3 Game-Changing Benefits of a Theory of Biological Design

[@BiologosDebunked-h2v]

God bless you ICR. Creation science is helping a lot of people. Myself included. Keep going! 👏👏👏👏

[@brunobastos5533]

No is not and is a oximóron

[@BiologosDebunked-h2v]

@brunobastos5533 praying for you

[@Mark-h2s]

​@@BiologosDebunked-h2vhe is right, though. There's no recognized science called 'creation science'. It isn't taught anywhere, except maybe some private schools and homeschooling, I don't know.

[@BiologosDebunked-h2v]

@@Mark-h2s I don't believe that creation scientists are too concerned with being accepted by the mainstream scientific community. Our mission as Christians is clear. We are about our Father's business.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Amen ICR 🙏🙏🙏 praying for you!

[@danielbrown2918]

Never thought about how mystical selectionism is. Wow. Keep fighting the good fight.

[@bettykasischke3665]

I do so love the direction Dr Guiluzza has brought to ICR. This approach to studying life on earth is so wonderful! Makes so much sense to a linear mind like God has given me. Praise God!

[@CreationvsEvolution]

Thank you ICR!

[@AlexanderosD]

Wow, Marie Jean Pierre Flourens was brutal, blunt, and spot on accurate in his assessment of Darwin's work 😅

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Thank you for promoting intelligent conclusions!

[@farmsteadflowersandfoxhoun8302]

Having worked with and around animals all my 75 years of life, it is sad to see so often that that the fittest of them often don’t survive. An example might be a herd of animals gets spooked and end up running off a cliff. Guess who’s in front of?? The strongest and fastest!!!

[@GabrielMorenoHagelsieb]

In that case the strongest wasn't the fittest. Fitness in evolution means "better suited for the continuation of the species," not stronger. If the ones surviving are the ones that judge before jumping/running, those would be fitter, even if they're not the strongest or fastest. Unfortunately, popular "science" tends to give the wrong impression of what's meant, and, apparently, the courses at school aren't enough to fix this problem.

[@rlunnerstall3527]

Thank YOU for that logical perspective. With so much noise claiming nonsense your witness of reality is refreshing. We live in a densely populated area of animals and reality is much different than the noise promoting evolution. For instance when an animal dies for whatever reason Never is there anything left to fossilize, predators eat it all. As enchanting as millions and billions of years are we need to take a closer look at what is Actually happening. Animals are only fossilized when they are buried rapidly, like in a flood … perhaps a world wide flood🌈

[@Mark-h2s]

​@@rlunnerstall3527yes, that's why fossilization is rare. We're lucky to have the fossils we do have. 'Rapid fossilization' is the term we often hear, but it's relative; 'rapid' in a geological and paleontological context is actually a very, very long time. Don't forget, all the bone material must be replaced with minerals.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@GabrielMorenoHagelsiebquandary: that means breeding weaker and slower species, thus less suited to predations and probably health problems. This would not suit their actual environment. Plus, the instinct is to run in fear and the next time it will still be the same-the slower weaker herd will still be running off a cliff-IF they even make it there before being killed off in the first place, which is now more likely. It’s the old saying, “I don’t have to be the fastest in the group…just faster than you”. Which brings right back to “the strongest and fittest.” On the other hand: breeding slower and weaker looses the ability to stand and fight and now they will probably be jumping off of more cliffs. Doesn’t seem to be a “fitter” thing for them. We know that with fear it’s: fight or flight or be perfectly still and hope your not spotted. With a mass herd animal it’s the first two.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@Mark-h2sstill requires rabid burial.

[@zerosteel0123]

Good video, ICR. Praise God 🙌

[@dagwould]

Probably the best effort in creation theology yet!. The engineering approach outlined by Randy is hand in glove with Genesis 1. Here's how: Genesis 1 shows God creating with rational propositional causality: He speaks, it happens, he evaluates. The creation is imbued with rational causality that can be explicated propositionally. Thus do we build knowledge of the creation: by observing, analyzing, classifying and understanding (compare Adam's first empirical work in naming the animals brought to him). For this reason we are confident that everything in creation can be reasoned out: and is reasonable. No need for 'hand-waving' selectionist stories. We can be confident that there always can be a tangibly anchored true explanation for us to find. Our confidence is anchored by God creating in the natural days that demark our experience of the creation: God 'close-couples' his creative work with our derivative management of the creation in the same created domain of action. We are close-coupled to the Creator-God in these terms, underpinning his work to make mankind in his image (like him). Similarly creatures show close-coupled interfaces of the various multiplexed functional systems required for life to be sustained. Randomness is out the door because of this.

[@thomasmyers9128]

I’ve never seen billions of mistakes work so fine tuned….. 😮

[@danielvso]

LOL

[@blank-964]

👍

[@avafury4584]

God bless you ❤✝️

[@danielvso]

Please, create a playlist of this series.

[@critical-thought]

This series is *so* important, and I hope that future episodes continue to dive into the topic. Is it sinful to take pleasure in seeing godless theories dissembled? God bless you for your insight and rational approach to the workings of this creation in which we find ourselves!

[@Transblucency]

I might hold off on the gloating, were I you. First, it's not a great look for a Christian. Second, you're counting your eggs waaaay before they've hatched (and, in fact, may actually be a collection of egg-shaped stones). This hypothetical approach is not actually a theory unless it can be shown to be a more valuable explicative and predictive framework. If it has no actual utility other than being another This Discovery Institute already foundered in those rocks. It's also quite laughable to describe natural selection as a mystical process when it has been demonstrated experimentally, numerous times. I will also be very interested to see how you are going to be able to demonstrate that any design is "optimal", or how you are going to do any of this without some new equivalent of Demski',s Specified Complexity which appears to have no practical or valuable utility (by way of evidence, I'd point at the failure of Demski' to answer his critics and that no one in the ID or creationist movement actually seems to be using it for anything. I will make a prediction. Once announced, many shortcomings to this new approach will be identified by both creationists and non-creationists, it will fail to provide any new value, and will disappear with hardly a ripple. So far, there's been a lot of sizzle but no steak.

[@Scott-c3f5z]

Briiliant! Thank you ICR!!

[@luukzwart115]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the 22 minutes that I've been watching this I have heard no mention of any scientific paper. You would expect that when an alternative theory is suggested, it would explain the empirical data much better. Just cut to the chase and show evidence instead of talking for the vast majority about in what 101 ways natural selection contradicts the bible!

[@marciamcgrail5889]

You may be shocked to discover that the Bible (use a proper translation ie not the Message etc) does not contradict natural selection(many ppl don't actually understand the interactionary genetic, mutational & environmental forces involved - a bit like trying to evoke an explosion as evidence of order and complexity): natural selection (correctly defined) does not contradict the Bible. There are hundreds of empirical data available to show the evidence commensurate with the Truth. As for 'cut to the chase & show evidence..', it's exactly the same fossils, rock layer, laws of thermodynamics etc evidence as anybody else. Just a difference of interpretation (read some philosophy of science) - ie, when I look at a rock, I don't see a date stamp. When Lyell etc pontificated MYO, no Victorian gentleman had heard of radiometric dating; Mt St Helen's had not erupted; didn't consider water dynamics into their equations - one even called the irreducible complexity of a cell 'a blob of protoplasm' guffaw😂see H.Morris & J.Whitcomb's seminal text 'The Genesis Flood' 1961; Woodmorappe's 'The Mythology of modern dating methods' 1999. Or S.Baker MSc 'Bones of contention' 1996 (please note that my library has become dated as I can't afford to throw out my beloved books but they make the point that is just as relevant today). But you will know as well as I do that secular society has weaponised the scientific, educational, judicial & informational systems to keep the (to quote Sagan) 'Divine foot out of the door'. God bless you in your honest endeavours to find the Truth bc there is only one.

[@paulwood6636]

Valid point except that the context is overview. This short video is not a formal presentation of the theory of biological design.

[@ichtudurwehblah]

Do you really think they would actually let them publish refuting their religion I doubt it

[@luukzwart115]

@@ichtudurwehblah Well, at least they publish their sources beneath the articles on their website. How legit those are, I haven't checked. But at least I have to give credit where credit is due.

[@sl-rt5kv]

@@marciamcgrail5889 The reason why "secular science" tries to keep "creation science" out of the _science classroom_ is that it isn't science. Creation science isn't science because it provides no _scientific evidence_ to back up it's central claim that the universe and life began 6,000 years ago. Nothing. It also provides _no evidence_ that Noah's flood covered the _entiire_ earth as opposed to say, 90% of it or 80% of it or 70% of it. It also provides _no evidence_ that this flood occurred 4,500 years ago as opposed to 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, one million years ago etc. It is perfectly OK for people to _believe_ that these things are true, but _belief_ without evidence does not qualify as science. In fact, creation science is _faith_ posing as _science._

[@poliincredible770]

Thank God for creating us!

[@addersrinseandclean]

Thank you, Keep up the good work

[@christtheonlyhope4578]

I love science that confirms scripture! We have two different worldviews that bring two different conclusions. Obviously, the correct one is the one that supports the fact that there is a God. We know He exists and as Christians we have a personal relationship with that God.

[@Mark-h2s]

What is correct is what the evidence supports, obviously.

[@David34981]

There no science that confirms scripture. Too bad, tough luck.

[@christtheonlyhope4578]

@David34981 sure there is. What makes you think that we would believe you, out of curiosity?

[@christtheonlyhope4578]

@Mark-h2s and all the evidence supports God and his word.

[@Mark-h2s]

@@christtheonlyhope4578 scientific evidence? I'm not saying there's no god, but we certainly can't utilize science to determine whether there is or is not a god. That's a matter of belief. That's why we always talk about 'believing in God'.. we don't use 'believe' and 'belief' in the same way when we're talking about science.

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

Just applying Darwins: formed by numerous, successive, slight, modifications to a single cell's forming from non living matter? Read: The Stairway to Life: An Origin of Life Realty Check by Tan and Stadler

[@jameswelsh3433]

God bless you all!

[@JCRaptorGene]

Just finished listening trough this series. What is the Theory of Biological Design? I don't think it was ever defined. As far as I can tell, you just keep talking about creationism. What is it that the Theory of Biological Design is introducing to he conversation?

[@peskyfervid6515]

99% of life on earth is extinct. Now that is brilliant engineering.

[@mike300rum]

99% of cars that were ever built no longer run. Does that mean they weren't engineered?

[@peskyfervid6515]

@@mike300rum Are you attempting to compare God's engineering with man's? And I didn't say they weren't engineered, I said that if they were, the engineer failed, most of the time. Or perhaps you have another eplanation for the extinction of most species.

[@mike300rum]

@@peskyfervid6515 well first, you're failing to take into account the corruption of creation because of sin. The Bible says everything was very good, but then sin messed it all up and now creation groans and suffers as a consequence. But leaving the Biblical explaination out of it, your argument assumes you know why God designed creatures and and that going extinct is bad, or a failure in some way. You'd have to know God was trying to design creatures to never go extinct to know it's a failed design when the do. You do not know that. It's safe to assume God knows more than you and may have purposes for his creatures beyond simply never going extinct.

[@peskyfervid6515]

@@mike300rum I'm just acccepting God's own words: Genesis 1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Really the point is, I can understand God being angry with people. Anyone who's ever be cut off in traffic has the same feeling. But the other animals, what did they do? Is God like the guy who has a bad day at work and comes home and kicks the dog? That seems a very un-Godllike thing to do. Or did they just remind him of the terrible mistake of creating humans? Anyone who has ever seen an animal fight for it's life knows that when the flood waters were rising, billions of animals, all of whom were completely innocent, fought bravely to preserve their own lives, and the lives of their offspring. All to no avail. They had to die because...

[@mike300rum]

@peskyfervid6515 are you asking why God destroyed everything in the flood? You'd have to ask him. The flood was a judgement on people, but I'm not sure why God chose to kill all land animals also. The Bible indicates that sin permeated all of creation. I don't really understand it myself, that's just wamhat the Bible says

[@Abidingingrace-p6z]

I trust what God's word says. No reason to doubt it at all. Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. Colossians 3:16 - Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. Luke 11:28 - But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

[@peskyfervid6515]

Dr. Guliuzza: "As creationists...we believe that when God created he worked miracles and he did supernatural things at the beginning, but once he made...all the creatures we (all organisms) operate by very rational, predictable processes that we can actually study..." Or to put it another way, we (creationists) accept evolution after the original (supernatural) creation event. Therefore we don't accept mythology, except in the beginning. Here's a question for the design theory. Why have 99% of organisms on earth failed, gone extinct? If all organisms were designed by God, he has an alarming failure rate. To say nothing of the failure rate of design in extant organisms. Why do some organisms make their own Vitamin C, and others, like humans and other apes, don't? Why does the human eye have a blind spot, and a tendency to fail with age (note Dr. Guliuzza's glasses. Apparently he prefers man's design to God's). Why did God design the vermiform appendix so that an occasional grape seed gets trapped, resulting in a very painful death. If you're going to rely on intelligent design, you're going to have to explain all of design, the failures as well as the successes.

[@deannesanv8931]

I am very thankful for how God has brought Randy Guliuzza to this point, for the understanding he has gained through the things he has learned in a variety of areas which have combined perfectly for him to introduce this rational, consistent theory of biological design. It is amazing and beautiful, and honors the God of Israel, the creator of the heavens and the earth. Renee is a lovely young lady and a good host.

[@maxiramirez7717]

Thanks So much for all you do. Jesus is the reason for the season 🎉 God bless

[@Mark-h2s]

Okay, let's say the world's biologists go with the intelligent design concept. Where could that possibly lead? What predictions could be made? In what ways could science benefit? What areas of research would open up? How would this help with learning more about diseases, for example, like evolutionary theory currently does? How would intelligent design ideas help the medical industry? What about agriculture? In other words, how could intelligent design be applied in real life, like current evolutionary biology is applied in real life? Edit: what would the curricula be like? 'Okay class, this frog was designed by a creator. It's important you know that before we dissect it, because..' Because what? See what I mean? Can't go anywhere.

[@MatthewJ.Francis]

Bro, Jesus performed many miracles to prove His deity. God raised Him from the dead to PROVE there is life beyond the Earth! Intellectual pride is spiritual blindness! I pray for you, Sir! ✝️

[@i7Qp4rQ]

Did you ever try to ask the same questions about evolution? There are no real life applications of evolution. If creation is true, it would make sense to research items like "junk dna". If creation is true, it has moral implications, which would result betterment of the society. Like curing the c4nc3r of the modern day pr0m15cu1ty.

[@Mark-h2s]

@@MatthewJ.Francis I'm not proud about my intellect, I always know that I don't know everything and I'm always willing to learn new things, and I would never say there is no god, I'm just saying we can't teach intelligent design as fact in public schools, that's all.

[@juliealoem]

I think there a few other videos about predictions made by creationists that were proven to be true, so maybe this could answer some of your questions. I'm not a scientist so I couldn't answer correctly, but an example that I know of is that this would have avoided the ''junk DNA'' hypothesis that has now been abandonned. Creationists never considered this was a possibility.

[@roblangsdorf8758]

For one, you wouldn't waste time looking for vestigial organs. How much time was wasted with that concept? For another, you would approach an organism expecting to discover reasons for its parts to be there and to have functions.

[@forestgiest1380]

There is no benefits. And it's not a theory.

[@i7Qp4rQ]

Evolution isnt a theory. ☑ That is because it has no direction or magnitude.

[@forestgiest1380]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[@i7Qp4rQ]

Ad ridiculum is a logical fallacy - _you_ may be dumb.

[@MatthewJ.Francis]

Intellectual pride=spiritual blindness. Read a Gospel

[@GabrielMorenoHagelsieb]

@@i7Qp4rQ It would be a fallacy it that was an argument, but it's just a statement of fact.

[@i7Qp4rQ]

@GabrielMorenoHagelsieb Your "fact" is an _ipse dixit_ fallacy...

[@GabrielMorenoHagelsieb]

@@i7Qp4rQ Well, again, very importantly: it's not an argument, just an explanation, so, it cannot be a fallacy. Also, I'm not defending anything, and I don't consider forestgiest an authority, nor am I claiming that the statement of fact is such because forestgiest said so. But, if calling it a fallacy makes you happy, then go ahead. I just suggest you to try and learn what the word "fallacy" means. That's all.

[@brunobastos5533]

Biological Design if is design and is design by god and god is perfect , why it fail

[@Tterb22]

The fall in the Bible

[@David34981]

Please, be satire No one could be *this* stupid, right??

[@i7Qp4rQ]

It seems that _you_ can: ad ridiculum _fallacy_ committed.

[@MatthewJ.Francis]

Bro you believe the pinnacle of creation, the human body, mind and soul evolved over millions of years from a *single cell*… 😂

[@Mark-h2s]

@@MatthewJ.Francis you went from microscopic to fully grown human. That's not evolution, but it does show that things can start small and grow in complexity. Also, all relevant data and evidence from biology and other fields of science demonstrate evolution is fact, so there is that as well. Any change in the inherited traits or characteristics of a population of organisms through successive generations is called biological evolution. That's the way life works on Earth.

[@MatthewJ.Francis]

@ laughable brother

[@i7Qp4rQ]

@@Mark-h2s "You went from microscopic to fully grown human. That's not evolution, but it does show that things can start small and grow in complexity." That is the very essence of evolution. "On The Origin of Species" "March of Progress". (1) The evolution with direction & magnitude: = _The general theory of evolution_ . "Also, all relevant data and evidence from biology and other fields of science demonstrate evolution is fact," Ipse dixit is a fallacy. "Any change..." Ahh, the evolution of no direction & magnitude: The "theory" of nothing. The "evolution" that cannot produce (1)... Devolution, regress.. micro-evolution, the specific theory of evolution. = adaptation & variation.

[@georg7120]

This video is too long for a comedy😂😂😂😂.

[@somenygaard]

Ad hominem attacks, typical response for someone with no real arguments.

[@Mark-h2s]

​@@somenygaardit's an anti-science, apologetics organization. Did you expect actual science from them?

[@georg7120]

Mysticism in evolution is comedy.

[@i7Qp4rQ]

@@georg7120 "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint - ...and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it - the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution today." - Michael Ruse

[@georg7120]

@@i7Qp4rQ Maybe some see it like that, but it is plain science.