[Originally published as ICR Commits to New Creation Engineering Theory]
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in Dallas, Texas has recently announced their commitment to a new creation engineering theory developed primarily by Dr. Randy Guliuzza. Dr. Guliuzza is qualified in engineering as well as in biology and medicine. He has been associated with ICR since 2008.
Why a New Paradigm
For over a century secular biologists have looked to Darwinian natural selection to explain how living organisms adapt to different environments. Even creationist biologists have allowed for the idea that natural selection could affect variability within a created kind. But, they normally have understood that this process could only affect variability according to the limits originally placed in the DNA of an organism by God at the beginning. And, most creationists would say that natural selection would work to reject mutations in order to save an organism rather than use harmful mutations for progressive evolutionary improvement of some sort.
At any rate, the description of the adaptation process as “natural selection” is flawed in the sense that nature (or environment or ecology) is not intelligent and therefore is incapable of “selecting” anything!
From June, 2017 through August, 2019 Dr. Guliuzza developed his theory called, “Continuous Environmental Tracking” or CET, in a series of articles in ICR’s Acts & Facts monthly magazine. Altogether there are 24 articles beginning with the idea that “Engineering Principles Point to God’s Workmanship,” and concluding with “CET Wrap-Up.”
Continuous Environmental Tracking in a Nutshell
This CET theory is fundamentally an attempt to demonstrate that “organisms, even entire populations, have built-in abilities to track their environments and readily adapt with appropriate responses.” It was developed as an explanation for how engineering principles can provide understanding of biological adaptation. CET flips the secular mechanism of adaptation on its head by showing that it is due to brilliant biological engineering rather than trial-and-error death and survival.
As an engineer, I have followed Dr. Guliuzza’s series on engineered adaptability from the first article and find his theory an explanation that should effectively replace Darwin’s atheistic speculations. The culture would greatly benefit if biology teachers promoted engineered adaptability instead of natural selection in their classes.
CET looks to me to be a true scientific theory that meshes with the Bible. Only time will tell if the secular world has any tolerance for the ideas encompassed by the theory.
All of the “Engineered Adaptability” articles in the Acts & Facts magazines can be found on ICR’s website if you do not have access to the print magazines themselves. The articles are listed in the order that they were published along with each title and magazine page number.
1. June, 2017. “Engineering Principles Point to God’s Workmanship,” p. 16.
2. July, 2017. “Engineering Principles Should Guide Biological Research,” p. 17.
3. August, 2017. “Arriving at a Design-Based Framework for Adaptability,” p. 17.
4. September, 2017. “Adaptability via Nature or Design? What Evolutionists say,” p. 17.
5. October, 2017. “Engineering Causality Is the Answer to Darwinian Externalism,” p. 17.
6. November, 2017. “Engineering Causality Studies Unmask Evolutionary Externalism,” p. 17.
7. December, 2017. “Beauty in Motion: Formula 1 Drivers,” p. 17.
8. February, 2018. “Sensor Triggers Affirm Intelligently Designed Internalism,” p. 17.
9. March, 2018. “Creatures’ Adaptability Begins with Their Sensors,” p. 17.
10. April, 2018. “Active Environmental Tracking Explains Similar Features,” p. 17.
11. May, 2018. “Designed Mechanisms Best Explain Convergent Traits,” p. 17.
12. June, 2018. “Adaptive Changes Are Purposeful, Not Random,” p. 17.
13. July 2018. “Adaptive Solutions Are Targeted, Not Trial-and-Error,” p.18.
14. September, 2018. “Fast Adaptation Confirms Design-Based Model,” p. 18.
15. October, 2018. “Darwin’s Anti-Design Doctrine,” p. 17.
16. November, 2018. “Logic Mechanisms Direct Creatures’ Innate Adaptability,” p. 17.
17. January, 2019. “Biological Networks Feature Finest Engineering Principles,” p. 17.
18. February, 2019. “Trait Selection Is Internal, Not External,” p. 18.
19. March, 2019. “Creatures’ Anticipatory Systems Forecast and Track Changes,” p. 16.
20. April, 2019. “New Distributed Problem-Solving Model for Population Adaptation,” p. 17.
21. May, 2019. “Blockchain-Like Process May Produce Adaptive Traits,” p. 17.
22. June, 2019. “Engineered Features Determine Design Success or Failure,” p. 17.
23. July, 2019. “Engineered Features Determine Design Success or Failure, Part II,” p. 18.
24. August, 2019. “Continuous Environmental Tracking Wrap-Up,” p. 17.
So, to read any of these articles go to the Institute for Creation Research website, click on the Acts & Facts magazine, and search by the month. You should be able to download any article as a pdf file.
This is great and I look forward to reading more. I think it is a much better term because “Continuous Environmental Tracking” implies the adaptations come from within the designed creature; rather than “natural selection” which implies the environment is the acting party and the organism is only responding. CET seems to more appropriately suit our intelligent Creator who engineered us perfectly. William
Personally, I think both internal adaption mechanisms and environmental factors influence how individuals and populations change over time. After all, God is the Creator and controller of both organisms and their environments. There’s definitely some controversy over how much of a role each of these plays, and just what those roles are. There’s no doubt, however, that evolutionists are wrong when they attribute to natural selection the ability to “evolve” organisms.
I really respect Dr. Guliuzza, and I think he’s made a significant contribution to our knowledge on this topic.