Category Archives: Science

Smile – You’re Human!

I’m not sure I would want to live in a world without smiles. The smile of a friend or loved one warms my heart. Sometimes even a smile from a stranger walking by on the street, a person I will never see again, brightens my day and makes me smile in return. Smiling often makes you feel happy and content. “You’re never fully dressed without a smile.”

How did we get the ability to smile? Did we just get a modified version of what chimpanzees and the great apes can do? No! These creatures, these animals that an evolutionist would say are related to us, cannot smile. It’s the opposite. “In almost all other species, baring one’s teeth is a threat or a show of potential force.”

Human facial expressions are controlled by 55 muscles. About 20 are designed exclusively to produce facial expressions. These 20 muscles are part of our unique human heritage – no other animal comes close. One expert has estimated that humans can make and discern 10,000 different facial expressions. Many of these are universal across all human cultures. Another expert wrote that “all members of the human species share the same expressions for signaling the basic human emotions,” and that “the expressions of the face are in large measure universal and innate.”

From where did we get all these extra facial muscles not present in any other species? From where did we get the instinctive ability to coordinate and control these muscles? Just like the spider is born knowing how to spin webs, humans are born knowing how to smile, and how to communicate emotions in thousands of ways without speech. Plainly, there is no answer to these questions within Darwin’s theory of evolution. How could keeping the best mutations, the best mistakes, give us extra facial muscles in just the right places? How could keeping the best mutations give us not only those muscles but also the innate ability to control them to make thousands of commonly recognized expressions? There is no “evolutionary advantage” in the smile; you can’t use a smile to kill prey or ward off a predator. In the Darwinian worldwide, the smile is excess baggage, it shouldn’t exist.

But it does. It’s a wonderful part of being human.

The human face is unique. “It does not resemble those of apes or any other animal.” You are not related to pond scum, or even to primates. Your ability to smile and make facial expressions proves you were designed by God. Darwin’s theory is nonsense.

I hope that makes you smile. “We shall never know all the good that a simple smile can do.”

Thanks for reading. Please share the good news of true science, and save your friends and family from the depressing Atheist mindset of hopelessness. Together we can change the world.

Spiders, Poison Dart Frogs, and Desert Scorpions

Spiders, poison dart frogs, and desert scorpions are not my favorite creatures. But when you look closely at them, you find undeniable evidence of God.

Start with spiders. Spiders get around very well on eight legs. How did that happen? You might think, “well, there once was a two-legged spider, and then there was a mutation that doubled those to make four legs, and then a second mutation doubled that to make eight legs.” That Darwinian fantasy collapses when you realize that, in addition to more legs, you need a wholly new nervous and balance system to control and coordinate them. Ask any engineer whether a simple error or two in code will turn an operating system for two legs into one that will balance, control, and coordinate four or eight legs. They will laugh at you.

Then there’s spider silk. Spiders make their webs out of something called “dragline silk.” Black spider dragline silk is ten times tougher than Kevlar, the material bulletproof vests are made of (in other words, this type of spider silk can absorb ten times as much energy before breaking).

Spiders are born with the machinery to manufacture different kinds of silk (some spiders have up to seven different kinds for different purposes), the machinery to stretch it out and cut it up, and the knowledge to create fantastically intricate and beautiful webs. How did that happen? Spiders don’t go to the store to buy the equipment, and they don’t go to school. They are born with all this. That is undeniable evidence they were designed by God, undeniable evidence of intelligent design. No error-based system of natural selection, of keeping the best random mutations, could produce both the equipment and the knowledge of how to use it.

Spider silk is amazing. Human beings can’t manufacture it. Scientists are trying, because the materials have fantastic qualities. But spiders aren’t easy to domesticate, and we can’t make spider silk in the laboratory.

Each poison dart frog has enough poison to kill about ten people. The poison is very deadly; it docks “with a specific module of a sodium gate protein found on the outer surfaces of nerve and muscle cells” (yes, life is that complicated). In plain English, it freezes muscle cells and the heart. But poison dart frogs are immune to their own poison. That “module” of a sodium gate protein is made up of 1,836 amino acids, “each precisely in its place like so many miniature engine components.” It turns out that, in the 1,584th amino acid position, poison dart frogs have a different amino acid, and so the poison doesn’t “dock” with their module.

So which came first, the poison or this amazing ability to survive the poison? Poison dart frogs have both this engineered poison, which fits exactly right into a three-dimensional lock, and the ability to survive the poison. They were created.

North African desert scorpions survive in sandstorms that strip paint from steel. Their outer coating is covered by tiny dome-shaped granules. These bumps deflect the airflow, and reduce the erosion rate by up to 50%. Scientists are looking to use this technology to build better helicopter rotors and similar parts, but they can’t do it as well as the scorpion does. The North African desert scorpion was designed by God.

In all of these creatures we find technology far more advanced than similar human technology. We also find, most clearly in the spider, technology that has no Darwinian explanation. How could random mutations result in technology that can manufacture spider silk? It’s not a simple material; humans can’t make it. How could random mutations result in spiders instinctively knowing how to make webs?

The evidence is there, plain as can be. Darwin’s theory is nonsense. It doesn’t matter how many “educated” people claim it is true. Spider webs are proof that Darwin’s theory is nonsense.

Why did God create these creatures? I don’t know. But God is not our cosmic butler. Just as God’s technology is above human technology, God’s purposes are above human purposes. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:9.

Thanks for reading. Please share the good news of true science. Together we can change the world.

Rethinking the Big Bang

I used to think the Big Bang theory was supported by multiple lines of scientific evidence, and impossible to challenge. When you watch anything related to astronomy on TV, it will probably be based on the Big Bang theory. In Counting To God I argued that the creation of all time, space, and matter from nothing was evidence of God.

The evidence of God is still there, stronger than ever, but the support for gradual cosmic evolution disappears when you look behind the curtain. The latest evidence does not agree with the Big Bang theory, and the theory is now rejected by many scientists, including many Atheists. In this post I’ll describe the Big Bang theory, and then the science. To me, science now points to an even more miraculous creation, the creation described in Genesis. As usual, you decide.

According to the Big Bang theory, a one-time, supernatural event took place 13.8 billion years ago. That event was the instantaneous creation of space, time, and all of the matter and energy that ever has existed and ever will exist. The theory is that an ultra-hot and ultra-dense fireball gradually expanded and cooled, and gravity slowly pulled the matter together over billions of years to form stars, planets, and galaxies. As generations of stars burned and exploded, the extreme heat and pressure created heavy elements – elements heavier than helium in the periodic table (oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and so on) – that are critical for life.

That’s the theory. Let’s look at facts (sorry the list is so long, but the subject fascinates me):

Mature Distant Galaxies. This shocked me. Galaxies far away are receding from us, and the speed with which they are receding is generally proportional to their distance from us. (Hubble’s Law). According to secular Big Bang models, this means that when we look at distant galaxies we are looking back in time. According to the Big Bang theory, the galaxies farthest away were formed shortly after the Big Bang. The models generally predict that it takes billions of years to form a mature galaxy with billions of stars, and that the heavy elements gradually increase as stars explode.

We have found distant galaxies that are fully mature. One team of astronomers found 15 distant galaxies that (according to their models) are 12 billion light years away on average. In other words, they believed they were looking back in time 12 billion years, to less than two billion years after the Big Bang. These galaxies are fully mature in shape; they are massive, with a hundred billion stars or more each; and they are filled with heavy elements. Another team discovered a galaxy supposedly 560 million years old with ratios of heavy elements similar to nearby galaxies.

Mature distant galaxies contradict the Big Bang model. They fit the biblical model, where God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain…” Isaiah 40:22. The Bible states in 10 places that God stretched out the heavens.

Blue Stars. Blue stars are the most massive stars. Stars with more mass are hotter and burn much quicker. Rigel (the star in Orion that is the “foot” on the right) is estimated by secular astronomers to be around 8 million years old and at the end of its life. A star like our sun, which itself is bigger than 95% of all stars, will burn for a thousand times longer than a typical blue star. If the universe is billions of years old, blue stars should be long gone, and any new ones formed should be fantastically rare. Yet blue stars are all over our galaxy. I love to look at magnificent bands of blue stars in other spiral galaxies. (It’s easy to do, just google “spiral galaxies” and click on “images”). The abundance of blue stars, both in our galaxy and in other galaxies, contradicts the Big Bang model.

Arms in Spiral Galaxies. While you’re admiring those spiral galaxies, notice the “arms” of tens of billions of stars stretching out from the center. Our Earth is in the Orion arm of the Milky Way. According to secular astronomers, our galaxy has made about 20 complete rotations in its roughly 12 billion year life.

Nice theory. But, if it were true, the stars wouldn’t still be in the spiral arms. Over time the stars would have wandered and filled in the disks of the galaxies. Those sharply defined arms disprove the Big Bang theory.

Double Stars. Stars like our Sun are typically found in groups of two or three. Double stars, also called binary stars, are very common. New research shows that most double star systems will spiral into collapse – the stars will run into each other – in less than one hundred thousand years. This contradicts the Big Bang model of double star systems existing for billions of years.

No Exotic Particles. The ultra-hot and ultra-dense fireball of the Big Bang should have produced exotic particles. We don’t find any. When energy “condenses” into matter, it creates equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We don’t find anti-matter in the universe. Under the Big Bang theory, one of the most common particles in the universe should be a magnetic monopole, a particle with a single net magnetic charge. Magnetic monopoles have been created in the laboratory. They have never been observed in space.

The Horizon Problem. When we look deep into space, all areas are almost exactly the same temperature. The Big Bang theory predicts cold spots and hot spots. Since light could not have traveled between regions on opposite sides of the universe, they should not have the same temperature; they haven’t been able to exchange energy. To get around this, many secular astronomers believe the universe went through a brief period of massive “inflation.” Inflation is really a philosophical belief, and not science, since it can never be reproduced or observed. Some mathematical models of inflation did make predictions, and all of those predictions have been proven false.

Stars and Planets from Clumps? According to computer simulations, gravity won’t hold grains of dust together until the ball is at least a kilometer in diameter. In other words, you need planets to get planets, and stars to get stars. Secular scientists brush over this problem, but have yet to show how planets and stars can be formed by gravity.

Magnetic Fields. Planets that are billions or even millions of years old shouldn’t have magnetic fields. The total electric energy “stored” in the Earth’s magnetic field has decreased by 14% since its first careful measurement in 1829. This decay fits creation models, which attribute the decay to electrical resistance in the core of the Earth.

Dr. Russell Humphreys has done incredible work in this area. In 1984 he proposed an alternative magnetic model involving God aligning water molecules during the creation week. It accurately predicted the magnetic field strengths of Uranus, and Neptune, as well as the decay rate of Mercury’s magnetic field. Even more impressive, a number of his predictions were made in advance, and then confirmed by satellite measurements.

Comets. Comets have finite life spans; they gradually burn up or collide with the Sun or a planet. They can’t have existed for billions of years, and in most cases not for millions. Secular astronomers imagine an “Oort Cloud” containing a trillion or so potential comets, at the far outer reaches of our Solar System, to replenish the supply. However, as even Atheist Carl Sagan admitted, there is not one shred of scientific evidence for the existence of the Oort Cloud.

* * *

I am not an expert in all of these areas, and it is certainly possibly that I have gotten some things wrong, or that later research will change the statements above. Nevertheless, I think the verdict is in. I am now convinced the Big Bang theory, the prevailing model of gradual cosmological evolution, has fatal flaws. It’s not as ridiculous as Darwin’s theory of biological evolution (how could any sane person believe the human brain “evolved” by chance?) but it has huge problems that most people don’t know about. In Counting To God I noted the 1965 discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, faint radiation coming from everywhere, and suggested it was overwhelming evidence of the validity of the Big Bang theory. I didn’t know about these problems (and many problems not listed here), and I didn’t know the background radiation can also be explained as the limiting temperature of space, as starlight being reflected off space dust.

The universe can’t have existed forever. (Second law of thermodynamics, look it up.) Like models of gradual biological evolution, models of gradual cosmological evolution don’t fit the facts. We are left with a magnificent creation, a universe of enormous complexity, beauty, and size. The facts suggest it was all created just thousands of years ago, exactly as described in the Bible:

“I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host…” Isaiah 45:12.

The Bible is true, right from the first page. In a later post I’ll show how important that is for Christianity.

Thanks for reading. Please share the good news of true science. Together we can change the world.

Memories of the Flood

I think, overall, it was mostly two things in high school that pushed me towards Atheism. First was the Miller-Urey experiment. When I read (falsely) that life could have arisen by chance, I began to think science and religion were in conflict. (For a detailed explanation of why life could not have arisen by chance, see Chapter 10 of Counting To God.) Second was the Genesis account of Noah and the flood.

The flood story seemed crazy. A global flood covers the highest mountains? Noah and three sons are warned and build a large boat, an ark? Land animals of every kind come two-by-two onto the boat, and stay on it for months? Noah sends a dove out to see if the land is dry? The animals repopulate the Earth, and all people are descended from the sons of Noah and their wives?

I had many questions, and no one to talk to. I thought that, if the flood story wasn’t true, why should I believe other parts of the Bible? Perhaps nothing in the Bible has been attacked as strongly as the flood story of God’s judgment. It is rejected by most secular scientists. It is often mocked.

I am now absolutely convinced, for many reasons, that it is true. I was astonished, blown away, to learn there more than 500 different memories of the flood. In at least 300 of them, it is clear the flood is global. This from the NW Creation Network:

Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible’s accounts of the worldwide flood …. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.

These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that parallel the Biblical account including the warning of the coming flood, the construction of a boat in advance, the storage of animals, the inclusion of family, and the release of birds to determine if the water level had subsided.

Ken Ham is the founder of Answers in Genesis and the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Kentucky, which features a full scale replica of the Ark. He writes:

I met two missionaries who visited the Creation Museum while on furlough from their missions work. They are missionaries who are the first contact with certain tribes in the Amazon. At the time, they were the first in contact with two different tribes. I asked if those tribes had a flood or creation legend. They said the tribes did and they even had a legend where the languages split apart too!

(The splitting of languages is a memory of the Tower of Babel.)

Flood memories can be found on many websites. Parallels to the Bible are stunning. Hawaiians have a memory of a time when the world became a wicked place, and only one good man, Nu-u, was left. Nu-u built a great canoe with a house on it and filled it with animals, and only Nu-u and his family were saved. Chinese have a memory that Fuhi, his wife, three sons, and three daughters escaped a great flood and were the only people alive on Earth. Ancient Babylonians have a memory in the Epic of Gilgamesh, stone tablets discovered in 1853 that mirror many features of the flood story in the Bible, including sending out a dove to see if the waters had receded.

When you read these stories, you know they are based on real events. You just know. Unrelated tribes and cultures from around the world could not possibly have this memory if the flood did not occur. Differences in the details of the flood stories are exactly what you would expect when cultures pass down memories for thousands of years. Associates for Biblical Research date the flood at around 3000 BC.

Imagine a world that was much flatter. Imagine that world rocked by enormous volcanos as the “fountains of the great deep burst forth.” (Genesis 7:11). The fountains may have included water from underground oceans in addition to massive amounts of lava. Huge tsunamis washed over the entire Earth, and the volcanic activity and rapidly shifting tectonic plates created the mountains we see today, either during the flood or shortly after.

I recommend Ken Ham’s easy-to-read book: A Flood of Evidence. He provides solid answers to the most common questions and objections. He notes the many flaws and inconsistencies of radioactive dating. All fossils, coal, and diamonds contain Carbon 14, an isotope with a half-life of 5,000 years, which could not possibly be detected if those items were more than 100,000 years old. Fossils, coal, and diamonds cannot be millions of years old!

The flood of Noah explains a great deal. It explains why sedimentary rocks and fossils are found all over the world. It explains the Ice Age. You don’t get an ice age if the Earth just gets colder; there isn’t enough moisture to build sheets of ice miles high. You need warm oceans for evaporation and cool summers so the snow doesn’t melt. After the flood, perhaps for centuries, the oceans were warmed by volcanic activity but the summers were cool because of volcanic dust.

As I noted in an earlier post, human DNA provides strong evidence that all men are descended from Noah. Here’s two other items. First, if humanity is tens of thousands of years old, why don’t we find stories of people who lived more than 5,000 years ago? Second, if the layers of rock in the Grand Canyon were laid down over tens of millions of years, why are they so level with no sign of erosion?

Jesus spoke of the flood, and compared it to his second coming:

For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

Matthew 24: 38-39. The flood is noted in the letters of St. Paul and St. Peter. Peter predicted that “scoffers will come.” “For they deliberately overlook this fact … that the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.” 2 Peter 3:4-6.

I never ask you to believe despite the evidence. I ask you to believe because of the evidence.

Thanks for reading. Please ask others to consider the truth. It could change their life.

The Human Brain

I commute long distance. On Monday’s flight, I read two interesting articles on the human brain.

The first was in Monday’s New York Times. Researchers developed technology you control using thought. You put on a headset with virtual reality goggles and sensors that read brain waves, and move virtual objects. The article said researchers “want to build ways of performing nearly any computing task with the mind.” That, I thought, would be totally cool! How advanced!

Then I thought, wait a minute. Much more advanced technology already exists. With your brain, you can control, to an astonishing degree, each of over 600 skeletal muscles in your body. You can perform coordinated feats, like standing upright. (It’s not so easy; it took you about a year to get it right.) With your brain, you can access memory banks of your life and what you have learned. The sophistication of the human brain is dazzling. I love watching and hearing concert pianists play impossibly difficult and breathtakingly beautiful pieces from memory. My college roommate, a chess grandmaster at 13, could and still can crush me in chess without ever looking at the chess board. He visualizes the entire board and all possible moves in his head.

Next I picked up the September issue of Acts and Facts. (It is one of my favorite magazines, and you can get a free subscription by going to this page: ) Dr. Jeffrey Tompkins authored an article entitled: “The Human Brain is ‘Beyond Belief’.” The article reviews recent brain research, and cites 15 scientific papers. Highlights:

  • An average healthy human brain contains some 200 billion nerve cells connected to one another through hundreds of trillions of synapses. (About as many cells as stars in our galaxy, and synapses as stars in a thousand galaxies.)
  • A single human brain has more information processing units than all the computers, routers, and Internet connections on Earth.
  • The neural units in our brain are perfectly placed to minimize “connection costs” among components.
  • The brain’s memory capacity is “at least” a petabyte, in the same ballpark as the entire World Wide Web.
  • The brain is amazingly energy efficient; human circuits of similar complexity would require at least 1,000 times more energy.
  • The cells of the brain communicate with light as well as electrical impulses.
  • The brain is a quantum computer.
  • The brain creates complex structures to solve problems.

That last bullet is a reference to a June 2017 paper in the Journal of Computational Neuroscience. (Not a journal I’m recommending, but go knock yourself out.) Researchers found our brains build fantastic structures, with fantastic geometries, to solve problems. Here’s one of the researchers:

The neurons in the network react to stimuli in an extremely organized manner. …. We found a world we never imagined. There are tens of millions of these objects even in a small speck of the brain, up through seven dimensions. In some networks, we even found structures with up to eleven dimensions.

The mathematics of this article, with concepts from Algebraic Geometry (yes I took that course in college but don’t ask me any questions) are beyond belief. Not much I understood. I will just note that when the researcher refers to “dimensions,” he is really talking about degrees of connectivity. So when seven neurons create a structure where they are each connected to each other, he is calling that a seven dimensional structure.

When it comes to the architecture and technology of the human brain, we are like primitives with stone tools trying to understand a spaceship. As hard as we try, and thousands of very smart people are trying very hard, we are only a vague idea of how the brain works. We think we are smart to say the frontal cortex performs executive functions. That’s like the primitive saying the back of the spaceship has something to do with movement. Exactly how is it your brain processes signals from your eyes to recognize these letters and words, to make sense of them, and to ponder their meaning? Tell me, if you can, how that works.

So new research says the brain builds structures to solve problems? How could any rational person believe the human brain “evolved” from a Darwinian process of keeping the best errors? That is preposterously absurd, totally idiotic, and without a fig leaf shred of believability! No way ultra technology arose by chance. I would also point you to page 165 of Counting To God, where I note that the human brain has at least 54 “orphan” brain genes, 54 sections of DNA code that no other species has that build the fantastic nanotechnology we use to think and reason.

I can be sarcastic. Maybe next time someone tells me belief in God is not scientific, I’ll respond — “so you’re one of those ‘scientific’ people who believe the human brain arose by chance?”

Thanks for reading. Please tell others, and spread the good news of true science. Together we can change the world, and free it from this pathetically depressing Atheist paradigm of a meaningless universe. God is real. Govern yourself accordingly.

DNA and the Bible

The Bible was under attack this week in newspapers around the world. Here’s one headline: “The Bible got it wrong: Ancient Canaanites survived and their DNA lives in modern-day Lebanese.” Here’s another: “Study disproves the Bible’s claim that the ancient Canaanites were wiped out.” The next four paragraphs are from the New York Times:

“There is a story in the Hebrew Bible that tells of God’s call for the annihilation of the Canaanites, people who lived in what are now Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Israel and the Palestinian territories thousands of years ago.

‘You shall not leave alive anything that breathes,’ God said in the passage. ‘But you shall utterly destroy them.’

But a genetic analysis published on Thursday has found that the ancient population survived that divine call for their extinction, and their descendants live in modern Lebanon.

‘We can see the present-day Lebanese can trace most of their ancestry to the Canaanites or a genetically equivalent population,’ said Chris Tyler-Smith, a geneticist with the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute who is an author of the paper. ‘They derive just over 90 percent of their ancestry from the Canaanites.’”

I hope you noted the words “or a genetically equivalent population,” which destroys the argument that these scientists had somehow disproved the Bible. But, even worse, these supposedly quality publications failed to actually read the Bible! Yes God told the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites,” that they may not teach you do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods.” Deuteronomy 20:17. But the Israelites DISOBEYED! The Bible explicitly records that a variety of Israelite commanders let the Canaanites live. Judges 1:27-35. God then said OK, but you’ll be sorry. “So now I say, I will not drive them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you.” Judges 2:3. So we are left with dozens of articles, read by perhaps hundreds of millions of people, making false claims against God. How sad that, in our upside-down world, people try to sell newspapers by attacking God.

Equally sad is that, when science supports God and the Bible, you never read about it in the popular press. In September 2014 scientists claimed that, over the course of human history, women had migrated significantly more than men. Men inherit the DNA in their Y chromosome only from their father, whereas all people inherit the DNA in their mitochondria (little energy factories in our cells) only from their mothers. A study found greater variability in a population in the female-inherited DNA, the mitochondria DNA, and claimed it was because women traveled more for marriage.

Really? Over all known history men have overwhelmingly been more likely to travel, whether for trade, curiosity, or war. Women generally marry within the community in which they were born. So this scientific study seemed strange to me. Last weekend I learned that greater variability in female DNA is exactly what the Bible predicts. Deuteronomy 32:8 states that when God divided mankind after the Tower of Babel, “he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” In other words, from one group, humanity was divided by paternal lines, and the women went with their husbands regardless of their family background. So the females in a given populations should have greater variability in their DNA, exactly as the 2014 study found.

Last weekend I also heard a talk on Y chromosome variability by Nathaniel Jeanson, a research biologist with a Ph. D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard. Dr. Jeanson measured variability in the Y chromosome over time. To do that he needed a population that had been separated at a known time in the past. He used African Americans, and compared their Y chromosomes to the Y chromosomes of the population that stayed behind in West Africa. There are statistics on the number of people who came to the United States in this brutal way, and it is known that the mean point of the slave trade was around 1800. By comparing the variability in Y chromosome between African Americans and those who stayed behind, he got a measure of genetic drift in the Y chromosome.

Dr. Jeanson then presented a chart that showed differences in the Y chromosome among all males worldwide. The chart shows clear connecting points, nodes if you will, that strongly point to a common ancestor. According to the Bible, all men trace their Y chromosome back to Noah, who with his three sons, and their wives, were the only people on the ark. Dr. Jeanson used his estimate of how fast the Y chromosome drifts to estimate the time back to the central nodes. It’s not clear which one could be Noah; the data doesn’t establish that clearly. But the time back to all the nodes was around 5,000 years, which is when the Bible tells us Noah lived.

The bottom line here is that modern DNA analysis strongly supports the Bible. Unfortunately, that story rarely makes the secular press. I highly recommend the magazine Acts and Facts, which spreads the good news of true science every month. You can get a free subscription here:

Thanks for reading. Please spread the good news of science.

Origin of Life

How did life get started? Could life have arisen by purely “natural” means, without a designer? The universe is a big place, with trillions times trillions of stars. Newspapers report “earth-like” planets; some must have liquid water. Is life inevitable, given enough time and sunshine?

Well, maybe not. The origin of life is an unsolved riddle, and one of the greatest challenges to materialism.

The problem is that all life, even what we might think of as “simple” life, is enormously complex, and has technology far beyond anything built by human beings. All life makes copies of itself atom-by-atom. No machine built by man can do that. All life contains digital code (DNA), and 3-D printers that read the code and “print” out needed parts, by snapping together chains of basic atomic building blocks, called “amino acids.”

A 1953 experiment found that a few of these amino acids could be produced from electricity and inorganic chemical compounds. This experiment, called the Miller-Urey experiment, has led some people to believe that life did arise by chance. Many high school textbooks note the experiment. But the textbooks are outdated. Both Stanley Miller and Harold Urey admitted the mere existence of amino acids does not yield life. It’s not just that the experiment got the starting conditions wrong (which it did), or that it also produced reactive chemicals that would have destroyed life (like hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde). It’s not just that it takes energy to “snap” together amino acids. The necessary components for life are not favored thermodynamically or kinetically.

It’s the information problem. Even if somehow you had all the right parts, all of these fantastically complex components, how on Earth (pun intended) could they ever get in the right order? How did all the pieces get put together right in three dimensional space?

All life has DNA code millions of units, millions of “letters,” long. (Those chemical units, those nucleotides, are impossibly unlikely to form by chance.) All life has copying machines and 3-D printers of astonishing accuracy and reliability. All life has machines to transfer energy. To have life, you not only have to start with all of this (and more), but the code has to be in exactly the right order so the machines can make copies of themselves. It’s a nightmare chicken-and-the-egg problem. To have life, you’ve got to start with all the machines and all the units of code, and the code has to be in the right order to specify the instructions for building the machines.

In 1964, a Yale professor calculated the odds of life arising by chance as one in a number with one hundred billion zeros. That’s at any time in any place in the history of the universe. The number of planets in the universe may be a number with 24 zeros. To go from a length so small it cannot be measured, to the distance across the known universe, you need about 60 zeros (multiply by ten about 60 times). Overcoming odds of one in a number with one hundred billion zeros is staggeringly impossible. You are more likely to win a Powerball lottery ten billion times in a row.

Life forming accidentally is like a tornado ripping through a massive junkyard and leaving behind a 747 jet, with all systems functional and ready to take off. Except it’s worse. The tornado would also have to leave behind a complete set of blueprints for building the jet and an operating manual.

Charles Darwin knew his theory couldn’t explain the origin of life. Before you can have natural selection, you must first have a means of preserving traits across generations. Inorganic matter has only chemical and physical properties; it has no way of preserving traits across generations.

You might think further effort will solve the riddle. Harvard University attempted that in 2006, when it launched an “Origins of Life Initiative,” and handed out research money. But at a conference they sponsored in 2009, the recurring theme was “we just don’t know.” Harvard has essentially abandoned the initiative.

How did life get started? Here’s a 2011 status report from Eugene Koonin, a senior investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, and a recognized expert in the field of evolutionary and computational biology:

Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure—we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.

The origin of life seems like a miracle.

There is no materialist explanation for the origin of life. Our most brilliant scientists can’t come up with a mildly plausible scenario. When decades of intense scientific effort leave us with the statement that the origin of life seems like a miracle, we are forced to consider the possibility that it really was a miracle, a supernatural event, and that life was designed.

Thanks for reading. Please share the good news of science.

Does Science Prove God?

I’ve been having a friendly debate with a distinguished scientist. She believes there is a God, but argues science cannot prove the existence of God. I argue science has proved God.

What does it mean to “prove” something. I look to math. Math has theorems, logical arguments, that prove or disprove statements. But all mathematics rests on certain unprovable assumptions – sometimes called “axioms” or “postulates”. You start by assuming some things are true, and then you prove other things are true. What you can prove rests on, depends on, your starting truths. Your starting truths are the foundation you build on.

Geometry is an example (please skip this paragraph if high school geometry was not your favorite). Euclid began with five starting truths – five postulates. His fifth postulate was that parallel lines never meet. With these starting truths he created the elegant field of Euclidean geometry, where the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. There are other systems of geometry with different starting truths. If you take the first four of Euclid’s postulates, and add the assumption that parallel lines always meet, you get the geometry of the surface of a ball, where the sum of the angles of a triangle is always greater than 180 degrees.

OK, technical discourse over. The point is, before you can “prove” anything, you have to start with certain unprovable truths. Here’s my starting truths:

Truth One: There is an objective reality.

There are real things apart from us and our minds. We are not beings in some sort of computer simulation.

Truth Two: We can generally trust what our senses are clearing telling us.

We can be confused, or deceived. But I think we all pretty much assume as true clear messages from our senses. If we run into a stone wall, we say that “proves” both that the wall exists, and that it is hard. If scientists around the world find that all living creatures contain coded groups of atoms we call DNA, we say that “proves” the existence of DNA code.

Truth Three: If something exists that, in all human history and all of science, has only on. . explanation, one cause, then that explanation is true and that cause exists.

We have found fantastic technology in every living creature. Plants have sensors that detect detailed variations in light and temperature. Some birds, fish, turtles, and even butterflies have sensors that detect both the direction and intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field, coupled with navigation systems that allow them to travel thousands of miles and return to the same field, stream, beach, or tree. This technology is complex almost beyond imagination – it is far more advanced than anything humans have ever created. We are only beginning to understand how DNA code works, with overlapping layers of information.

In all of human history and experience, only an intelligent being can create new technology. In all of science, there is no other known explanation. Chance is pathetically inadequate. No one has ever seen new technology created by accident, and the odds against it ever happening by chance are fantastic, even in a trillion trillion universes.

With these starting truths, my proof of God is this. Scientists have found fantastically complex technology in thousands of different kinds of living creatures. In all of human history, technology has only been created by a mind. There is no scientific explanation for the existence of technology without a designer. Therefore the technology of life was designed, and that designer is God.

The difference between this scientist and I is that she won’t make that third assumption. As a scientist, she has been trained to always question, to always need new explanations. I admire that spirit, but we must seek the truth in what we know. I think that, deep down, everyone agrees with my three starting truths. If you climb a mountain and come to the edge of a cliff thousands of feet high, you would (1) conclude there is such a thing as a cliff, (2) trust your eyes that the cliff is high, and (3) believe that gravity will pull you down if you step off.

Yet our society is in denial over God. We have climbed the mountain of science, and see fantastic technology in living creatures. This technology is confirmed in multiple scientific articles every week. Yet people close their eyes and step off the cliff, into the spiritual and moral abyss of Atheism.

Thanks for reading. Please spread the good news of science.

Plant Sensors

Intelligent design predicts we will continue to find complex systems in living creatures. This prediction is affirmed almost daily in scientific papers around the world. I’ve highlighted a few of these, such as the systems that allow reef squid to communicate by writing on their own bodies. For this post, let’s look at plants.

Plants generally get their energy from light; through an amazingly engineered process we call photosynthesis. Sensors help them capture and process the light. Here’s Jeffrey Thompkins, Ph.D.:

One of the key factors in a plant’s life cycle is processing sunlight in the form of duration (day length), light quality (wavelength), and light intensity. All of these interconnected light-related factors are monitored within the plant’s leaf cells by a family of sensor proteins called phytochromes. When the red to far-red region of the visible light spectrum changes during the day, or because of shade from neighboring plants, the conformation (3-D shape) of the phytochrome proteins becomes altered and they act like genetic switches. They turn on and off a whole host of genes that modify plant metabolism, physiology, growth, and development. Phytochromes also help set the plant’s circadian rhythm (day/night clock) in addition to telling the plant what time of year it is, when it should flower and make seeds, or go dormant for the winter.

This has been known for some time. What’s new is that scientists have now found that these same sensors also measure temperature. The sensors are already fantastic machines in measuring and responding to light, so no one expected they would also be respond to temperature. But they do. Tompkins again:

This temperature-sensing capacity and seamless integration with the light sensory function is so finely tuned that it enables the plant to make a wide variety of adjustments in growth and development both during the night and during photosynthesis in daylight.

Wow! In other words plants, life that you might think is relatively simple, has complex, engineered systems far beyond human technology. We’re talking nanotechnology, engineering at the atomic level, that works perfectly for that dandelion in your yard. All life is more complex than we can possibly imagine.

So ask your Darwinist friends how they explain this. You might get, “well obviously it ‘evolved’ because it’s good for the plants.” Don’t let them get away with that nonsense. You can’t mathematically get any technology by chance, much less an integrated system that can sense and respond to both light and temperature.

And speaking of integrated systems, what about the human brain? How can anyone possibly believe the human brain – with its ability to process information from each of our senses and combine that with analytic reasoning, memory, spatial perception, image recognition, and so so much more – arose from a chance-based process? The truth is plainly obvious, and it always has been, notwithstanding the nonsense we hear from Atheists. Human beings were designed.

Thanks for reading. And please, please, spread the good news of science.

Is Darwinism a Scientific Theory?

Tom Wolfe is a powerful thinker and writer. His books include The Electric Cool-Aid Acid Test, The Right Stuff, and Bonfire of the Vanities (the last two were adapted into motion pictures). His most recent book, The Kingdom of Speech, annihilates claims that Darwin’s theory of evolution is science:

There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon – in this case, Evolution – as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution … well … no … no … no … no … and no.

[Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech, 2016, p. 27.]

Let’s look more closely at how evolution scores.

1. Has anyone observed the phenomenon?

There has never been a case where anyone has observed a new biological system or technology being created from random mutations and natural selection. Franklin Harold, a Darwinist, admits: “We must concede that there are presently no detailed accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Scientists see systems that they imagine “evolved,” but they have never observed evolution in action. In one decades-old experiment involving 65,000 generations of bacteria, no new systems were created. Instead, systems not needed to survive during the controlled conditions broke down.

If you look at the complexity of life, and in particular at the fantastic improbability of ever forming by chance a single new functional protein, much less a complete new biological system, it’s not hard to see why. See Counting To God, pages 105 to 112.

2. Could other scientists replicate it?

Obviously, no. Scientists can’t observe or replicate Darwinian evolution.

3. Are there facts which, if false, would contradict the theory?

To me this is the most important test for a scientific theory. If a theory is scientific, there must be a way to test it, to create an experiment that, if the results don’t turn out right, would show the theory is false. Quantum Physics and Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity have each been confirmed to about 13 decimal places. A tiny discrepancy could prove either theory false. Karl Popper wrote: “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”

Here’s Cornelius Hunter:

Being an evolutionist mean there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. … If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.

Evolution cannot be falsified because it makes no predictions (other than change happens). Evolution has no mathematical equations. Karl Popper wrote: “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”

4. Could scientists make predictions based on it?

Scientists have made predictions based on Darwinism, and those predictions have consistently been proved false. One major prediction was that, because according to Darwin we were created from random mutations, most of our DNA is “junk.” This was disproved by over 400 scientists in 2012 as part of the ENCODE project. See Counting To God, pages 153 to 158.

5. Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science?

Darwinism has not led to a single scientific discovery. It has led millions to lose faith in God. It has led to a disregard for human beings, and two major world wars. It gave Hitler, Stalin, and Mao justification to kill 100 million people.

Darwinism is a delusion to deny God. Here’s a video that goes into more detail on this subject.

And let’s not forget about the multiverse, another major and unprovable fantasy of Atheists who seek to deny God. The multiverse by definition cannot be observed or replicated – because it is not in the observable universe. There are absolutely no facts or experiments that can contradict the multiverse delusion – all we can do is observe and experiment in our universe. The multiverse leads to no predictions and no new science.

The complexity and beauty of life prove the existence of God. The complexity and fantastic fine-tuning of our universe, fine-tuning in the constants of physics, the laws of physics, and even the structure of time and space, prove the existence of God. There is no scientific theory that can explain these proven facts without God. In each case, the scientific evidence of design is overwhelming. True science proves God.

Thanks for reading.