← The Creation Podcast
The Creation Podcast
Leading Creationist Expert: Evolution COLLAPSES the Moment You Realize This | The Creation Podcast: Episode 125
Loading summary
Transcript91 lines
- [00:06]
A
So, Dr. G, atheists often argue that there's no intelligent creator behind life. But at the same time, evolution is described as an active agent. It's selecting, it's refining, it's improving organisms over time while eliminating other organisms. But nature isn't conscious, and nature does not think so. So what is the flaw in that reasoning? How can both of those ideas coexist?
- [00:33]
B
You identified probably the major flaw in evolutionary thinking that goes all the way back to when Darwin first wrote his book. It's this tension, this almost this contradiction, that on the one hand, you want to get a completely atheistic, materialistic explanation where there is no agent involved, no act of mind, no act of consciousness involved in any of the creation. You have a completely materialistic explanation. And yet, on the other hand, evolutionary theory seems to smuggle in. Smuggle in a subtle agent right through the back door, which many people don't even catch. And that is this personification of nature, the projection onto nature, the ability to select. And. And when they project onto nature the ability to select, they're projecting onto it volition and intelligence. And it's not just a metaphor. What most of our listeners probably don't know is that leading evolutionists use this ability of nature to select for or to select against as the actual cause in their best scientific papers.
- [01:48]
A
Welcome to the Creation Podcast, where we explore how science confirms scripture. I'm your host, Mary Claire, and today we're tackling a fascinating and what some might call controversial idea. Has nature itself become a substitute for God in evolutionary thinking? Joining me is Dr. Randy Galuza, President of the Institute for Creation Research. Dr. G. I'm so excited that you're here with us today on the podcast.
- [02:14]
B
Me too. This is an important topic, so thank you for the invitation.
- [02:17]
A
Of course. So before we really dive into this topic today, could you briefly share your background in medicine and engineering and research and how that informs your perspective on natural selection and design in nature?
- [02:34]
B
Yes. It seems like the Lord just gave me the perfect background to kind of understand these things. Long before I was even an engineer. I went to Moody Bible Institute and got a degree in theology. And really that theological basis has set my worldview for everything. After that, I felt called to the creation science ministry. I returned to engineering and completed my degree as an engineer and practiced as a civil engineer in the Navy for over a decade. Got my license in engineering, which gave me an ability to see systems, see how systems work. And in many ways, all engineers are like systems engineers. Then I went to medical school. And what did I see, I saw system after system after system. And in fact, I understood medicine more from a systems perspective than just signs and symptoms. It was an ability to understand how things could break and I could explain them in terms of that. So combining this biological background in medicine plus the engineering background has enabled me to look at biology maybe a little bit differently than most biologists and see it in terms of its real engineering basis. So what I was taught in school was evolutionary biology. But what I really see in nature is engineered biology. The opposite of evolutionary biology is engineered biology. And that's what ICR is about these days. It's explaining and reframing everything from this perspective of engineered biology.
- [04:13]
A
So you've had kind of two perspectives then. You've had like the secular view and the creationist view, right? From like before you became a Christian, you were in the medical field, is that correct?
- [04:23]
B
Well, I wasn't in the medical field before I became a Christian, but I believed in evolution strongly before I became a Christian. And then even after I became a Christian, I still held very firmly to a theistic evolutionary perspective. So as you point out, I've been able to get on both sides of the fence from an evolutionary standpoint. I held the theistic evolution, I argued for it. I understand those arguments. I didn't see biology at the time in terms of engineering, but having been an engineer and gone to medical, now I can see it from that perspective. So I can see it from both sides of the fence on both the engineering perspective and the theistic evolutionary perspective.
- [05:03]
A
Yeah, I think that's perfect. I think that gives you a well rounded point of view to be able to really talk about this specific topic. And that way our audience is able to really understand from you, from all sides. So jumping in. Darwin introduced natural selection as a way to explain life's apparent design without appealing to a creator. And soon that began replacing him as the source of design. So why was the idea of natural selection so compelling that it shifted people away from seeing a creator as the designer of life?
- [05:40]
B
Wow, you really packed a lot into that question. And it's a great summary. It's a great summary. And probably most evolutionists and creationists don't explain this background well to one another. And that's because they probably don't understand the background so well. First of all, you said Darwin was explaining the apparent design of life.
- [06:03]
A
Yeah, exactly.
- [06:04]
B
Of course, that was the 900 pound gorilla in the room that needed to be explained. Why do creatures look so incredibly engineered? That is what the Bible would say is the general revelation of God to nature, people can see it, they see his handiwork in all of that. And while most people would think that evolutionary theory was to explain the diversity of life on Earth, what Darwin was really after, and all of those who have been adding to evolutionary theory over the years, is to explain this design feature, this incredibly engineered feature in creatures. That is what is shouting Creator. That is what is shouting. These were made. And so you have to come up with an explanation for that. A man who really understood this, well, Peter Godfrey Smith, he's a philosopher of science from Australia, he even said that the core intellectual mission of evolutionary theory was to explain this, what he would call the apparent design of creatures and why they fit so well into their environment. And so he said evolutionary theory exists, its core mission is to explain this apparent design. And he said that natural selection was the big answer to those questions.
- [07:28]
A
Have you noticed a shift in language from God designed to nature selected, just sort of this personification of nature?
- [07:37]
B
Yes. And that answers the second part of your other question. Why was it so persuasive? Yeah, why. Why does it appear so persuasive? And why are so many people taken in by this concept of natural selection? Well, it's hard to define and I think we're going to discuss that in a little bit. But there's a little subtlety to natural selection. It's persuasive because Darwin explains it in terms of a tautology which is basically an explanation that is circular. So if we go back to his book on the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, that doesn't tell us a whole lot, but the subtitle is explanatory, he says, or the preservation of favored races in the Struggle for Life. That's really what he's talking about. And there's the tautology right in that he says the preservation of favored races. And those two words, preservation and favored, is what makes it kind of hard for everybody to understand selection. First of all, where's the tautology? Well, how do we know that certain creatures were favored? It's because they were preserved. And why were they preserved? It's because they were favored. And we know they're favored because they were preserved. And they were preserved because they were favored. So you end up with this circular reasoning right there. And then the phrase natural selection became popularized as survival of the fittest. That's also circular, which seems almost self explanatory. Why did they survive? Because they were the fittest. How do you and I know they were the fittest? It's because they survived. And then, well, why did they survive? Because they were the fittest. And how do we know? So it's almost this self explanatory thinking that makes it so subtle. Survivors survive, creatures are favored. And then that also introduces the second part of why it's kind of settled. It's because he introduced a type of mysticism and into the thinking which evolutionary theory was supposed to become totally materialistic, totally naturalistic, not have any mysticism in it. And yet right in the subtitle of Darwin's book, he has favored races. Favored races. Now I know you have favored something.
- [10:04]
A
Yeah.
- [10:04]
B
You've favored things in your past. I've favored things everybody can favor. God can favor things with an intelligence.
- [10:10]
A
Yeah. We have a mind. So we can think for ourselves and choose for ourselves.
- [10:14]
B
Exactly. And so we can do this. But now he's comparing nature to us. He says it can favor, or you already use the words, it can select for, it can select against, it can act on. So Darwin subtly, most people aren't catching it. He's introducing another type of agent into the whole process. Nature can do these things which only a thinking entity can do.
- [10:45]
A
Got it.
- [10:46]
B
The third one, which is really tough, that is really hard to pick up, is he actually, at the same time he's saying that nature is favoring something, he's actually taking credit away from creatures and their ability to problem solve. So let's suppose, and we'll get to this later in the talk, let's suppose God engineered creatures to solve problems. So they're in an environment and they have challenges. And let's say he engineered them with abilities to solve those challenges. And sure enough, one creature is faced with a challenge and it solves the challenge. From an engineering perspective, we would say its traits solved the problem. Yeah, but evolutionists see it different. They see that creature not as an active agent solving its problems. They see that creature as being favored by the environment. They see those problems selecting for the creature if it successfully solves it, or selecting against it if it doesn't successfully solve it. So from an engineering perspective, we would say the creature successfully solved the problems.
- [12:02]
A
Right.
- [12:03]
B
That's how you would explain it. Evolutionists go from an externalistic perspective. They see the environment as active. So they take the credit away from the creatures solving its challenges. And they say nature favored it, nature selected for it, or if it didn't solve it, nature acted against it or selected against it. So you have this circular thinking, you have this personification of nature where you ascribe to it, these abilities. And then probably the subtlest sleight of hand of all, you're taking the ability of creatures to solve its problems, taking the credit, the credit for the causality from the creature, and you're giving that credit to the environment.
- [12:49]
A
And that does not. That's just not right in any way, shape or form.
- [12:53]
B
Right. It's not right. But it's also hard to spot.
- [12:57]
A
Yeah, it is.
- [12:58]
B
You know, it's hard to spot for the average person. They would see, oh, this creature has the ability to solve this trait. This creature can reproduce, this creature can pass those traits on to its offspring. And so in some ways, a creature is doing everything. And then in a quick sleight of hand, which most people never catch, suddenly the creature was favored, it was acted on. Causality is flipped from the creature to the environment. And that is really hard for people to pick. So anybody who's listening here, this is probably the most important thing of this podcast. See, perceive this personification of nature by this language and perceive this switch in causality from creatures as highly engineered to solve their problems to nature acting on them, favoring them, or selecting 4. If you can catch that, you will be well on your way to understanding how Darwin brought nature back in as an active agent, as a creative force in his explanations.
- [14:10]
A
Yeah, it's exactly what you said. Like, nature is an active force. It's selecting, it's favoring, it's even optimizing traits. But nature isn't the thinking agent. Like, that's the point of this conversation. That's the point of all of this. But something that I'm interested in is, is there even, like a consistent definition of what natural selection actually is in the scientific community?
- [14:35]
B
No, you can find a consistent definition in a dictionary. You might be able to find a consistent definition if you went to Webster's or any of those things, or maybe even a textbook. A textbook might define it as a type of process. Well, if a creature has multiple traits in a population of creatures, there's multiple traits. And if some of those can solve environmental challenges, maybe these are even deadly challenges. And if they can reproduce and if they can pass those traits on to their offspring, the ones that solve those deadly challenges will be the survivors. They will reproduce and the ability to solve that trait will increase in the population. Well, it sounds so simple as a definition, but the reality is, biologists who are working with this concept, I mean, major biologist Jerry Coyne, Daniel Dennett of them, Douglas Futayama, all of them say that there's really no Consistent definition and that it is even kind of mystical on that. Why is that?
- [15:46]
A
That's an interesting word.
- [15:46]
B
Yeah, it is an interesting word. Why is it kind of mystical? Well, first of all, prior to Darwin, nobody was applying selective abilities to nature. This is really something that Darwin pioneered.
- [16:04]
A
Because before that people did believe that God was the intelligent designer.
- [16:08]
B
Correct. They would see creatures and you see all that engineering. It'd be almost foolish to ascribe it to something other than a real super intelligent agent that could do these things. But even more basic, people didn't ascribe the ability to select to something that wasn't intelligent. Yeah, that's something that didn't have volition. So if you were going to say something selected, you would have ascribed it to God. You would have ascribed it to a human being or even animals that have this type of intelligence that can select for something. You have two choices. It can select for something. You have to have a fundamental ability to make a decision and you have to have intelligence to do that. So prior to Darwin, selective abilities were applied to conscious things. Darwin, in a way that's very counterintuitive to that. He said, well, maybe nature can select like a human breeder. He said, maybe nature is like a pigeon breeder. And that's what he used in his book. Pigeon breeders can select for various traits and voila, in short time you've got all these different kinds of pigeons. He said, well, maybe nature is doing that. Maybe nature selects for or maybe nature selects against these creatures just like a human pigeon breeder through the act of death. And if pigeon breeders in a very short period of time can get all of these pigeons, maybe nature acting like a pigeon breeder, selecting for and against over a very, very, very, very long time can get something completely different than a pigeon there. And initially he faced tremendous pushback from that. Most scholars, most scientists said, this is ridiculous. You can't compare nature to a pigeon breeder. Pigeon breeders have brains.
- [18:06]
A
That's exactly what I was going to say. Pigeon breeders can think. Pigeon breeders can choose two different pigeons and breed something different because they have that ability to choose.
- [18:15]
B
Right.
- [18:15]
A
Nature doesn't have the ability to choose and create something different or optimize certain traits.
- [18:20]
B
That's right. That's right. And so nature can't do that. Darwin would have said, well, maybe it's just a metaphor. I'm just using it. I'm just using this selective ability as a metaphor. And many evolutionists would say, well, it's just a metaphor. Or they would say it's Just shorthand to explain this really long process there. Well, that's not true. If you read evolutionary literature, if you read the best scientific papers and you get to the causality part, where they're explaining how something really happened, the metaphor goes out the door. And they're using natural selection as a real causal force. They're using it as a creative power. And this is where the people who are dealing with this say, well, how do you actually define natural selection? Is it a causal force or is natural selection the effect? Is natural selection a power? Is natural selection a process? What exactly are we talking about when we're talking about natural selection? A lot of times we use it both as the effect of something and the cause of things.
- [19:34]
A
That kind of reminds me, I was actually, I was watching a video when I was doing some research on this topic, and he put out a video on YouTube. Is natural selection a cause or an effect? And he gave this argument that it could be both. And his analogy was that in baseball, there's a bat, and when the bat hits the ball, it causes the ball to move. But it's also the effect as well, because the effect is that the ball flies through the air and it's a home run or whatever it is, the person holding the bat caused the bat to swing, and then the effect was that the ball flew over the fence. What would you say to somebody, specifically a Christian, who has that argument, that maybe it's both?
- [20:17]
B
Yeah, I would say, particularly from a biological standpoint, that doesn't make sense. And this is exactly why these scientists who are dealing with it, they want to know, and they're confused over what it is, because you want to know what the effect is and you want to know what those causes are for doing that. So if something happens in biology and I see an effect, I'm going to be digging into the biological systems to see what's upstream of those. And that's how we speak of it. It's what's upstream from these effects as to what is actually causing it. Because that's something that we may be able to manipulate with a medication or a drug or something like this. We really want to know where the operative force is, and we really want to know where the real triggers are.
- [21:12]
A
Right.
- [21:13]
B
Where the real triggers are. And this is where engineered biology can bring a lot of clarity to confusions for people who are saying something is both the cause and the effect of those things, which is non explanatory. Engineering shows clearly that triggers are always a part of an entity. So you have A gun on that. And you want to know, where's the trigger? Well, you look, oh, there's a trigger. And this trigger is what cascades everything off. And by the way, all triggers are sensors. And in biology, all biological triggers are sensors as well. And so you can argue, well, maybe it's the finger that pulls the trigger that's the cause, or maybe you see a burglar who comes through the door, and now you pull your gun out, and if it wasn't for the burglar, you wouldn't have pulled your gun. And if you wouldn't pull your gun, you wouldn't to put your finger on the trigger, and therefore the gun wouldn't have gone off. And so you might argue, well, the burglar was the trigger or your finger was the trigger. And engineering brings a lot of clarity to this because we know when we design things, we will put on them a trigger, the real trigger, the thing, the element on the entity which gets the cascade of events going and it clears up. No, the burglar isn't the real trigger. The finger isn't the real trigger. The real trigger is the trigger. Yeah, it's a real sensor. It's this real pressure sensor.
- [22:46]
A
It was designed right.
- [22:48]
B
And it cuts through this kind of confusion that many people have in their mind as what actually is the trigger on things. So we're looking biologically for those same kind of triggers. Another person argued, well, maybe natural selection has nothing to do with death. Maybe it's just differential reproduction.
- [23:10]
A
Yes, I've heard that term. I heard people talk about that.
- [23:13]
B
Yeah, maybe it's just leaving more offspring. Well, first of all, that really divorces the term from its historical roots, which is always tied back to survival of the fittest. So historically, there's no way you're going to be able to divorce natural selection from death. Death was, in their view, the selective event on things. But really, whether it's survival or whether it's differential reproduction, what we really want to know is what is the cause of that? So if I were to ask one of these people, well, we see a change in the traits in the population. Well, what's the cause of that? Well, that was due to differential reproduction. Well, isn't differential reproduction your definition of natural selection? They would say, yes, my definition is differential reproduction. So you're saying the change in the traits was due to natural selection, but due to differential reproduction? And then I would say, well, what caused the differential reproduction?
- [24:19]
A
Would they say nature?
- [24:21]
B
They would say natural selection.
- [24:22]
A
Natural selection, yeah.
- [24:23]
B
Natural selection causes this natural Selection caused the change in the traits in the population on that. So you end up with another circular explanation, but really from a biological standpoint, the differential reproduction is what needs to be explained. It's not the cause. What I really need to know as a biologist, why was there differential reproduction and what characteristics in these organisms led to differential reproduction? That's what I really need to know. What trait, what characteristic did this creature have that this creature did not have that either led to survival or differential reproduction? That's what we need to know. That is really going to be the cause of this. And this is why some people get so confused. And this is why the definition needs to be nailed down, if there ever can be one. The problem ultimately stems from the whole idea of applying to nature capabilities, which it doesn't have. It doesn't have the abilities to think, it doesn't have the ability to select. There is no volition. So when you make this illegitimate analogy, a patently flawed analogy, comparing it to a breeder which does, you're going to be off on the wrong track right from the beginning in terms of your explanations, in terms of explaining it, whether it's the cause or it's the effect or any of those things.
- [26:05]
A
Things.
- [26:06]
B
And believe it or not, there would be some evolutionists who would say natural selection is neither a cause nor effect, it's an operative force, it's an operative power. So you're not even going to get evolutionists to agree on those things any more than they can agree on what the units of selection are. They can't agree on any of that. Is the unit of selection. The genes is the unit of suction. The organism is the unit of selection. The population is the unit, the process. Some would say, no, no, no, no. Some would say this one, but not that one. Some would say, well, maybe it's all of them. So there's just rampant confusion out there and it just gets repeated by people
- [26:47]
A
who are confused over and over and over again.
- [26:49]
B
Right?
- [26:49]
A
Yeah. There were some arguments online where they said, like, natural selection is defined. You mentioned this earlier. You can look it up in the Webster's Dictionary. It has population specific definition, but that there are nuances that we as people don't understand yet. So the example that I saw was like the Trinity we believe in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. We know what the Trinity is, but it has nuances that we as people don't fully understand. What would you say to somebody who has that argument that there's just these nuances of natural Selection, it is real, but we just don't get it right.
- [27:30]
B
Well, I would say that many of these leading biologists just who deal with this all the time and who are writing the paper, well, they're just totally confused because they can't understand all of these nuances on this. So there's a major evolutionist, Doolittle, he basically says nobody can come up with an operative definition of natural selection. And we've put together multiple papers where we quote Doolittle and others who say that there is no clear working definition. So it's not even really going to get addressed as something nuanced. And, you know, our understanding of the Trinity at least has something which evolutionary theory is lacking even in the Bible. There are clear definitions, there are clear directions for things. It will say something to the effect of that you should go out and make disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. So there is something very clearly defined in the Bible that there is this trinity that is there. Nobody can point to anything amongst the evolutionary literature, particularly those who are dealing with it, that is nearly as objective as something like the verse that I just read to you. So evolutionary theory doesn't have a definitive basis like you would have for the Trinity. They're completely lacking that altogether. And so whereas you and I would say, boom, there's a verse that's definitive. And all of us then, as Christians would, would see the authority of that verse. But you're not going to get that amongst evolutionists, there is no verse. So this evolutionist will say, well, that's my definition. And this one will say, well, I don't agree with that definition because these are other factors that I think should be in it. And this one will say, I don't agree with either of your definitions because I have this factor. There is no definitive source like you would have with the Trinity to come up with that. So anybody who's making this analogy is missing the point that there is no definitive place where you're going to define natural selection. Because all of these guys would say, well, Webster is totally missing it. Yes, that's how you would maybe give the popular definition. But all of us who work in the field don't see it that way. Let's back back up and let's link this new way of thinking about adaptation to engineering and to the topic of evolutionary theory. This, I think, will help transition for the people who are watching. So, as I mentioned, evolutionists beginning with Darwin see adaptation from an externalistic perspective. In fact, if you read Stephen Jay Gould's book, the Structure of Evolutionary Theory. He does a very, very good job of explaining the history of this thought. And he points out that Darwin broke with all previous traditions in a revolutionary new way. Those are his words. By looking at creatures from an externalistic perspective, and we've already touched on that in this podcast. We see creatures as having an innate ability to solve problems, and they solve it. But he sees it from an externalist perspective, externalistic perspective as nature working on the creature, as nature's shaping the creatures, as nature molding the creatures. Externalism, if you read the literature, sees creatures as basically modeling clay, passive modeling clay that are being shaped and molded by their environments. And in fact, we produced a really good article several years ago that quoted many, many evolutionists that explained this whole concept that contrary to survival of the fittest, in Darwin's view, natures are pretty, organisms are pretty passive. It's nature which is the active force in shaping them. So that's the perspective which most everybody comes from. That's what I was taught and that's what I believed. Nature is shaping them. And natures through selective pressures are driving creatures pretty much passively through space and time, leading to this diversity of life. And as they get specialized in niches, they become highly engineered for those niches. That's how they see it on this. But we would go from a completely different perspective. We would go from an engineering perspective, which is internalistic. So now for those who are listening, this is the transition. Darwin sees them as being molded, but we're going to see it from an internalistic perspective, which means that all of its capabilities, all capabilities, even the abilities to relate to its environment, its operative abilities and the ability to relate to the environment are all internal and, and innate to the organism. That's an engineering perspective. So if you and I were to build a space shuttle to go through all the different environments, launch from Earth, go through the atmosphere, outer space, come back through the atmosphere, all these environments facing all these different challenges, you and I would build into the space shuttle. You would engineer up front solutions to all these different challenges and we would explain the operation of that space shuttle in terms of its capabilities. We would explain it from an engineering perspective in terms of its capabilities. It would make no sense to explain it in any other way. So if it was trying to get back through the atmosphere and it burned up like one did, we would never say the atmosphere selected against it.
- [33:33]
A
No, we wouldn't.
- [33:34]
B
They would never say it wasn't favor. We would never use this Kind of mystical language. We would look for a real design flaw or something that broke, that caused it to burn, which did this. And we would have an explanation which would go back to a causal chain with no unobserved events, no mystical selected for selected events. It would be very explainable and highly objective. That's what engineering brings to it. Now we see creatures the exact same way as the space shuttle. The Lord Jesus engineered into creatures within design parameters. They're not invulnerable and they can change forever. He's engineered within creatures the ability to navigate through various environments. And they have traits which can solve problems just like the space shuttle successfully solved its challenges. Creatures can successfully solve their challenges. And when they do that, they fill those niches. That's an internalistic perspective. We see them in terms of what they can do, and we explain what they can do in terms of those capabilities. And we put nothing, nothing in our causal explanations that can't be touched, weighed, seen, measured. This is what makes cet, Continuous Environmental Tracking a much better explanation.
- [35:05]
A
Yeah. What is CET for somebody who is looking up continuous environmental tracking? What is a very simple way for you to explain that to someone who is watching?
- [35:16]
B
Sure. Organisms, when I say they continuously interact with track environments, or we use continuous environmental tracking, is really an observation of what organisms seem to be doing. All kinds of organisms. They seem to be able to track the changes in their environment, and they track them in real time. Right now, you and I are tracking changes subconsciously. Those sensors, those little triggers on our body are triggering things for us to respond to changes that are very, very subtle. But you can also attract them over longer periods of time, and you can become acclimated. So if we took you to Pike's Peak, you would soon become acclimated to a higher altitude. You would track. You could become habituated, and you could even track them over multiple generations where you can pass on information to your offspring that enable them to track environments that you are in. And we now know that you're able to pass on data to offspring that enable them to track environments that are coming their way, future environments. So organisms have the ability to track proactively as well as retroactively. So what organisms seem to be doing is tracking their environments continuously. How they do that, how they do that is through many different mechanisms. Not just a mechanism. There's not just a mechanism to adapt. There are many different ones. There are genetic mechanisms. There are epigenetic mechanisms. There are other ways that organisms can do this that enable them to track. The Lord is Given them many different ways to track it. But what they seem to be able to do is continuously track. So CET is an observation of what they're doing. How they do it is through many different mechanisms.
- [37:16]
A
Can you give us, like, a real life example? I know, like, one of the biggest research projects that we're working on here at ICR is the Mexican blind cave fish. So can you talk a little bit about what it is that we're doing and how that relates to cet?
- [37:29]
B
Yes, we know. And this is why it's an icon of evolution that fish that have lived in a stream have various traits which enable them to live in those streams. First of all, they're sighted because you want to be sighted outside. You want to be able to see things. They're pigmented because they're exposed to the sun and the pigmentation protects them. They have various physiological traits which make them well suited to live in that stream. Somehow, some way, I don't think anybody's actually seen it, they get swept into caves or they get put into cave environments, and the next time you see these creatures. Because nobody's actually seen these changes either. Exactly. They don't have eyes. They're blind, they're hypopigmented, and they have many other traits which enable them to live in a cave whose conditions are much different than a stream completely. Man, we would probably say harsh, very challenging conditions to do this. So how do they go from, let's just say, sighted and pigmented to blind and hypopigmented? Well, if you were to read the evolutionary literature, initially they said it took about 8 million years to do this, and then it was cut to 2 million years, then down to less than a million years. And. And now the literature is saying, well, these fish seem to be able to make these changes very quickly. That's because the standard explanation is that in the population of some of these fish that get swept in the cave, they have various traits, and let's say eyes are not needed. There's a mutation in the formation of eyes in the cave environment. It confers a benefit, and therefore, over long periods of time, through random mutations and then survival of the fittest, they eventually all go blind. The selective pressure is the darkness, and they all go blind. And that's the standard explanation. There's no detriment to not having eyes in the cave. In fact, they would say there may be benefits. You don't have eyes to get infected and kill you. So therefore, they get selected for and they're being pushed to do this, we would say that is a really poor explanation.
- [39:40]
A
I would agree.
- [39:41]
B
The fish have to have this ability to live in the cave very quickly. So the whole 8 million years is out. You're not going to do it. They have to be able to live in low oxygen environments, low food environments. And many things have. Many things have to change. And many things do change with these fish. Even when the eyes disappear, the space that was in their skull being occupied by those eyes is utilized by parts of the brain which expand, giving them abilities to have other senses.
- [40:11]
A
It's kind of like when you, like, close your eyes and you can hear better. Like you cover up one sense and the other ones are heightened, right?
- [40:18]
B
Exactly. And there's actual physical changes which enable them to heighten those senses. And there's changes to sensors which enable them to heighten those senses. So what we see is a modulation of multiple traits, multiple different systems. Neurologic system, physical systems, cardiovascular systems, the endocrine system. We see a modulation of all of these different systems happening simultaneously in an asynchronous fashion, which then gives you the strong indication that this is being regulated, this is being centrally controlled by something which is able to adapt these fish from an internal capability to live in these caves based on what they're detecting in their environment. That's what we're researching here at icr. It's hard. It's hard for all the things I just described. Question number one. What are they detecting? Well, they're detecting darkness, but are they detecting change in water conductivity? Probably. Are they detecting changes in water ph? Yes. Oxygen levels? Yes. Carbon dioxide levels? Yes. Food sources? Yes. Is it all of these? Is it some combination of these? Is it the right combination of these? That's what makes it hard. And then all these different systems are changing. And what's controlling and regulating all of those? That's also hard.
- [42:00]
A
Yeah, it definitely is.
- [42:02]
B
That's also hard to figure out. But we know it happens, and we see other creatures also change in real time as well.
- [42:10]
A
All of these creatures were obviously designed by a creator who puts this ability to adapt and to change and go from the strength dream to the cave. Like all of it points to a creator. At the end of the day, it
- [42:24]
B
points to a creator and it gives us ability to think about it from a different perspective and even come with different research programs. I'll give you another example, and this one was just recently published. It was researchers who are following these birds at ucla. They're called dark eyed juncos. They've been tracking these for many, many
- [42:43]
A
years, I've never heard of this bird.
- [42:46]
B
It's a small little bird, it's a cute little bird that people have been able to measure their traits at ucla and a lot of them are banded and they're followed as research subjects. The beak of the birds that live on the campus is different from the beak of the dark eyed junco that lives out in the wild situation. In the wild, it has a longer, more narrow beak. They eat seeds and they eat insects. The birds that live on the campus of ucla, they've adapted. They eat food that students throw on the ground.
- [43:22]
A
Easy to get, easy to get.
- [43:24]
B
I mean, if you're a bird, you're gonna get that food.
- [43:27]
A
Yeah.
- [43:27]
B
And if someone drops french fry, boom, you're on it. You become a french fry junco on that and you eat those. And their bird, their beaks of these birds are shorter and wider. So they're fundamentally different because of how they've adjusted, how they change themselves to their food, their environment. Boom. All was going well until Covid hit. Then students couldn't come on campus. French fries were gone and they observed in the hatchlings. Hatchlings of the birds in the very next generation. The beaks were similar to the wild type of beaks.
- [44:13]
A
Really?
- [44:14]
B
Yeah. They were long, they were narrow. The parents still had their short stubby beak. They didn't die, they didn't document a bunch of death of birds on the campus. So there was no natural selection going on. The hatchlings had a beak like the wild beak. The students couldn't stay. They had to stay away another year. The hatchlings had a beak like the wild beak. Then the pandemic ended. Students came back and boom, the parents started. Those parents started eating the food again of the french fries. And their hatchlings were born with the short stubby beak. And it changed rapidly here. They attributed it to natural selection because that's all they have as an explanation. But as I said, they didn't document any dying birds or any of this stuff. It's just the boom, knee jerk reaction. Natural selection did it. But what we would say is this presents a great research opportunity. I'm going to look for what's in those birds. I'm going to look for what the real triggers are in those birds. Is the real trigger something in their beaks that they sense when they're eating? Something different? Is the trigger something in their belly that's detected different between the different types of food? Is that leading to a change in the bird beaks of the hatchlings? Is it A microbiome change? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. But this CET model, which doesn't just knee jerk, assumes survival of the fittest, which they didn't even document anyway, it's expecting to find something on the birds that we can research, a control system on the birds. It gives us a research program. It gives us the ability to make hypotheses and to actually test those. We see that as really, really powerful. That gives us the ability to carve and make research programs which are based on a theory which is fundamentally different, fundamentally different than selectionism. You know what's interesting? What is our theory is completely materialistic.
- [46:31]
A
Yeah.
- [46:32]
B
I'm looking for real, identifiable sensors on those birds. I'm looking for real, identifiable control systems. I'm predicting they're there. And I am putting nothing in my explanation, which I can't identify and touch and feel and measure. There's no magical selection events. There's no mystical selection pressures that nobody can quantify. There's no unidentifiable units of selection which nobody can see. All of that stuff is out. So the materialistic explanation, which is Darwin's, which is supposed to be really, really naturalistic, it's full of these mystical concepts which are only happening in someone's mind. The creationist perspective, which sees them as engineered, is only explaining them in terms of what we can actually see. So what we're really doing is we're replacing Darwin's sacred imposter. I see as Darwin's sacred imposter. This. This ability to project agency onto the environment, to mold and shape organisms is out. We see organisms as highly engineered from the Lord Jesus Christ to mold and shape themselves. So anyone listening? This is a major change in causality. Darwinism, selectionism sees nature as molding and shaping the organism. We see it from an engineering perspective. No. Organisms are molding and shaping themselves based on their own internal capability.
- [48:11]
A
What would you say to somebody who's never thought of natural selection in the way that you've been describing on today's podcast?
- [48:17]
B
I would say, well, I was in your camp for the longest time.
- [48:20]
A
You were?
- [48:20]
B
Yeah, that's what I would say to them. I just assumed it was this opportunity. I assumed that it was some kind of process which was operating out there. But I was completely wrong. I was coming from the wrong perspective. I was coming from externalism. I was projecting abilities onto nature, personifications onto nature, which it doesn't have. And I wasn't even researching in the right field. I Wasn't even on the right track to the right explanations. I was coming up with these mystical explanations for things, with all of these things that you can't even measure. But we have the ability to get on the right track now. We have the ability, going from an engineer perspective, to explain adaptation in terms of the internal capabilities which the creatures have, which they were built with right from the very beginning when the Lord told them to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. Fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. That included all different kinds of environments, even caves. Even caves for our blind cave fish. Caves for the over 200 other species of fish which can inhabit caves and lose their eyes and lose their pigmentation, for the myriads of other creatures, crickets and salamanders and spiders and all this which also inhabit caves, losing their eyes and their pigmentation. Fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. Tough environments like caves, cold environments, deep environments, hot environments. He gave them the ability to express all of these traits in marvelous ways, showcasing the incredible engineering that he built right into them. Yeah.
- [50:10]
A
What would you say to the critics who I'm sure are watching this right now and still don't believe in an intelligent designer, even after watching this podcast from beginning to end?
- [50:20]
B
I would say it may be hard to persuade you. It may be hard to persuade you because if you can see all of this engineering and not see an intelligent designer, and it can be pointed out to you that your main explanation is just really mystical, it's a real personification of nature. There's no real operative things in there. Then you may not be persuadable. But for people who are open minded and willing to look at this, I just discussed for you a completely materialistic way of explaining the creatures, their capability that was built into them. That's the supernatural part. That's the part that the engineering genius of the Lord Jesus built into them. But in terms of how they're operating and working out all of their biological functions, I explained to you a system which has research capability, makes predictions, can develop hypotheses, that these are fully testable. And they point back to things which we predict in the creatures, that they're going to operate by engineering principles, that they will have identifiable control systems, that we will see purpose at every level. I'm pointing out to them a system which points back to a creator, but operates in an incredibly engineered way on the same principles as any man made engineering system. And we know that those were engineered. The logical explanation for creatures is that they were also engineered.
- [51:55]
A
Yeah, well, Dr. Gulluza, this has been such a thought provoking conversation. I really enjoyed this with you as we wrap up today. What are three main key takeaways that you would like our viewers to walk away with from after watching this episode?
- [52:08]
B
Takeaway number one Darwin did not get agency out of his explanation for why creatures look designed. He just. He just brought in a substitute agent. He smuggled in a substitute agent by personifying nature as if it could act like an agent. Takeaway point number two is that organisms look engineered because they were engineered. Takeaway point number two and that presents a model that could be tested. So takeaway point number two is this hypothesis that the creatures look engineered because they are engineered. And takeaway point number three is that hypothesis generates a model by which we can test creatures looking for highly predictable things. We predict engineering principles. Are they there? We predict control systems controlling these things. Are they there? So we offer a highly testable alternative explanation that explains the operation of creatures in terms of engineering, referring back to the capabilities of the great engineer, the Lord Jesus Christ.
- [53:21]
A
If this episode made you look at natural selection in a completely different light, be sure to like subscribe and share it with someone you'd want to talk about this topic with. You can also support our ministry by joining our members and patrons community by clicking the link in the description. Their names are scrolling on the screen right now. Also, if you have a question you'd like one of our scientists to answer in a future episode, you can submit it using the link in the description below. But in the meantime, one of our other viewers actually has a question for you. Dr. G. Albert de Benedictus wants to know, why do we not see species today that are in the process of evolving? If they are, what are they?
- [54:06]
B
Well, I don't know if I would totally agree with his observation that we don't see species in the process of evolving, as he would say. I would chuck the word evolve, but I would say we do see species in the process of self adjusting and adapting. And the whole idea of species is not an endpoint, it's really just a stage of adaptation. And creatures can change what we would consider from one species species to another type of species. And they do that not due to the fact that they were being favored or acted on as I just described in this whole program.
- [54:48]
A
Exactly.
- [54:49]
B
They have internal capabilities which enable them to track their environment. And you could end up having two different populations of creatures tracking different environmental changes and they could express traits which could make them be considered different species with that somewhat ambiguous definition. But they would have traits which could make them reproductively isolated. On this that could be. But on the other hand, like many species, they could evolve traits which could be very different, but they could still mate with each other and actually have viable offspring. That happens a lot of times which we now see in creatures which we once thought were completely different species. They actually can mate with each other. And perhaps that is the way the Lord has designed the system to work. When you have creatures which have become specialized in different environments, maybe the ability for them to hybridize with each other and express different traits is the way that he brings them back maybe more more to a common environment through hybridization. So that's how I would explain it. I don't know if I would say I don't see them as static. I see them as highly adaptable.
- [56:07]
A
Well, thank you so much for answering that for us and viewers. Thank you for watching. We'll see you next time on the Creation Podcast.