Category Archives: Science

The Biological Case for God

Science, ,

In 2014, the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by Eric Metaxas, titled “Science Increasingly Points to God.” It received almost 400,000 “likes” on Facebook. Others challenged Metaxas’s arguments that Earth is special, and that the universe is fine-tuned for life. But those disturbed by a scientific challenge to atheism face a greater problem. New discoveries in biology, mostly in the last decade, make an even stronger case for the existence of God.

These new discoveries contradict Darwin’s theory of unguided evolution, that you can explain the origin of every species, and all of the wondrous systems and abilities of those species, by random mutations and the gradual process of natural selection. To be sure, many Darwinists are prepared to fight to the death, and they have circled the wagons, both by proclaiming ever louder that “all the evidence” supports their theory, and by attacking colleagues who dissent. But the cracks are beginning to show. Noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel subtitled his 2012 book “Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.”

“Orphan genes” may be the most stunning contradiction. A gene is a section of DNA coding that life uses to build a functional protein, a biological machine part. Orphan genes, and their associated proteins, have no recognizable ancestors. They have now been found in every species on Earth. They typically make up 10-20% of a genome, and play a key role in making that species unique, such as creating toxins in jellyfish or preventing freezing in polar cod. Leaf-cutter ants have 9,361 unique proteins; next to human beings they create the largest and most complex societies.

You don’t need a PhD in mathematics or biology to realize that coding is information, and that you can’t get information by chance. Put together 100 English letters/spaces/punctuation selected at random, and ask what the odds are that you will get anything meaningful. Sure, there are billions times billions of possible coherent sequences, but the probability of getting a meaningful sequence by chance is less than one in a number with 100 zeros. You have a better chance of picking a marked marble out of a pile as big as the known universe.

The same reasoning applies to biology. DNA coding is processed by biological 3D printers that read the code three “letters” at a time, and use that information to select, snap together, and fold specified sequences of amino acids to build proteins, the machine parts of life. There are about 500 different types of amino acids, but all life uses an alphabet of the same 20 amino acids to build proteins. Functional proteins are astonishingly rare. If you randomly link together 150 of the amino acids of life, the odds that they will form a functional protein of any type are about 1 in a number with 74 zeros. You have a better chance of reaching into a pile of marbles as big as our galaxy and picking out that marked marble.

You might think that, over “billions and billions” of years, those odds could be overcome. But the math doesn’t work. The number of living organisms that have ever existed has about 40 digits. Even with that many tries your odds of picking that marked marble are about one in a number with 34 (74 minus 40) zeros, about the probability of reaching into a pile of marbles as big as the Sun and picking out the right one. Mutations at random can’t realistically “find” a new functional protein. And this greatly oversimplifies the problem; you need multiple proteins working together exactly right to create new technology.

If I had to give a single date for the death of Darwinian theory I would pick September 6, 2012. On that date newspapers around the world reported that most “and likely all” of human DNA serves a purpose. This was announced by the ENCODE project, a world-wide coalition of 440 top scientists. Three months later ENCODE reported human DNA contains more than one layer of information. Yes, we have 3.2 billion letters of coding with two layers of information. Despite attacks by Darwinists, the ENCODE scientists have stood their ground.

These findings contradict Darwin’s theory. There is no way that fully functional, or almost fully functional, DNA with two layers of information could have been created by chance. Darwinists try to argue that excess DNA makes an organism less likely to survive and reproduce, and so by the magical “power” of natural selection we end up with an efficient code. Sorry, but there is no evidence for that, and there are many organisms with dozens of times as much DNA as a human being. And even that fantasy can’t explain two layers of information.

Here’s a third new realization. Contrary to what you may have read, there is no mildly plausible non-theistic explanation for the origin of life. In 2006 Harvard launched an “Origins of Life Initiative,” but the consensus of their 2009 conference was “we just don’t know.” The problem is that, as we learn more about life and how it works, the complexity is too much to say it just arose by chance. We now know all life works off the same digital operating system. Digital technology has transformed our world – smartphones, computers, and more. Life began with digital technology. Today we have printers that build 3-dimensional objects. Life began with 3D printers. And here’s the clincher – life began with the exact correct digital code so that those 3D printers could build copies of themselves and all of the other machinery of life. This cannot be explained by chance, the resources of a trillion trillion universes would be laughingly inadequate.

The way it all works is highly optimized, such as in the chemical structure of DNA and in the selection of the particular 20 amino acids used to build proteins. This operating system was there at the beginning, it didn’t “evolve,” and there is no known way one operating system can transform into another. You can kick your windows PC all you want; it won’t turn into an iMac.

We have found information in orphan genes, human DNA, and the origin of life. We know, from all of science and all of human history, that only intelligence can create information. The new evidence points to – actually, demands the existence of – a transcendent intelligence, an intelligence that has created every species on Earth. Chance, you say? Get real.

Thanks for reading,
Doug Ell

Fine-Tuning

Science,

“Fine-tuning” is things set just right to get a special result. Imagine walking into a control room for the universe, a room with a hundred dials that each set a constant of physics – a dial to set the speed of light, a dial to set the ratio of the masses of the proton and election, a dial to set the strength of the electric charge, and so on. You see that every one of these dials is precisely set for life to exist. If you change any of the dials, in many cases by an unbelievably small fraction, life could not exist. In this sense, scientists have found the constants of physics to be “fine-tuned.” (Scientists have also found that the laws of physics themselves are designed for a universe that permits life.)

Fine-tuning in physics is a huge problem for atheists. To get around it, they invent a theory that there are lots of other universes, and then invent a theory that the physics of those universes can be different, and then say we just got lucky. It’s all pure fantasy with no scientific basis. For more on this see Chapter 8 of my first book, Counting To God.

Today I want to focus on a different kind of fine-tuning, fine-tuning in biology. I want to highlight a September 2020 paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. (Yes, I’ve been lax in my posting, but this is an important article I’ve been meaning to tell you about for some time.) The Journal of Theoretical Biology is a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal. The article is here if you wish to read it. Spoiler alert – lengthy and technical.

The article asks “Is it possible to recognize fine-tuning in molecular biology?” The authors begin with a summary of fine-tuning in physics. They state: “The chances that our universe should be life permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable.” They continue:

Like a Bach fugue, the Universe has a beautiful elegance about it, governed by laws whose mathematical precision is meted out to the metronome of time. These equations of physics are finely balanced, with the constants of nature that underpin the equations tuned to values that allow our remarkable Universe to exist in a form where we, humanity, can study it. A slight change to these constants, and poof, in a puff of gedanken experimentation, we have a cosmos where atoms cease to be, or where planets are unable to form.

The paper then turns to evidence of fine-tuning in biological systems. The authors note that functional proteins (i.e., a string of amino acids that fold into a useful part of life) are fantastically rare – the odds that a sequence of 150 or so amino acids will fold into a useful protein are between 1 in 1050 and 1 in 1074. (For more on this see pages 106 and 107 of Counting To God.) They then turn to the odds of accidentally putting these proteins together to create the structures that make life possible. As I have noted, the complexity of life is literally beyond our imagination. No one knows how the human brain really works.

The authors conclude:

A major conclusion of our work is that fine-tuning is a clear feature of biological systems. Indeed, fine-tuning is even more extreme in biological systems than in inorganic systems.

That is staggering – “even more extreme.” Biological systems are more unlikely to have arisen by blind chance than our universe being fit for life by blind chance (again, even assuming you accept the unscientific belief that there are other universes and that the physics in those other universes can be different).

This is a major paper in a prestigious journal. The conclusion is clear: life was designed. God is real. Despite all the nonsense one reads, and hears, about science being contrary to God, the truth is exactly the opposite – science points unmistakably to design in both the laws and constants of physics and in life itself.

Please share this good news this holiday season. There is cause for great joy.

Thanks for reading. May the Lord bless you and hold you in the palm of his hand.

Douglas Ell

130,000 New Reasons for God

Science, , ,

To me, the 1953 discovery that DNA contains information, the discovery that all life is built from a four “letter” code, was conclusive proof, right then and there, of the existence of God. The “letters” of this code are incredible molecules. All life contains 3-D printers that read the information in DNA, how these molecules are ordered, to build proteins, the machine parts of life. All life uses the information in DNA to know how to assemble the proteins into working systems, and to know how and when to turn the systems on and off. There is no atheist explanation for how any of this, the code or any of the machinery, could have arisen by chance. There is only nonsense about life forming in some dirty pond many years ago (or raining down from outer space (I know this is ridiculous but I am not making this up)) and then somehow getting “better,” a fantasy that gets sillier each year as we reveal the sophistication of even the simplest forms of life, and as computer simulations continue to show Darwin’s mechanism doesn’t work.

But that didn’t happen in 1953. Hard core atheists like Francis Crick, one of the discoverers that DNA is code, immediately suggested the complex and beautifully designed double helix of DNA (the strong phosphate bonds of the outer helix protect the weaker bonds of the inner code, which allows the molecule to be “unzipped” for copying and to read the information inside) arose without a designer. Darwinists fantasized that, by keeping the “best” mistakes, the “best” mutations, accidental errors in coding, DNA eventually “evolved” into the 3.2 billion letter code that builds a human being, with our trillions of fantastically complex cells and the still unexplored wonder of the human brain. This also is nonsense. My new book, Proofs of God, explains, in simple language and pictures, using concepts a high school student can understand, that “evolution” can create nothing, that accidental errors in coding lose information, they don’t create it, that the arrow of evolution is down, not up.

This Darwinian delusion of complexity from chaos lead to the prediction of “junk” DNA. Darwinists predicted, since they falsely believed our DNA was formed through a random process of keeping the best mutations, that most of it is useless “junk.” To me, this prediction took a fatal hit in 2012 when the initial results from the ENCODE project were published in 30 major papers worldwide. ENCODE is an international consortium of over 400 scientists studying human DNA. They found at least 75% of the code is functional, and there are at least two layers of complexity. “It’s likely [this percentage] will go to 100%,” stated one of the lead researchers. “We really don’t have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”

But our society is hostile to God, and Darwinian delusions die hard. Even today many cling to the irrational belief that our DNA was not designed. That is why I was wondrously struck by recent articles in Nature magazine. Nature is considered the world’s most prestigious scientific journal. One article states that over 130,000 “genomic elements, previously called junk DNA,” have now been discovered. Another article notes that some of these “genomic elements” cause severe limb abnormalities if deleted.

So there you have it. 130,000 new reasons for God. 130,000 newly discovered sections of code that must exist to build a human being. Each section is complex, and the odds against it “evolving” by chance are astronomical, like picking one special marble out of a pile of marbles as big as the known universe. My new book explains the math. Human beings were designed; God is real. It’s an undeniable conclusion confirmed by new findings published in the world’s most prestigious scientific journal. Click here for more details if you are interested.

Thanks for reading. Please share the good news of modern science. Together we can defeat the atheist paradigm of a meaningless world.

Peace be with you,

Doug Ell

Can One “Prove” God?

Science,

In my last blog I noted an endorsement of my new book, Proofs of God, from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the world’s leading proponent of intelligent design. The author of that review, David Klinghoffer, loved the book but doubted one can “prove” God. Let’s look at that today. I’ve seen other comments insisting God cannot be proved. These comments reflect confusion about the nature of proof, and a misunderstanding of what I am saying. I claim modern science “proves” the existence of God. So what do I mean by that, and what is the debate about?

To prove anything you have to start with certain fundamental truths, certain unprovable assumptions. They are sometimes called axioms, sometimes postulates. You start by assuming some things are true, then use that foundation to prove other things are true. What you can prove rests on, depends on, your starting truths.

As the third chapter of my book makes clear, my logical proof of God starts with three assumed truths. The first is that there is an objective reality. Things are real; we are not beings in some sort of computer simulation. My second assumed truth is that our senses generally provide accurate information about that reality, about our world. We can trust clear signals 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 all living creatures contain coded groups of atoms we call DNA, we say that “proves” the existence of DNA.

These two assumed truths are the foundation of the scientific method. If you deny them, you deny all of science – all that the human race has ever figured out by observation, experiment, and reason. My first two assumed truths are so fundamental that one rarely talks about them. If you agree scientists have “proved” that DNA is real, you are agreeing with my first two assumed truths.

My third assumed truth is that if there is only one explanation for something, then that explanation is true. If, in all of science and in all of history, there is only one explanation for something, then I assume that explanation is true. In my book I give the example of a person who puts money in a securely locked safe, and comes back the next day and finds the money is gone. She would know someone had stolen the money. She would not say that an invisible money-eating monster got hungry, because there is no historical evidence of invisible money-eating monsters, and there is no scientific reason to think they exist.

With these three assumed truths, it is straightforward to prove human beings were designed. Science has found fantastic technology in all life, and especially in human beings. Plants have sensors that detect variations in both light and temperature. Some fish, turtles, and even butterflies 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 – much more advanced than anything humans have created. We are only beginning to understand how DNA works, with overlapping layers of information.

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

Therefore, using my third assumed truth, the technology of life was designed. I call that designer God. This does not prove that the God of the Bible exists, but it does prove that there is a greater intelligence that designed life. This gets one to “first base,” so to speak. You have to accept that humans are created beings.

Darwin’s theory is zombie science. As I show in my book, it is a dead delusion, it has been disproven in multiple ways. Almost all top scientists know this, and all the computer simulations show that mutations reduce information, they don’t create it. You can’t get advanced technology by keeping the best mistakes.

So there you have it. God is real, and we know that as sure as we know anything in this world. Our society is confused and hostile to God. But science tells us God is real.

Thanks for reading.

Doug Ell

New Marvels from ENCODE

Science, , ,

ENCODE stands for Encyclopedia of DNA Elements. It is hundreds of scientists worldwide working to understand the human genome, working to understand how our 3.2 billion letters of DNA code build and operate a human being. Perhaps more than any other set of scientific discoveries, the ENCODE findings lead to the undeniable conclusion that human beings were designed, and God is real.

I noted initial findings of ENCODE in my book (Counting To God, pp. 128, 155-157, 201). Darwin’s theory is that all living creatures “evolved” through a process of mutation and selection, a process of keeping the best mistakes in our DNA. Because of Darwin’s theory that we were created from a series of random mutations, prior to ENCODE many scientists believed the vast majority of human DNA, as much as 98%, was useless “junk.” ENCODE shattered this delusion. In September 2012 the front page of the New York Times announced “The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as ‘junk’ but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs, and other tissues behave.” The lead paper in Nature noted that scientists were able to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the human genome.

These initial ENCODE findings provoked angry responses from Darwinists. One admitted “if ENCODE is right, then Darwin is wrong.” In December 2012 ENCODE drove a second stake through Darwinian theory, when it reported that human DNA contains at least two layers of information.

The new findings are even more amazing. ENCODE now reports “staggering complexity” in human DNA, “much more complex” than they imagined, so much so that “it’s very hard to get over the density of information.” This short video explains the new findings:


Staggering complexity and dense information can only come from a mind. As my book shows, it is mathematically ridiculous to believe that one can get complex code from random mistakes. That mutations destroy information, not create information, is common knowledge yet commonly ignored.

The arrow of modern science points directly to God. When we were less informed, when we didn’t fully understand the laws of chemistry and physics, when we were ignorant of the wonders of DNA and the complexity of life, we developed superstitions to deny God, superstitions like Darwinism and the multiverse. But as our knowledge advances, as the technology of life and design of the universe come ever sharper into focus, ever more clear and stunning with each passing year, the old superstitions must go. As the light of science grows brighter, we see God more clearly.

Thanks for reading. I hope you will share the good news of modern science. Together we can defeat the atheist paradigm of a meaningless world.

Doug Ell

Hell’s Creek

Science, , ,

Hell’s Creek lies in Montana, and lends its name to a geological structure called the Hell Creek Formation, which we’ll abbreviate here as the HCF. The HCF spans eastern Montana and vast areas of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. It averages around 575 feet in depth, and is made up of sedimentary rock, rock laid down by water.

The HCF contains rich beds of dinosaur fossils. On August 12, 1990, Sue Hendrickson, an amateur paleontologist, discovered the most complete (approximately 90%) and largest Tyrannosaurus skeleton, known today as “Sue,” later purchased by the Field Museum of Chicago for $8.3 million. It is thought Sue reached full size at age 19 and died at 28, the longest estimated life of any Tyrannosaurus known. It appears the skeleton was immediately covered by mud, which preserved it well, and that the watery death was violent, because the hip bones were found above the skull and the ribs were mixed with the legs. Sue is 40 feet long and stands 13 feet high at the hips. The skull is 54 inches long and weighs 600 pounds; it is so heavy that it is kept separately and a replica is used in the main display.

In 2000 alone five T. rex skeletons were recovered from the HCF, including one called “B-Rex.” B-Rex contains soft tissues which indicate the specimen was female. The soft tissues preserve transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels.

Sue and B-Rex are astonishing fossil finds. But, to me, what is most astonishing is that the HCF also contains, interspersed among these T. rex and similar specimens, fossils of six different species of sharks. The sixth shark species was announced in January 2019. Think about it – how could the fossil record, now preserved in rock, contain a mixture of huge land animals and sharks? What event produced that combination?

I submit the answer is undeniable. Only a global, catastrophic flood, the flood of Noah, could have this result. Only a massive tsunami could tear sharks out of the ocean and bury them together with retreating herds of land animals. Perhaps for that reason, secular scientists rarely discuss or admit the shark fossils in the HCF, and even many Biblical creationists are not aware. Two years ago I was told by a quite full-of-himself Harvard professor that there were absolutely no fossil beds that contained large dinosaurs and sharks. Yet the fossil record across all continents contains dinosaurs mixed with marine fossils. A 48-foot long Spinosaurus, “spine lizard,” one of those dinosaurs that looks like somebody glued half a fan to its back, was found in Morocco with car-size fossils of coelacanths, fish that still live in the deep ocean.

And let’s not overlook the soft tissue. The existence of dinosaur soft tissue is denied by some scientists, but there are now well over 100 finds reported world-wide. Last I read secular scientists have proposed five different theories for how very fragile tissue could survive for 60+ million years, all of which have been rejected by careful published scientific studies. Simply put, there is no scientific reason to think that biological soft tissue could survive anywhere near that long.

The flood of Noah and burial of those dinosaurs and sharks was not millions of year ago but thousands of years ago. If you date it using the Septuagint, the oldest known version of the book of Genesis that exists today, the flood occurred about 5,300 years ago.

True science confirms the Bible. Thanks for reading, and I urge you to share the good news.

Doug Ell

Mendel’s Accountant

Science, , ,

Given the confusing and radically opposed arguments on evolution, wouldn’t it be nice if there were an analytic tool to settle the debate? Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a computer program that carefully modeled the effects of mutation and survival of the fittest for hundreds of generations?

That program has existed for 10 years, and is called “Mendel’s Accountant.” The program tracks all the mutations that occur among individuals in a modelled population using a process the authors call “genetic accounting.” Accumulating mutations get mixed into various combinations along each chromosome. Since children randomly inherit half of their father’s and half of their mother’s genome, some mutations are immediately lost. When it comes time to reproduce, some individuals fail to reproduce because they carry a greater load of harmful mutations. These individuals and their genomes are eliminated, similar to the way Charles Darwin imagined natural selection to work. The program is extremely flexible, and can model various rates of selection and fitness.

Mendel’s Accountant is the most accurate software available for realistically simulating evolutionary genetic models. It was created by the Institute for Creation Research. Crude forerunners of this software were created earlier by evolutionists, but, since the software did not support their theory, they abandoned it.

Mendel’s Accountant shows that mutations accumulate in a highly linear manner. In other words, almost all mutations do not have a noticeable effect on fitness, they “sit below” the selection threshold. This results in a continuous increase in the number of mutations in each succeeding generation. It means that all genomes decay over time. Natural selection can only remove the worst mutations, and the majority of mutations, the mutations that are only slightly deleterious, accumulate relentlessly and without limit. These “nearly neutral” deleterious mutations accumulate like rust on a car. Even though an individual spot of rust does not affect the fitness of a car, accumulating rust spots will eventually destroy it. There is no way, for the human race or any other species, to get rid of slightly deleterious mutations.

In other words, the arrow of evolution is down, not up. Evolution means “change over time,” and that certainly does occur. But average fitness declines with each generation. In “Genetic Entropy,” Cornell Professor John Sanford estimated that average human fitness declines by 1% each generation.

There is no peer-reviewed paper that even attempts to refute the methods or conclusions of Mendel. After a decade, this silence proves Darwin’s theory is wrong. It cannot explain the origin of complex genetic information. The arrow of evolution is down, not up.

Thanks for reading. Please share the good news of modern science with others. Together we can defeat the empty Atheist paradigm of a meaningless world.

Doug Ell

Big Lies

Science,

There are lies, damn lies, and Big Lies. By “Big Lies” I mean lies so evil they change the course of civilization. Big Lies must be carefully spun, as a famous person once explained:

[I]n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the imprudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

You need to start with a kernel of credibility, and then spin a lie so outlandish people will not believe it could be false. If you do this right, they will continue to believe the lie even when facts are “brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.” I find this quote brilliant. The author is Adolf Hitler.

At the intersection of science and religion, I see three Big Lies. The greatest is you can get advanced technology by chance. This is the Darwinian delusion, the modern version of which is that, through random mistakes in DNA coding, through mutations, you repeatedly get new, fantastically advanced technology, like eyes, navigation by the earth’s magnetic field, even the human brain. The kernel of credibility here is that yes it is theoretically possible to randomly generate a piece of new working code, just as it is theoretically possible for the same person to win every mega lottery year after year. Even though simple math shows this ridiculously unlikely, even though it seems obvious that when you insert random typos in a book it is not likely to transform into a better book, even though all the computer simulations show this process does not generate new technology, even though the transitional forms predicted by this model do not appear in the fossil record, even though every scientist today is aware that the Darwinian mechanism cannot generate new technology, still the Big Lie persists. It has been proclaimed so loudly for so long that though facts have “been brought clearly to their minds,” people still “doubt and waiver” and continue to think Darwinism must be true.

The second Big Lie is like the first – science and religion are in conflict. This builds on the first lie. It argues that, since Darwin has replaced God in the design of living creatures, there is no need of God in other areas of science. There is an invented nonsense theory that a universe can be created from nothing without God. There is an invented nonsense theory that the laws and constants of physics can be perfectly designed without God. There is an arrogant refusal to admit life could not have started without God. My book – Counting To God – exposes these and other lies that science is contrary to religion. I believe my book is a scientific proof of the existence of God, in the sense that, if we can know anything from science, then science tells us God exists.

The third Big Lie follows from the first two. It is that those who believe in God must do so on blind faith, without facts. The first Big Lie claims God didn’t create living creatures, the second Big Lie extends the first to claim that you don’t need God for any of the wonders of creation, and the third Big Lie asserts God is unnecessary, a concept invented by ignorant people.

Hitler’s Big Lies – such as racial superiority and the legitimacy of German aggression – led to the deaths of perhaps 20 million people, including at least 6 million Jews. Hitler’s Big Lies spawned a worldwide conflagration. Yet I believe the three Big Lies at the intersection of science and religion are worse. They have corrupted for over a century, and have lured billions into hopeless lives. Depression, suicide, and drug/alcohol abuse are at all-time highs, especially among the young.

For a Big Lie to corrupt, people have to want to believe it’s true. Hitler’s lies were embraced by a population who wanted to avenge the first World War, who wanted to believe in racial superiority. Today many people don’t want there to be a God. They don’t want moral rules, limits on what they should do or say, and they certainly don’t want to get out of bed and go to worship. Many people will tell you that, even if the existence of God were an absolutely proven scientific fact (which to me it is), they would still “continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

Friends don’t let friends be Atheists. Let us fight the Big Lies together, and defeat the Atheist paradigm of a hopeless world. Tell people science reveals God. Share the truth.

Thanks for reading.

Doug Ell

How Do You Get An Ice Age?

Science, , ,

Here’s a fact that may surprise you: secular scientists have no good explanation for the ice age. They have theories, but none work. “It’s a killer,” says one scientist. “It’s maddening,” adds another.

The most common theory, the one you’ll probably find if you look it up, is the astronomical (or Milankovitch) theory. It is that a very slow and very slight change in the Earth’s orbit dramatically changed the climate on Earth. In the 1970s scientists measured chemical variations in layers of deep arctic ice, assigned dates to those layers, and claimed the dates matched astronomical cycles. Under this theory there were about 50 ice ages in the last 2.5 million years, with the most recent peaking around 20,000 years ago.

Jake Herbert, a scientist with the Institute for Creation Research, has written several articles in Acts and Facts that destroy this theory. (I lean on his articles heavily in this post, and if you haven’t yet subscribed to that wonderful (and free!) magazine, I encourage you to do so at icr.org.) Herbert notes that the dates scientists now ascribe to those chemical variations no longer match the astronomical cycles. In other words, the calendar foundation of the astronomical theory has been ripped out from under it.

Herbert notes a second problem – even if the cycles still matched, why did the climate change so severely? Noted astronomer Fred Hoyle mocked the astronomical theory:

If I were to assert that a glacial condition could be induced in a room liberally supplied during winter with charged night storage heaters simply by taking an ice cube into the room, the proposition would be no more unlikely than the Milankovitch theory.

The heavens operate like a precise clock. Computers today can model the distance of the Earth from the Sun going back thousands or (using secular deep-time assumptions) even millions of years. They find no significant deviation.

I think most scientists are willing to overlook the mismatch in the cycles, and the failure of computers to simulate an ice age, because they have no better hypothesis. But here’s a fact that kills all astronomical theories. None of them can explain ice miles thick.

The glaciers were two miles or higher in many places, including much of North America. The seas worldwide dropped almost 400 feet. No theory based solely on decreasing sunlight can explain this. If the Earth simply got colder, evaporation would slow, and snowfall would subside. You don’t get ice two miles high. So how do you get an ice age?

The answer is in the Bible. The Bible tells us there was a great Flood, the Flood of Noah, thousands of years ago (I like the estimate of 3300 BC for the Flood). Genesis 7:11 tells us “the fountains of the great deep burst forth.” I think this refers to both volcanoes and underground oceans. The whole Earth was flooded, and tsunamis wiped out all land life not in the Ark. Continents crashed into each other like freight trains, and the collisions built the mountains we see today. Particles from smoldering volcanoes blocked sunlight for perhaps three to five hundred years, and hot lava heated the oceans worldwide to a warm bath. You had reduced sunlight and warm water for hundreds of years. Think of a giant El Niño. Hundreds of years of reduced sunlight and warm oceans are the only explanation for ice two miles high.

The Flood was a real event. In my post Memories of the Flood, I describe the flood memories of cultures worldwide, from the jungles of Indonesia to Hawaii to the deep Amazon. How did ancient Hawaiians get the name of Noah right and know that he and his three sons built an ark? You think the Hebrews sent them a letter?

In his most recent article in the November issue of Acts and Facts, Herbert notes that the Biblical model solves another major mystery – the existence and then disappearance of millions of wooly mammoths in Siberia. He points out the strong evidence that large numbers of mammoths lived in Siberia during the Ice Age, and notes that winters in Siberia today are far too cold (Minus 40 Fahrenheit is common) for these animals. Herbert states that the only logical theory is that Siberia’s climate was more temperate during the Ice Age, which is what we would expect from warm oceans without Arctic ice. Herbert notes that the coastal lowlands of Siberia were never covered by ice, even though secular ice age models predict they would have been. Finally, Herbert points out that the Biblical model tells us why the mammoths went extinct. When the arctic ocean finally did freeze over, and the moderating influence of warm sea air was no more, the climate changed quickly. The Biblical model predicts that colder high-latitude temperatures, combined with a dryer climate at the end of the Ice Age, would have resulted in enormous dust storms, which buried the mammoths alive. Herbert notes that many mammoth carcasses are found in frozen hills of wind-blown silt.

How do you get an Ice Age? If you look to the word of God, to the Bible, you will find the answer.

Thanks for reading. Please spread the good news of modern science. Together we can change the world.

Doug Ell

The Laws of Physics

Science, ,

Atheists believe there is no evidence of supernatural creation. At a dinner a few years ago a Harvard professor told me “I do not believe the laws of physics can be violated.. He didn’t realize that his system of belief fails when closely examined.

We will skip over here how one can have laws without a lawmaker. Where do the laws of physics come from. We will also skip over the fantastic fine-tuning of the laws of physics. It is accepted fact that the universe is fine-tuned almost beyond comprehension, beyond picking one special marble out of a pile of marbles millions of light years high. The existence of natural laws and the fine-tuning of those laws are both powerful evidence of God (see Chapters 7 and 8 of Counting To God). But we will skip over these for now, because the laws of physics themselves reveal God.

Perhaps the most fundamental of those laws are the laws of Thermodynamics. The First Law of Thermodynamics is that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Einstein showed us how they are related (E=mc2). In a sense, matter is frozen energy, and a very small amount of matter melts into an enormous amount of energy (think atomic explosion). If the First Law of Thermodynamics cannot be violated, matter/energy have always existed, and the universe has existed forever.

This contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is that the universe is running out of useable energy. Everything eventually breaks down and decays. All systems go from order to disorder. The universe has not existed forever, because, if it had, everything today would be lifeless and static. There is no way around this problem. The “quantum egg” theory, that our universe popped out of a quantum field, fails because if the past were infinite the “egg” would have “cracked” an infinite time ago, and again today the universe would be lifeless.

How can we reconcile the First and Second Laws. There had to be an event outside the laws of physics. Genesis tells us God created the heavens and the earth. There is no better explanation, no better way to reconcile the First and Second Laws. The multiverse theory, that our universe popped out of another universe, cannot be tested (and is therefore unscientific by definition), and the infinite multiverse was disproved by the Borg-Guth-Vilenkin Singularity Theorem (the universe had to have a beginning).

If that weren’t enough evidence for God in the laws of physics, there is even a scientific experiment that violates the known laws of physics. It’s called “quantum entanglement,” where two particles, or even bundles of atoms, are “entangled” so that a change in one instantaneously affects the other. Instant effects over distances (it’s been tested up to 88 miles apart, see pages 188 and 189 of Counting To God)) violate General Relativity. General Relativity tells us that effects cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Quantum entanglement violates General Relativity, and proves there is something outside of space and time.

When I pointed out to the Harvard professor that quantum entanglement violated the laws of physics, he was taken back, and sheepishly suggested that we need a better definition of time. If that strikes you as a feeble cop-out, you’re not alone. At the same time he is claiming the laws of physics cannot be violated, he is admitting he doesn’t understand the laws of physics.

The laws of physics reveal the existence of God.

Thanks for reading. My health is starting to improve, and I hope to post more often.

Doug Ell