DGE?, Author at DOES GOD EXIST? TODAY

December 23, 2025December 21, 2025

Santa Claus Is Not God

Some parents tell their kids that Santa Claus is God to explain how he does the things he does. How does Santa come down the chimney? How does he know if you are bad or good? How does he make his rounds to every kid in one night? Why can’t I see him on Christmas Eve? These are just a few questions kids ask, leading parents to say that Santa is God. But Santa Claus is not God, and saying so can be harmful to faith.

Children notice that Santa sometimes doesn’t meet their desires, but God always provides for true needs. Kids also see that Santa varies from culture to culture. But God is no respecter of persons, regardless of gender, nationality, or circumstances (Galatians 3:28). Kids need to understand that Santa doesn’t create anything. The gifts they receive are made in workshops (factories) by elves (workers) and have brand names. God creates everything we see and are. Santa may bring toy animals, but God is the creator of all real animals.

Kids can learn that myths are a fun part of life. They eventually realize that Santa Claus is a fun myth, but they should be taught that God’s existence is factual and supported by scientific evidence. The Easter Bunny is a myth. Charlie Brown’s Great Pumpkin is a myth. What they see on TV, at Disney World, and in their video games are all myths. The Santa myth is enjoyable, but we must remember it is not real. It is vital that children know Santa Claus is not God.

Parents should not lie to their children, but sadly, lying has become common in America in advertising, politics, and relationships. Jesus never lied, and He used evidence to support His teachings. The miracles of Jesus were meant to prove who He was. He showed doubters like Thomas the evidence to support what they were asked to believe. Christianity is truth in a world that has very little of that commodity.

December 22, 2025December 19, 2025

The Shrimp and the Urchin

The oceans host many symbiotic relationships. In symbiosis, plants and animals live together in ways that benefit them and often others nearby. This is the story of the shrimp and the urchin.

Coleman shrimp (Perclimenes colemani) eat parasites they take from fish that come close to them in the western Pacific Ocean. These shrimp were not discovered until 1975, perhaps because they blend in very well with the sea urchins with which they have a symbiotic relationship. The picture shows the spotted body and striped legs of the Coleman shrimp surrounded by the striped tube feet of the fire sea urchin (Asthenosoma varium).

Coleman shrimp are known as cleaner shrimp because they remove parasites from fish. Most cleaner shrimp live in sea anemones, but Coleman shrimp prefer to live in fire sea urchins. The venom-tipped spines of the fire urchin do not harm the Coleman shrimp, and they protect them from potential predators. Meanwhile, fish infected with parasites approach the Coleman shrimp to have the parasites removed. The parasites are food for the shrimp, and the fish don’t eat the shrimp or the fire sea urchin because of its poisonous spines.

We see a balanced symbiotic relationship among various species of ocean creatures. The shrimp and the urchin, along with many fish that benefit, are just some examples of symbiosis—where different plant and animal species depend directly on each other. In many cases, a species could not survive without this mutual relationship. This is another sign of design in living creatures, and design points to a Designer.

December 19, 2025December 15, 2025

Happiness Comes from Giving, Not Possessing

One in every 10 households in the United States rents a self-storage unit. The big question is whether having that much stuff has made Americans happier than people in other cultures. Happiness comes from giving, not possessing.

Brenda and Mark Young, writing in the August 6, 2025, issue of Power for Today, describe their work in Honduras and how much happier the people there are compared to typical Americans. Those Hondurans didn’t have electricity, toilets, or running water in their homes, yet they amazed visitors with their joy. Their happiness came from the time they spent with family and friends, building strong, rich relationships. Their wealth comes from their relationships with people, not with things.

In Mark 12:41-44, Jesus is sitting opposite the temple treasury, watching as people make their donations to the temple. The wealthy are making a show of giving large amounts, but Jesus sees a poor widow who puts in two mites. That is not even enough to buy a sparrow, so two mites are insignificant as far as material goods are concerned. The poor widow gave wholeheartedly of all she had. God isn’t impressed by the amount a person gives. He looks for the heart behind it.

We overestimate the importance God places on our giving. If every Christian on the planet were to stop giving entirely, God’s work would still get done. Our giving is not for God’s benefit, but rather for ours. Our giving enriches our marriages, our kids, our friends, and our jobs when we have a heart to give. My parents were atheists, and to them, the material goods they acquired were the most important things in life. They were not happy people, and our family was in constant conflict because of their obsession with acquiring things.

Church work suffers when we decide what God wants us to build, then mount an all-out campaign to raise enough money to build it. What we need to do is look for the doors that God opens for us and do what God provides for us to do. Building enormous structures and hiring talented preachers to entertain us while people in the neighborhood are without food, medicine, and adequate shelter is not what Jesus taught us to do. Happiness comes from giving. Read Mark 12:41-44 again and pray about how your giving shows God where your heart is.

December 18, 2025December 15, 2025

Origin-of-Life Theories and Archaea

Scientists aim to answer several very difficult questions about origins. Two of these questions relate to the origins of life and complex life. Some scientists believe they are getting closer to discovering how complex life developed from simple life, and the media often sensationalizes any origin-of-life theories.

Living things are classified into three domains. We are very familiar with multicellular life, which includes plants, animals, and people. That is the domain of eukarya, or complex life. There are two domains of single-celled life—bacteria and archaea. Most people are more familiar with bacteria than archaea. Scientists did not recognize how distinct archaea are from bacteria until the 1970s, when DNA analysis began.

The cells of bacteria and archaea are relatively simple and small compared to eukaryotic cells, which have a nucleus, mitochondria to supply energy, and other internal structures. In the 1960s, one group of microbiologists described the gap between eukaryotes and the single-celled bacteria and archaea as “the greatest single evolutionary discontinuity to be found in the present-day world.” Evolutionists seeking origin-of-life theories had to find a way to bridge this very wide gap.

In 2008, researchers discovered a new type of archaea living in hydrothermal vents on the Atlantic Mid-Ocean Ridge. They said these archaea “seemed to be somehow closer to eukaryotes than what we knew before.” In 2015, a paper published in the journal Nature described them as “the closest known living relatives of eukaryotes,” creating a scientific sensation. Their genomes were said to contain genes that are “hallmarks of eukaryotes.”

Scientists theorized that the Asgard archaea, as they came to be called, absorbed bacteria that became mitochondria, but there was still no evidence of a nucleus. Research and debate on this are expected to continue for years, but it has sparked new speculation about extraterrestrial life. Some have suggested that unicellular life on other planets could evolve into eukaryotic, advanced life. But that assumes there is unicellular life on other planets.

Scientists proposing origin-of-life theories still have no idea how non-living matter could turn into living, reproducing cells. Be cautious when you see media stories about scientists being close to discovering the origin of life or the origin of complex life. Even simple cells are far too complex to have arisen by chance without a Designer.

Reference: sciencenews.org

December 17, 2025December 15, 2025

Beautiful Colors in Butterfly Wings

We previously discussed the dynamics of butterfly flight and how human engineers marvel at their design. (See Here and Here.) One of our readers sent us a scientific discussion about the beautiful colors in butterfly wings. These colors have nothing to do with camouflage. We often see butterflies because their colors stand out so vividly against the leaves and flowers where they rest.

The iridescent colors in butterfly wings are produced by scales that are part of the wings. Each square centimeter of wing has tens of thousands of these scales attached with tiny stems that overlap each other. These scales were living cells until a day or two before the butterfly emerged from its pupa. Each tiny scale consists of a vertical and horizontal frame, within which various pigment sacs hang.

Butterfly wings that shimmer with iridescent blues and greens have scales with tiny lattices and ribbed walls designed to create interference patterns in the high-energy part of the visible spectrum (300-700 nanometers). Our eyes are designed to see those wavelengths, but some of the butterfly’s potential predators cannot. That part of the spectrum is invisible to them.

The physics of the light spectrum and the design of our eyes seem specifically built to enable us to see the beautiful colors in butterfly wings that we often take for granted. The more we learn about physics and design, the more we see evidence that the Creator has made beautiful things just for us to enjoy.

December 16, 2025December 15, 2025

Tiny and Incredible Shrews

You may not have seen them, but thousands of shrews scurry across the ground, helping keep your garden free of destructive insects, snails, and slugs. Tiny and incredible, shrews are North America’s smallest mammals. They are smaller than a human thumb and have hearts that beat 1,200 times per minute.

There are 39 shrew species in North America, and many more worldwide. There is even one that can walk on water thanks to stiff hairs on its feet. That species feeds underwater using bubble sniffing—a technique of blowing small air bubbles through their noses to detect odor particles in the water.

Shrews are not rodents but insectivores, similar to hedgehogs. Their coat helps them camouflage amid leaf litter and debris. They have scent glands on their sides that emit a foul odor to deter predators such as cats, raccoons, and foxes. Like bats, they can use echolocation to find food.

A shrew’s metabolism is so high that it must eat roughly once an hour, and it only sleeps for a few minutes at a time. Though they don’t hibernate, they make tunnels beneath snow or ice layers. One remarkable trait of the tiny and incredible shrews is that they can actually shrink their head size, including their brains, by 20% during cold weather. Since food becomes scarcer in winter, shrinking their heads and brains helps them require less food. Their head size returns with warm weather.

Shrews are among God’s most useful creations because they help control snails, slugs, insects, and ticks, protecting plants and people. Only in recent years has technology enabled us to study the tiny and incredible shrews.

Reference : Linda Weiford in The Spokesman–Review, December 1-8, 2025.

December 15, 2025December 14, 2025

Expressing Biblical Beliefs

In the past, we have written about Christians who have been penalized by government institutions because of their faith. (For example, see Here and Here.) Now, we see that a University of Oklahoma student received a failing grade for expressing biblical beliefs. Samantha Fulnecky, a junior pre-med student, was assigned to read and give her opinion on an article dealing with “gender binary and mental health issues and gender stereotypes in early adolescence.” Her task was to give a thoughtful discussion of the article.

The grading standard for the assignment included three criteria totaling 25 points. Up to 10 points could be awarded for “does the paper show a clear tie-in to the assigned article?” The other 10 points depended on whether the paper presented a thoughtful reaction or response to the article rather than a summary. Finally, five points could be given for the clarity of the writing. The graduate teaching assistant who graded Fulnecky’s paper gave her a 0 out of 25.

The assignment required students to share their own subjective opinion on the article, which Ms. Fulnecky did, expressing biblical beliefs. She wrote that “God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose.” She also stated that “gender roles and tendencies should not be considered stereotypes.” She declared that “pushing the lie that everyone has their own truth and everyone can do whatever they want and be whoever they want is not biblical whatsoever.”

Her words did not sit well with Mel Curth, the graduate student who graded the paper and who uses she/they pronouns. She/they gave Fulnecky 0 out of 25 possible points and said that she was not showing empathy and was not providing evidence for her statements. Curth also said that the concept of only two sexes is not supported by science.

Samantha Fulnecky said that she thought nothing would have been done “if it had not blown up on social media the way it did.” Due to the attention, the university placed Curth on administrative leave and is supposedly reviewing the situation. To the university’s credit, they appointed a full-time professor as the course instructor for the rest of the semester.

Fulnecky encourages other students to stand up for what they believe. She said, “I would rather have my integrity and give my true opinion and get a zero on an assignment than to have to lie about what I really believe.” This is another example of the challenge to free speech and freedom of religion that are guaranteed in the United States Constitution. More than that, it is a challenge to Christians to not be afraid of expressing biblical beliefs even when it’s not popular or easy.

Reference: foxnews.com

December 12, 2025December 10, 2025

Christ’s Ability to See the Potential in Everyone

One of Jesus Christ’s unique qualities was His ability to see the potential in everyone. Jesus never dismissed anyone that others might have given up on. A clear example is John, the disciple known for his teachings about love.

When Jesus called men to be His disciples, He nicknamed James and John “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17). These young brothers were quick to anger and often expressed it by making threats or speaking loudly. In Luke 9:54, we read that James and John wanted to call down fire from heaven on a village that rejected Jesus, but Jesus had the ability to see the potential in everyone in that village.

The Bible is full of examples like John. Peter’s name was changed from Simon, son of John, to Cephas, meaning a small rock, and translated as “Peter” (John 1:42). Jesus saw Peter transformed from a weak, wavering, insensitive fisherman into a strong leader. Matthew was changed from an introverted, disliked tax collector to a man who would leave everything behind to become a disciple eager to introduce Christ to others (Luke 5:27-32).

In our prison ministry, we see potential in everyone, as lives are changed and attitudes altered by the power of Jesus’s teachings. Attitude is our way of thinking, and the repentance that the Bible often mentions involves changing how we think.

Jesus viewed people by their potential because that was His purpose on Earth. In Matthew 9:13, Jesus states, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Unlike other religious figures who only accept people without personal baggage, Christ’s ability to see the potential in everyone made Him different. Because of that ability, He knew that even the worst could become the best.

Those of us, like your author, who have been the worst, understand the transforming power of Jesus Christ. From our own experience, we know that even the worst can change. (You can read about my change in “Why I Left Atheism” on doesgodexist.org.)

December 11, 2025December 10, 2025

If Christianity Became Illegal

Skeptics argue that Christianity is merely a large money-making scam that should be illegal. They particularly complain about religious tax exemptions and the activities churches claim as religious work, such as operating retirement centers and camps. However, these criticisms overlook what would actually happen if Christianity became illegal.

The Giving Institute reports that Americans donated $392 billion to U.S. charities in 2024. Churches support many hospitals, women’s shelters, nursing homes, food pantries, counseling centers, adoption agencies, youth camps, and more. The range of beneficial programs run by churches is extensive. While it’s true that a few individuals have committed exploitative acts in the name of religion, they represent a small minority.

Think about the consequences if Christianity became illegal. Many hospitals and nursing homes would shut down, and the government would have to take over the vital services that churches currently provide. With every change in political leadership, programs initiated by the previous party could be eliminated.

Our culture largely depends on Christian principles. How many atheist charities are you familiar with? How many hospitals have been established and maintained by the skeptics who criticize Christianity? Why would someone with no religious beliefs donate a large portion of their income to help the less fortunate? If your sole moral philosophy is “survival of the fittest,” why would you give money to those whom you consider to be less fit?

If Christianity became illegal, it would not eliminate hypocrisy. While some hypocrites are in churches, the greatest hypocrisy is found in those who want to make Christianity illegal.

Reference: Thrivent Magazine, winter 2025, page 4, and thrivent.com

December 10, 2025December 9, 2025

Pseudoscience, True Science, and Faith

This website is dedicated to promoting science and faith as allies. Many people in religious communities believe that science opposes faith because of their denominational teachings that conflict with scientific evidence. The faith of many young people and members of the academic community has been weakened or broken by the ongoing clash between science and faith. Often, pseudoscience is the root cause of this conflict. Here are five reasons for the tension:

1) Some of the conflict’s promoters are religious leaders with no scientific background or understanding.

2) Many of the individuals claiming to be scientists hold PhDs in fields unrelated to the issues they discuss.

3) Some scientists harbor resentment against religion and refuse to support supporting evidence.

4) Many individuals on both sides are outdated and unaware of new discoveries and insights.

5) The viewpoints of both scientists and religious leaders are not reliable sources of information.

Webster’s Dictionary defines “pseudoscience” as “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.” Those promoting the conflict between science and faith are promoting pseudoscience. We urge parents, teachers, religious leaders, and young people to verify everything they read, hear, or see to ensure its accuracy.

This ministry strives diligently to avoid presenting anything that could be mistaken for pseudoscience. When we make an error, we issue a retraction. Our sources are academic journals that rely on the scientific method. In 1 Timothy 6:20, the Apostle Paul advised the young preacher Timothy to “turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called science.” That advice remains especially relevant today.