Articles » Design

Understanding genetics was so straightforward back in the good old days. I am not sure when those days were, but our picture of control systems in our bodies was easier when obvious stretches of DNA, called genes, were believed to control specific traits like eye colour and blood type. It used to be that we talked about genes and ‘junk DNA’. Now there are genes and there are control systems.  It was the use of supercomputers which changed our understanding of how the human genome works.

Back in the days when television was new to North American society, there was a show called Perry Mason. This featured a lawyer who specialized in courtroom drama. In predictable fashion, Mr. Mason set out to defend an accused person, but the facts of the case looked very discouraging for the defendant. However, thanks to great sleuthing by Perry Mason’s two assistants, some important new details were discovered. In the courtroom, as the show drew toward a close, Mr. Mason triumphantly asked a witness, “Isn’t it true that ….?” And some new facts were revealed which changed the whole story. Everyone was all smiles when the defendant was exonerated. The point is that partial information can lead to wrong conclusions.

Some scientific words come from what was originally everyday language, but the concept has long been almost forgotten. Take the word ‘chaperone’ for example. Until recent times, a chaperone was a respectable mature lady who needed to be present on any social occasion to ensure that courting couples conducted themselves in a sedate and appropriate fashion. That certainly sounds old fashioned, doesn’t it? There was even a play written, called Charley’s Aunt, by Brandon Thomas (about 1890), that lampooned the efforts of two young Englishmen to entertain some young ladies to tea. In order to do this, they needed a chaperone to be present. They therefore persuaded another male friend to masquerade as a rich aunt from Brazil so that the tea party could take place. Hilarious escapades and disasters followed (including the real aunt showing up).

From time to time, CSAA adds relevant new discussions to HeadStart, our amazing information resource (headstart.create.ab.ca). While many online discussions provide definitions and current views on an issue, HeadStart typically provides the history of how this science-related discipline came to be developed and what that means for us today. For example, within the past year we have added new topics related to dinosaurs and fossils, all written at the introductory level. All these items are posted under the Investigate Further banner. These topics include dinosaurs; extinct Alberta creatures (marine reptiles); record in sedimentary rock; geological column; and fossils.

Sugar gliders look like chipmunks, glide like flying squirrels, and their young (called joeys like kangaroos), can live for several weeks after birth in their mother’s pouch like opossums, and amazingly they belong in the same family as kangaroos. No wonder their origin has stymied evolutionists. The three types of gliders are so different that evolutionists propose that they “evolved at least three times independently in closely related glider species, including sugar gliders. But the question lingers as to how it evolved.” [i]

A chicken egg appears to be a simple structure consisting of a hard shell enclosing the egg white with a yellow yolk at the centre. In fact, it is an exceedingly complex structure described as a “miracle of engineering.” Other accolades for the egg include “Nature’s Perfect Package” (1) and “Life’s Perfect Invention…  nature’s most perfect life support system.” (2) David Attenborough in his documentary revealed the wonder behind what he calls these “incredible miracles of nature.”

Many people are afraid of spiders, but they are excellent examples of God’s engineering design in nature, especially in the production and use of their silk.  Spider silk starts as a “liquid crystal”—a highly concentrated water-based solution containing rod-shaped molecules.  This means it both flows like a liquid and has its molecules oriented and ordered like a crystal.  The silk solution is produced and stored in a group of silk glands until it is drawn out through the silk ducts for use.  Evolutionists cannot decide whether the liquid crystal structure is an “accident of Nature” or a necessary requirement, but they think it may help to control crystallization.  If the silk crystallized prematurely, it would block the ducts and kill the spider. (De Luca & Rey) Creationists would call it a design feature.

Suppose you were to discover something new, maybe a piece of art, or a delicious dessert, a new book, a piece of furniture or even a building. One of the first things you might want to know is, who made it? It has been ever thus. Even ancient peoples noticed and made observations concerning what they saw around them. And they reflected on these issues. They studied the motions of the stars (and planets), the seasons and weather, and even plants and animals. For example, the prophet Isaiah wrote concerning God: “I made the earth and created man on it, it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.” Other ancient peoples attributed natural phenomoena to terrible pagan gods, never to the one true and benevolent God. For example in Psalm 96: 5-6 we read “For all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols, but the Lord made the heavens. Splendor and majesty are before him; strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.”

Book Review by Margaret Helder

Dr. Gordon Wilson has written a nice new book, Darwin’s Sandcastle, for Christians who are not scientists but who desire to be informed, but not burdened with details concerning science and origins. Such people understand that they need to keep mentally alert concerning their worldview. This means not shutting themselves off from important topics like the foundations of Christian doctrine and history. The objective of many Christians therefore is to share their worldview with others and not become bowled over by contrary views. While most people do not specialize in science, they can at least familiarize themselves with the basic issues.

“Strange is this little creature, because the whole organisation of his body is extraordinary and strange and because his external appearance, at the first sight, has the closest similarity to a little bear.  This also led me to give him the name little water bear” (cited in Greven 2015).

Dinosaurs are such showy, dramatic creatures, and their fossils are found in such variety that they have naturally attracted a lot of attention from scientists and the public alike. The question “where did they come from?” has attracted a lot of attention from specialists who seek an evolutionary answer. Nevertheless, a recent article on the topic remarks that relationships (lines of evolutionary descent) between the major groups of dinosaurs have historically been uncertain.  Why would that be? Have we seen any improvement in this situation with new analyses? [David Cerny and Ashley L. Simonoff. 2023. Statistical evaluation of character support reveals the instability of higher-level dinosaur phylogeny. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35784-3 (2023) 13:9273 open access]

I started writing this on the Friday of the May long weekend. The wildfire smoke from northern Alberta was still reducing the visibility in Calgary, but I couldn’t smell it that morning. It wasn’t thick and dark like it was a couple of days earlier. On a clear day, I can see our 40 statutory miles (SM) visibility marker, the Rocky Mountains, but on that morning, the visibility was 5 SM. Weather observations are generally made in miles (for visibility) and feet (for cloud height) rather than metric. Visibility of 6 SM or less means I have to enter an obstruction to visibility in my observations (OBS) as well as put it in the weather duration in the Human Weather Observing System (HWOS). If the visibility drops below 3 SM, I have to send an extra OBS called a SPECI. The regular hourly OBS are called METARs. I called the obstruction, haze, that morning because I didn’t smell smoke.

Insects! Some people give them a wide berth on principle. Nasty, creepy, crawly flying things! Even the magnificent giant moths elicit only screams from some people. But the insects under discussion are guaranteed to cause no such sensation. Initial disbelief, amazement, titillation and delight are the sensations to be expected from an encounter with these exotic “bugs”.

Among the insects, at least 800,000 species have been described. One would expect plenty of variety in life-style and shape within a class this big. Indeed, this is the case. Articles on insects are always well illustrated with exotic beetles, flies and butterflies. Among these, cicadas represent an insect family which is seldom discussed on the prairies for the simple reason they do not live there. But in eastern and central Canada and in the United States (except the northwest quarter of the country) summers in woodlands reverberate with the loud clatter, clatter of male cicadas’ courtship calls.

When we reflect on wonderful works of creation, our thoughts often turn to beautiful creatures like hummingbirds and butterflies. Most people do not think firstly about such issues as the electromagnetic spectrum of energy including x-rays, visible light and radiowaves. One great scientist who saw the beauty of creation in such phenomena was James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879). He was a physicist, the first professor of experimental physics at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University. Over the main entrance to the building, this physicist directed that Psalm 111:2 be carved in Latin: Magna opera Domini, exquisita in omnes voluntates ejus.” The English translation is “Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them.” (ESV) When he studied these physical phenomena, Maxwell saw that they had been wonderfully designed and created by God. According to the Cambridge Dictionary of Scientists (2002) Maxwell’s summary of electromagnetism in the form of field equations is “an achievement equalled only by that of Newton and Einstein in mechanicsl” (p. 246)

Sea dragons (or seadragons) have long had the honor of being on the list of ugliest animals on Earth. The foot-long (from 30-to-45 centimeters) sea dragons, although classified as a fish, look like no fish an ichthyologist has ever seen. They look more like large worms with leaf appendices, a design that has baffled taxonomists and evolutionists alike ever since they were discovered over 200 years ago. This has been a major problem in not only classification, but in producing a plausible evolutionary tree. They do not fit into the category of  insects and other water life, so, by default, they are classified as fish. The reason for this classification is they spend their life in water, have fin-like structures like fish to help them move, their young hatch from eggs, and they breathe by gills.[1] Aside from these traits they are very unlike fish.