engineering causality. So if you
and I were engineers that we were studying something, we
want to know what's causing it. We look for real,
identifiable elements in the causation and we only include those
in our causal explanation, and we don't leave anything out.

(12:00):
So if the environment changes and then there's a response
by the organism, we would start with this change. We
would talk about how the change was detected, which means
we would have to identify a sensor, which means we'd
have to identify how data is sent into the cell
or into the organism. We'd have to identify how that
information is processed. We would identify how that led to

(12:21):
a genetic change or epigenetic modification which led to a
change express trait. Boom boom, boom boom, boom, real identifiable
steps along the way. We don't add a magical selection
step in there somewhere which nobody can quantify, and we
don't leave anything out. In other words, in a lot
of times and evolutionary explanations, you have a change environment

(12:44):
and you have a response, and they say this caused this,
and all of the sensors, data transmission, internal logic, changing
of the traits, all those things, they're completely omitted so
that they see that this environment is causing this change.
Engineering causality brings much greater precision. We identify everything along

(13:05):
along the line. And when you do that, when you
identify all of those steps, you are seeing the engineering
right before your very eyes, and it jumps out at you.
And it's the same way as if you and I
were engineers and we had to design something that was
going to respond, we would have to put all of

(13:25):
those things in ourselves.

Speaker 1 (13:28):
I love that, And you know, it's just so funny
because as you were talking, I was just thinking about,
you know, the symbolism of mother nature, and we all think, well,
you know, obviously there's no mother nature, but yet evolutionists
act like, you know, there is one in a sense.
Whenever they're you know, giving all this agency to nature itself,
and we know that, especially from an engineering perspective, that's
just not feasible. And so transitioning now into further benefits

(13:52):
of this new theory, how does this impact the way
that we view got our creator.

Speaker 2 (13:59):
Well, well, it's very important because all theories have basically
a theological element to them. Evolutionists they know this as well,
that the theory is is your way that you're going
to now look at the creatures. As Max Blanks said,
if you change the way you look at them, the
thing you look at changes. So they change the way
they look at creatures and it changed before their eyes.

(14:21):
But they know that there's a theological element to their theory.
There's a theological element to a theory of biological design.
There's a theological element to Big Bang. There's a theological
element to any theories about the unnatural origin of life
or a supernatural origin of life. There's always this metaphysical

(14:41):
some people might say, or theological element that's tied right
into it. Well, we know biblically that people can see
the actions of the Creator by looking at the creation.
Psalm nineteen says that you can see it. But Psal
nineteen also says that it doesn't talk. Creation doesn't actually

(15:01):
audibly speak to us. And we know that creatures don't
come with a label that's stuck on them that says
made by God. You look at the creature and you
infer this was made by God. And the reason why
we infer that is because we see the incredible design
in all of those creatures. We see the complexity, we

(15:23):
see the interrelated parts, we see all of those kinds
of things, and we infer that there is a God.
So one strategy to change people's view about God would
be to directly attack God. Darwin was shrewder than that.
He doesn't come out and directly attack God. He attacks
what we look at to infer there is a God.

(15:46):
And so he says basically two things. Everything that you're
thinking was made by a God really wasn't. I can
come up with a natural process which can do the
exact same thing. And then number two and this is
probably just devastating, he says. And when you listen to
my natural process, you'll see that there's nothing that a

(16:07):
real engineer would ever consider using. For instance, my process
is going to deal with random genetic mistakes that Darwin
didn't directly say that himself because he didn't know about genetics,
but his disciples have done that. So it's a random process,
and their mistakes they're happening in a non plan non

(16:28):
purposeful way. They have no goal in terms of the
overall benefit of the organism. It's a completely random process
using mistakes, and then on top of that, the mistakes
get sorted out through a totally random process of how
the environment changes. On top of all of those things,
the environment's changing, nobody knows, and on top of that,

(16:52):
they advance, usually at the expense of another organism. The
extinction of one group in favor of another group is
driving one into extinction. So it is a random process.
It's a clunky process. It's a death driven process. I mean,
what kind of what kind of creator would ever use
such a process as this. So it's a natural process,

(17:16):
and it smacks in every way as the exact opposite
of what you would envision as a benevolent, loving, wise,
genius god. It's the exact opposite.

Speaker 1 (17:29):
Of that, and it really, you know, holding to evolution,
I think in a lot of ways makes us doubt things,
like you know, Psalm nineteen, as you were talking about
what he says in his word about creation and about
us that you know, as Psalm one thirty nine says,
we are fearfully and wonderfully made. Well, if evolution is true,
you know that can't be and vice versa. So there's

(17:51):
no way we can reconcile that even with God's word,
as far as you know, it loses its legitimacy. If
evolution is actually how we got here.

Speaker 2 (17:58):
That's right, he Darwin, and I mean all of those
people who follow in his steps have fundamentally changed your
view of God by changing your view of his creation.
And that's kind of a clever way. But if we
were to pound on the table and say this is
something that our listeners really need to get down, that's

(18:19):
very important. Darwin changes the view of God by changing
people's view of his handiwork, and that's how he does it.
And most of us have been missing this for the
longest time, But that's the link between his theory and
non belief in a creator. Is the creation as he

(18:41):
describes it could never really be the handiwork of the
God of the Bible, definitely, or of any kind of
intelligent being, because he set it up, baked right into
his theory that it's anti design.

Speaker 1 (18:54):
And then on the flip side, we have this new
biological theory that gives all glory and honor and praise
to the Lord Jesus who designed these creatures and designed us.
And I think that is so beautiful when we reflect
on that.

Speaker 2 (19:06):
It is it is, and you know, it doesn't actually
do it directly, It just says, now, we're going to
get all this mysticism out. There's no more selection events,
no more selection pressures. We're going to identify everything in
the process. We're not going to leave anything out. We're
not going to insert anything magical. We're going to take
these creatures apart, piece by piece, very methodically. We're going

(19:28):
to identify everything we see or we're going to see
how it all fits together, and then we're going to
make some predictions in advance. We're going to predict that
if they really were engineered, we should see hallmarks of engineering.
We should see that biological functions can be explained by
engineering principles. I mean, if it's engineered and engineers are

(19:50):
doing something, they have the best ways of accomplishing them,
we should see we should see those engineering principles. We
should see purpose at almost every level. We should expect
that organisms can be methodically taken apart, piece by piece,
because if they were engineered in a forward way, they
can be engineered in a reverse way. We should expect

(20:12):
to see the outcomes of engineering. Like engineers want to
go for high efficiency, engineers want to go for optimal designs.
Engineers look for those things. We want to make robust things,
We want to make resilient things that can take a
looking and keep on ticking. So we're looking for all
of these goals of what engineers do. So I predict

(20:36):
that we should find efficiency. I predict that we should
find optimized features. I predict that we should find resilience,
things that creatures that can flex with certain conditions and
bounce back. Of course, everything operates within a parameter. You
press it too far, it's going to break, but it's
not this rigid static thing. So I'm predicting in advance

(20:58):
that if they really are engineering, I will find the
same features in them that I would expect to find
in any engineered.

Speaker 1 (21:05):
Entity, which makes perfect sense. If we serve a god
of order, you know that he would engineer these creatures
and we would find these predictable, repeatable patterns over and
over again. And so now transitioning into just the environment
as far as what we talked about earlier, where evolutionists
placed a heavy emphasis on the environment and what the
environment does to the organism, So can you talk more

(21:28):
about that and how this new theory changes how we
view the creature and environment relationship.

Speaker 2 (21:34):
Sure, we're actually going to start viewing creatures like they
really were engineered. So everybody asks, you know, as I
talk about this there biological design, I get what you're
saying and I understand it, But how do I actually
start thinking from an engineered perspective? How do I start
thinking that way? And they have to ask that because

(21:56):
all of us grew up with the evolutionary framework. There
is one major change that Darwin introduced, and it was
Darwin who did it. Anybody who would like they can
turn to Stephen J. Gould's book A Structure of Evolutionary
Theory and he explains that Darwin did something and it
was the pioneer of leading all evolutionary theorists, and that

(22:18):
is he went to a process called or a way
of looking at creatures called externalism. Prior to Darwin, people
would look at creatures as a distinct entity and they
would start to explain what it can and cannot do
in terms of its internal capability. That's called internalism. Darwin

(22:39):
looked at creatures and saw that they were relating to
their environment, and he flipped causality around, almost like what
we were saying earlier, when you see the environment change
and then you see a response. He said, this caused this,
This was the cause of this. And I can understand
where he's doing that because he could not look inside

(23:00):
creatures very well, and they definitely could not look at
the molecular level and ways that we can do today.
So the environment changes, that organism responds, This was the
cause of this, But we now know that's not true.
We now know there's a whole host of biological elements
between the exposure and its response. We now know that

(23:22):
this exposure really is just a variable. It's either there
or it's not. And organisms are able to detect those things,
and they have programming inside which directs how they're going
to respond when they're going to respond on that. So
what I'm saying on when is sometimes they'll detect a
change in the environment and they will respond in a

(23:42):
way that's going to prep them for something coming in
the future. They detect something here and they're programmed to
say when that's happening, something's going to change in the future.
So you need to even be preparing now for something
in the future. And so if we want to begin
to think from an engineering perspective, we need to look
at entities like we look at any design things. So

(24:04):
we look at a space shuttle, and it goes through
all these different environments, from the environment on Earth and
through the atmosphere. The then actually past our atmosphere into
space or just on the edges of our atmosphere, or
any spacecraft that goes beyond it, and then it has
to face all the challenges out there that it has
to come back through the atmosphere, all the challenges in between,

(24:28):
which engineers have thought of and they've built into the
space shuttle everything it's going to need as they anticipate
it to safely transition and handle all of the challenges
of every one of these environments. And so when we
look at a space shuttle, we explain what it's doing
in terms of the capabilities of the space shuttle. It's

(24:50):
engines it's aerodynamics, it's heat shield, its ability to resist
radiation and keep the cabin pressurized. All these kinds of
things we explain in terms of the Space Shuttle. We
look at the Space Shuttle. If something needs to be improved,
we improve the Space Shuttle. We don't improve the environment.
Something needs to be fixed, we fix the Space Shuttle upgrades,

(25:12):
we upgrade the Space Shuttle. So everything that we're thinking
about is focused on what we built. Does that make sense, Oh? Absolutely,
And that's internalism. So that's what we want to get
back to when we start thinking of creatures. So if
the space shuttle comes through and, as we discussed on
one of our prior episodes, one of them burned up

(25:33):
in the atmosphere, killing everybody on board, but most of
them made it through safely, why did that one burn up?
We would never say it was selected against.

Speaker 1 (25:45):
The atmosphere selected against it.

Speaker 2 (25:46):
Now, that would be silly. We would never say it
was disfavored or wasn't favored. We would never use that
as a causal explanation, though evolutionists use those kinds of
things all the time. We would begin looking for the
problem with the Space Shuttle, we'd find it on the
heat shields. We would start looking at what happened to
the heat shield when it broke, how we could fix

(26:07):
that process boom boom boo, boom boom in a very
methodical way. We would never say it was disfavored. We
need to do the exact same thing with creatures. Start
looking at them, see that environment as conditions, as exposures,
as variables that are there, but in terms of what
the creature can and cannot do. We go back to

(26:29):
looking at the creature, and if it successfully solves this,
we find out why. If it doesn't, we find out why.
You look at the creature and you explain everything it
can do in terms of its capabilities and whether it
succeeds or not. So in a nutshell, if somebody's wondering, well,
how do I begin? How do I begin to start

(26:49):
thinking from a design perspective and engineering perspective? And is
be start by going with an organism focused explanation, focus
on the creature, what it can and cannot do, and
credit its traits with the success of solving all of
those challenges. And that's how you begin to explain it.

(27:10):
Go back to life before Darwin, go back to an
internalistic perspective which makes rational sense.

Speaker 1 (27:18):
Wow, And I think that's a mindset shift for so
many people, because you know, these Darwinian ideas are so
deep rooted for a lot of us, just because that's
what we grew up hearing, that's what our society tells us.
And even things like survival of the fittest, which I
know we've talked about before on previous episodes, and you
actually said in your most recent article on this new theory,

(27:41):
an internalistic approach fully understands that creatures work together, relate
to external conditions, and sometimes suffer loss of control to
or absorption by another organism. But you know that's not
the result of survival of the fittest. That's not in
the environment selecting against that creature because of its traits.
It's simply because each organism controls its own actions, and

(28:03):
that's on the creature itself.

Speaker 2 (28:05):
It is. It is on the creature itself. You know,
there's always these interesting things that you find in biology.
I was reading an article about these zombie ants that
get taken over by a fungus and they end up
doing things. But you know, the fungus doesn't take over
every creature, and it doesn't cause that to for you

(28:25):
and me are for dogs and cats, but these ants
don't have the capability resists this ability of this funcus
to get into their nervous system and do these kinds
of things and other creatures. You have these one off things,
but it always goes back to what they can and
cannot do. You know, there are things that humans can do,

(28:46):
but there are many things that we can't do. We
can't fly, so we do not want to fall off
a cliff. We do not want to be held underwater
because we can't live there. But that it's due to
our capabilities what we can and cannot do. It's not
due to the water. The water isn't favoring or not

(29:08):
favoring us. If you hold me and you hold a
fish underwater, the fish is fine because its traits are
suitable for that. That's what it means. That's when we
say fittest fit was from the idea that something was suitable.
It was fitting, meaning it was suitable for and so
you could say traits were the fittest, or you could
say the traits were the most suitable. And that's what

(29:29):
engineers do. We build in traits that are suitable for
the challenges, suitable for the conditions. So even even though
it's an oxymorn, when someone says survival of the fittest
meaning I should say would, you would almost say it's
an oxymoron, but it's it's it's circular reasoning. I'll just
go with a simpler word than that. It's even though

(29:52):
survival of the fittest is a type of circular reasoning,
it survived because it's the fittest we know is the fittest.
Because it's survived, it still goes back to internalistic capabilities.
It survived because it was the fittest. Therefore it had
the suitable traits and it was able to overcome those challenges.
And if you see a population of organisms and the

(30:15):
environment changes and some of them are now living in
a new environment, or some of them are living in
a changed environment, it's because they have the traits that
solve those challenges. And more often than not, those traits
and the capabilities of those traits precede the challenge. They're
not due to the challenge, they're already there prior to

(30:37):
the challenge and they successfully solved them. So we're always
looking at what the creatures can and cannot do. Wow.

Speaker 1 (30:46):
Well, can you talk about some of the things that
we can expect as we do research and what new
assumptions are being made.

Speaker 2 (30:54):
An engineering approach really helps with research, as you mentioned,
it has all these other benefits. It gets that mysticism out,
and it brings a lot of precision and clarity in
particularly with engineering causality. It definitely changes our view of
creatures and our view of God with all those things.
Really goes back to our roots of looking at creatures
from an eternalistic perspective. But in terms of research and

(31:18):
in terms of writing papers or how we're going to
describe things, it fundamentally changes the way we proceed on
that altogether. For instance, when we start to write up
how organisms are functioning, we would describe them in the
exact same way as if we were describing a space shuttle.
So we go on a research project to determine how

(31:39):
a space shuttle works, assuming that we were not the
engineers who built it. So we have to now look study,
study space shuttles, look at how they operate, start digging
into those kinds of things, and we start approaching the
creatures in the exact same way that we would any
other human engineered, which means one major change. If it

(32:03):
would sound silly the way we would describe it if
we applied it to a man made thing, don't apply
it to a creature. Like we already we already discussed
the Space shuttle burning up in the atmosphere. We would
we would never say from an engineering perspective, that's because
it was selected against, or it was due to strong

(32:24):
negatives selection, or it was disfavored. Nobody would ever say
such a thing. Well, then don't say that about creatures.
I mean that that's out. And if you want to know, uh,
the Space Shuttle responded due to such and such a thing,
you start looking at the exposure that it had, and

(32:48):
we start to describe it in terms of that way.
In fact, I'll jump to one of these other points,
a stimulus, and then I say, we would look at
a stimulus, and we we say things are a stimulus
for a creature all the time. And I believe we
talked about this some one of the prior episodes. Well,
no condition, no environmental thing in and of itself is
a stimulus, No environmental condition in and of itself is

(33:11):
an inducer, or no environmental thing in and of itself.
Is a trigger is a trigger. We use those things,
but when you flip it around and you want to
look at a man made thing, real triggers are always
a part of the thing you're building. If you want
that thing to be triggered, you will design on whatever

(33:34):
it is that you're designing, you will put on it
somewhere a trigger. You'll put an actual trigger, like everybody
thinks of on a gun, a trigger trigger, But there
are many other kinds of triggers. You start to walk
towards the doors at the shopping center and they automatically
open on that you didn't trigger that. You're the exposure.
They're not opening and closing all the time. You're either

(33:55):
there or you're not. And when you are there, it
detects you and it opens the doors. That sensor that
is detecting you, that is the trigger. And you will
always put something like this and it will always be
a part of the functioning thing. So one you will
define what your exposures are. The wind doesn't open the doors.

(34:19):
You do. So whoever designed the doors said I want
this to be the exposure, and it was very limited
to that, and then they built a sensor which was
specific highly specified for what they want to detect, and
then they program it to respond exactly how they want

(34:39):
it to do that way. So that's what engineering brings
to biology. We no longer start talking about things in
the environment as the real triggers or as inducers, and
anothering in the environment actually goes and induces genes to
change or start turning out new products, new proteins. The
cell does that itself, so the cell always brings about

(35:02):
all of its own changes. Nothing gets actually inside the
cells that starts doing these things. The cell changes itself,
the cell turns on its own activities, and it starts
making the products that it wants. So we start to
we start to explain the operation of cells. We start
to explain the operation of organisms like any other adaptable

(35:27):
entity that humans would design and build. So changing fundamentally
changing the way we write it up, the way we research,
the way we describe it, the way we attribute causality
is fundamentally different with an engineering based approach than a
selectionist approach. M.

Speaker 1 (35:45):
Yeah, you know, and as you were talking, correct me
if this is a poor analogy, but I almost think
about like a self driving car, you know, whenever you
look at a car. Of course, there's no doubt that
was engineered, and it's programmed to respond to certain stimuli,
and of course it breaks, it turns, depending on you know,

(36:05):
what's in the road. And I just think that's so
interesting how we would clearly see that and think, okay, well,
the engineers put that program into that car, so it
responds in a certain way whenever it you know, has
triggers from the environment. But yeah, we can look at
something infinitely more complicated like ourselves, you know, or any
other organism and think, oh, yeah, that had to happen randomly.

Speaker 2 (36:27):
That's a that's a perfect example of the self driving car.
And in fact it's a great example because they're so complicated.
They stay within lines, they stay behind another car in
front of them, they don't get too close, if they
don't fall too far behind on any of those kinds
of things. And whoever built that, whoever designed it, they'll

(36:49):
they'll lot of automatically break themselves, as if a child
walked in front of the car, it'll stop itself. It's
backing up, it'll stop. These are great safety features, but
I guarantee you it's going to stay between lines. There's
a sensor that's detecting those lines. There's a program in
there that says, if you start to just gently sway

(37:10):
over towards the line, stay back. But if it looks
like you're being steered over the line, then go ahead
and cross the line. So there's programming that says, if this,
then do that, and it helps to the car to
respond in ways to what it's detecting all around its environment.
And you have a lot of systems working together. You've

(37:32):
got braking systems, accelerating systems, you have all these systems
that are working together in this automated car in order
for it to work. You're just like the automated car.
I'm like the automated car, except we're just so much
more complicated than the car. We have things all of
your body monitoring things all around us right now, we
have things internally that's monitoring us, and it's integrating it

(37:55):
all together. That's a great, great example about these automated cars.

Speaker 1 (38:01):
Wow, well, I know, my mind is just spinning with
this new perspective you know that I'm getting from you
right now, And of course seeing the research that ICR
is doing firsthand, it's really really neat. How all these
you know, decades of just evolutionary thinking and ideas that
have come into people's minds. Now we're completely transforming how
they view science in the world around them, and I

(38:23):
just think it's remarkable. So, as we conclude today's episode,
do you have any final thoughts that you'd like listeners
to know.

Speaker 2 (38:31):
Yes, fundamentally, change the way you see creatures. As Darwin
at one time basically said, and I'm going to paraphrase,
he would have been saying, stop thinking about creatures the
way you used to, and from this stay forward. Start
thinking about them as the products of random genetic changes

(38:51):
that are sorted out through the vicissitudes of nature, that
are cobbling creatures together over long periods of time, that
are never a finished work, but there are always a
work in progress. And start thinking about them like this.
And when people started thinking about creatures like that, their
view of God and specifically their creator of the Lord
Jesus was diminished. It was diminished. And so what we

(39:15):
want to say is, stop stop seeing creatures as products
of nature, cobbling them together and pulling them together over
long periods of time that they're this clunky, non finished work.
Start seeing creatures want as a finished product. They are finished.

(39:37):
When when the Lord Jesus made Adam and Eve, they
were finished products. But Adam and Eve could adapt, Adam
and Eve could change. So start seeing creatures as a
finished product. Start seeing them as these highly innovative, adaptable
entities that are active problems solvers that are able to

(40:02):
detect challenges in their environment and within their design parameters,
are able to solve those challenges and then their fruitful
multiply and they can fill the earth. And as they do,
as they work this process out, as they solve these challenges,
and as we research them, we will see the optimization

(40:22):
which shows the wisdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. We
will see their incredible complexity which shows his genius at
every single level, from the organism level, to the organ
system level, to the organs all the way down to
the molecular level. We will see his genius at all

(40:42):
of those areas. And then as organisms work together as
one relates to another and they relate by these interfaces
which enable them to work together, you'll begin to see
the omnipotence of the Lord Jesus, who knew everything about
this creature and everything about this creature or something in

(41:02):
the environment, and he was able to design an interface
which enabled them to relate to each other. And then
not on edge it's just two organisms, it's all of
the organisms and this massive web of an ecosystem. You'll
see you'll see the omniscience of the Lord who knows
everything about everything that he can put it together. And

(41:25):
by looking at creatures in a fundamentally different way, you'll
see them differently, and you'll see the one who made
them differently, and you'll have a much much higher regard
for the Lord Jesus Christ. And it's through his word
and through the things he's made it through science.

Speaker 1 (41:46):
That is so well said. And I love ending on
that note, and I just want to thank you for
coming on the podcast and just encouraging me and encouraging
our listeners through the series. I think it's going to
bless a lot of people.

Speaker 2 (41:57):
Well, thank you very much, thanks for the invitation and
such a wonderful host.

Speaker 1 (42:01):
Well, thank you well to all of our listeners and viewers.
Thank you so much for tuning in to today's episode
of the Creation Podcast. I encourage you to go to
ICR dot org to check out doctor G's articles on
Building a New Theory Parts one through four. And if
you enjoy this episode, please be sure to like, subscribe,
and share this podcast with your friends and family because

(42:21):
it helps us to get the creation message to as
many people as possible. If you would like to receive
the Creation Podcast a week early or our monthly podcast
Creation dot Live two weeks early, you can click the
link in the description below to become a member on
YouTube or Patreon. Thank you so much, and we'll see
you next time.