ii peter 1:16

©2000 Timothy G. Standish

II Peter 1:16

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.


Timothy G. Standish, Ph. D.

The Master DesignerThe Master Designer


OutlineOutlineDoes the Bible say that God designed life?Does life look designed?

– How do we decide if something is designed?

– Can nature design the kind of things seen in living systems?


Creator, Maker, DesignerCreator, Maker, Designer Is there a difference between being Creator, Maker, or

Designer? Perhaps - To make something does not mean that you planned

in advance (I have made a mess many times with no forethought at all)

An engineer may design a spectacular bridge but not be the craftsman that builds it.

A scriptwriter may create a character, but that character will be played by an actor and may be perpetuated by other scriptwriters


Creator is a Title of God’sCreator is a Title of God’s Ecclesiastes 12:1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while

the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them.

Isaiah 40:28 Hast thou not known: has thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching his understanding.

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

1 Peter 4:19Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.


Being Creator Makes God GodBeing Creator Makes God GodIsaiah 45:5-12 5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded

thee, though thou hast not known me:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that

there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the

Lord do all these things.8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down

righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the Lord have created it.

12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.


To Be Owned By GodTo Be Owned By GodThe word translated “Creator” in the New Testament

is always (ktizo ktid’-zo) meaning to fabricate.

This word comes from the root (ktaomai ktah’-om-ahee) a verb meaning to acquire or purchase.

God both fabricated us and purchased usWe are owned by God


God The MakerGod The MakerPslams 119:73 Thy hands have made me and

fashioned me: give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments.

Psalms 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are they works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

I Corinthians 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.


God’s Claim to be DesignerGod’s Claim to be DesignerGenesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man

in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The Bible claims that God planned in advance to make beings using Himself as the model.


God Made A Plan FirstGod Made A Plan FirstGenesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of

the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This text clearly outlines the order of events in creation of man: First a model was made and then life was given to it.

In the creation of man there was planing and forethought - Design then fabrication.


Does life look designed?Does life look designed?


NoNo

ChanceChance

NoNo

Specified/Small probability?

Specified/Small probability?

NoNo

Intermediateprobability?Intermediateprobability?

Highlyprobable?

Highlyprobable?

William Dembski’sWilliam Dembski’sExplanatory FilterExplanatory Filter

From Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design. William A. Dembski Ed. Downers Grove,

Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998. P99.

StartStart

LawLawYesYes

YesYes ChanceChance

YesYes DesignDesign


Is The Is The Pattern Pattern

Random Random Or Or

Designed?Designed?Probability:

=2-256

=8.6 x 10-78

=0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000086

Arguments for a DesignerArguments for a Designer Organisms look designed for at least three (3) reasons: Redundancy - A Designer can engineer redundancy into a system, but

chance is unlikely to do this. An example of this is the presence of degeneracy in the genetic code and other features that minimize or negate the effects of many point mutations.

Excess potential - Organisms have potential that may never be used. For example, Wallace, co-discoverer of natural selection, pointed out that primitive people have the capacity to do calculus when trained. Natural selection is unlikely to select for capacity that is not used.

Complexity - Life exhibits a kind of complexity that it is hard to produce by processes involving chance.

Design and Deductive ReasoningDesign and Deductive Reasoning In general arguments for a designer are arguments

against the alternative. This does not mean these are just arguments against evolutionary theory. All arguments, by definition, are characterized by taking one side while arguing against another side.

Arguments against a theory are about eliminating possible explanations. There is nothing inferior about this, in fact, it is deductive reasoning which is used by scientists all the time in their quest for truth.

The Likely and the UnlikelyThe Likely and the Unlikely Arguments for a Designer frequently revolve around

probability. Meaningful complexity is unlikely to result from random events. Organisms are meaningfully complex. Some claim that natural selection overcomes much of this problem as, while change may be random, selection is not.

Science is about predicting what is likely and what is unlikely. Everyone is in agreement that the events leading to production of living organisms are unlikely.

In a Long Time In a Long Time and Big Universeand Big Universe

It has been argued that given massive lengths of time and a universe to work in, the unlikely becomes likely:

“Given infinite time, or infinite opportunities, anything is possible. The large numbers proverbially furnished by astronomy, and the large time spans characteristic of geology, combine to turn topsy-turvy our everyday estimates of what is expected and what is miraculous.” Richard Dawkins (1989) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. W. W. Norton and Co. New York. p139.

Dawkins says that while life looks designed, the designer was not God, but massive chance coupled with natural selection. Nature was the designer.

In The Panda’s Thumb, Stephen J. Gould argues that life does not look designed.

Little or Big Changes?Little or Big Changes? Not all changes improve fitness, they may:

– Improve the fitness of an organism (very unlikely)– Be neutral, having no effect on fitness– Be detrimental, decreasing an organisms fitness (most likely)

The bigger the change the more likely it is to be significantly detrimental Darwin argued that evolution is the accumulation of many small changes

that improve fitness, big changes are unlikely to result in improved fitness. “Many large groups of facts are intelligible only on the principle that

species have been evolved by very small steps.”– The Origin of Species Chapter VII under “Reasons for disbelieving in great and abrupt

modifications”

Board

Behe’s InsightBehe’s Insight Michael Behe contends that when we look at the

protein machines that run cells, there is a point at which no parts can be removed and still have a functioning machine. He called these machines “irreducibly complex” (IC)

We encounter irreducibly complex devices in everyday life. A simple mouse trap is an example of an irreducibly complex device:

HammerSpring

Trigger

Bait holder

CheeseStaple

I. C. Protein MachinesI. C. Protein Machines Cells are full of irreducibly complex devices - Little protein

machines that work only if all the parts (proteins) are present and arranged correctly.

Natural selection does not provide a plausible mechanism to get from nothing to the collection of parts necessary to run a number of irreducibly complex protein machines vital to living cells

Evolution of these protein machines must occur in single big steps, not gradually, as to be selected a protein must be functional in some way. Each protein machine is fairly complex, thus evolution in a single step seems unlikely.


Cilia and FlagellaCilia and Flagella Cilia and Flagella are examples of irreducibly complex

protein machines. Both cilia and flagella are found in the simplest eukaryotic

organisms, single celled protists, as well as much more complex animals. Some members of the plant kingdom also have flagella.

As complicated structures are thought to have evolved only once, evolutionary theory suggests flagella evolved in a very ancient common ancestor of modern plant and animal cells.


Components of Flagella and CiliaComponents of Flagella and Cilia Flagella and cilia are made of a number of different protein

components:– Three types of microtubules - singlet, doublet, and triplet - composed of and

tubulin– Nexin to separate the tubuals– Protein spokes connecting tubuals to maintain a constant diameter– Spoke heads– Dynein arms that interact with adjacent microtubuals– A basal plate

Each of these components must be present if the flagella or cillia is to work.


Flagella PartsFlagella Parts

Central micrtubuals

Microtubual doublet Plasma

membrane

Dynein armsRadial spokes


Are Little Jumps Possible?Are Little Jumps Possible? Cilia or flagella, missing any single partwill not bend, they are thus irreducibly

complex Parts having functions enhancing fitness independent of a role in locomotion, after

developing some functionality, could evolve via random change and natural selection Microtubuals are an important part of the cytoskeleton of all eukaryotic cells, thus

they could evolve independently No other protein components of cilia and flagella have known functions independent

of their role in movement Thus, all proteins, other than tubulin in microtubuals, would have to spontaneously

come into existence simultaneously if they were to increase fitness and be selected. That seems like a big jump!


There Is MoreThere Is More Cilia and flagella represent the tip of the ice burg of our

current understanding of the little machines that make up cells. Our current understanding of how cells function is still fragmentary, but even in this limited set of knowledge, numerous examples of irreducible complexity exist.

Irreducible complexity at the biochemical level represents a powerful challenge to the theory that natural selection can account for the origin of modern living organisms.


Evolution of Complex OrgansEvolution of Complex Organs The Origin of Species Chapter VI "Difficulties of the

Theory" Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication

– “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correcting of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”


Evolution of the EyeEvolution of the Eye To go from nothing to an eye would be a very

big jump Darwin proposed a series of what appeared to

be relatively small steps (they are still gigantic leaps) that might be able to produce an eye

ii peter 1:16

Documents