Skeptics try to disprove the Bible by claiming that Neanderthal fossils invalidate the biblical account of humans’ special creation.
The Neanderthal story began in 1856 when remains were found in a cave in the Neander Valley, 8.1 miles east of Düsseldorf, Germany. A few years later, Charles Darwin’s work was published, and skeptics argued that the Neanderthal fossils demonstrate the truth of Darwinism. Because skepticism was popular at the time, the biblical claim that humans are created in God’s image was widely mocked.
One of the most serious implications of Darwinism was related to race. Slavery was justified by claiming blacks were mere apes and whites were more evolved. Applying “survival of the fittest,” racial prejudice reached an all-time high. As science advanced, the human genome was sequenced in 2003, and Neanderthal DNA was sequenced in 2010. This research showed that the human genome contain about 2 percent Neanderthal DNA.
The Bible does not specify what the first humans looked like, but it’s almost certain they were not blond, blue-eyed, and white-skinned. If a scientist found a skeleton of Adam, what could they know about the color of his eyes or his hair? Humans have adapted over time and climate changes, which we call “evolution.” But humans are still humans, and despite having some Neanderthal DNA, we are still created in the spiritual image of God.
As medical science becomes more advanced, it offers women new reproductive technologies. Older women can now have children even after menopause. Using a sperm donor, a single woman can become a mother. A woman with no eggs in her uterus can have an embryo transfer along with progesterone injections.
In vitro fertilization, which was introduced in England in 1978, has resulted in the birth of over 12 million children worldwide. The first successful egg-donor birth was also reported around that time. Efforts are underway to improve a process called in vitro gametogenesis, which involves creating gametes from stem cells and deriving an egg from another type of cell. This technique could enable same-sex couples to have children with genes from both partners. Another possibility is to develop a synthetic womb where a baby could be grown outside a woman.
The number of women choosing to have children through technological methods is increasing rapidly. What started as a way to help women who couldn’t conceive has now become an option for women of any age or situation in life to have a child. If a woman has the resources and the desire, she can pursue parenthood. One of my feminist friends has even said that males might eventually be eliminated from the planet.
There are many unknowns in this debate that make it difficult for Christians to determine where to begin. The human genome is incredibly complex, and we cannot fully understand what is in the past of a sperm or egg donor. Who is responsible if it turns out the baby has a genetic disease or a physical or mental handicap? What psychological issues arise if a child has no father figure, or if the single mother becomes sick, passes away, or changes her mind about having the child? Will older women be able to raise children to adulthood?
Humans are essentially playing “God” with something we are not equipped to control. As an adoptive parent of three children and someone who has witnessed the collateral damage of abortion, I believe we must proceed with caution in developing reproductive technologies.
Did the universe originate with matter or with a Mind? If matter was the starting point for all things, then we are simply matter. In that case, how can we have a mind? Are our minds just collections of cells formed from molecules that consist of atoms, which are made up of subatomic particles? Could unguided matter create our minds? Do we merely imagine that we have minds?
It seems more reasonable that a Mind was the starting point for all things. In that case, the Mind initiated the matter that formed the entire cosmos, all living things, and us. That Mind gave us minds, because only a Mind can create a mind.
The human mind has two parts working together. The physical part is what we call the brain. Materialists try to tell us that the brain is all there is. The brain handles material processes, including sensory and motor functions. It also influences emotions and memory. The other part, the soul, is not made of material substance. The soul performs abstract reasoning, makes moral choices, and exhibits free will. It is what makes us different from all other animals.
This non-material part of our mind works in conjunction with the physical brain. The brain controls our physical movements but deciding what to do is primarily under the influence of the soul. Reasoning and decision-making are activities of the soul, but damage to the brain can severely affect our ability to reason and make moral choices.
The physical and spiritual aspects of our minds must work together to make us fully functioning humans. For that reason, a person who experiences brain damage from stroke, brain cancer, severe brain injury, Alzheimer’s, or other causes struggles with abstract reasoning and decision-making. Dementia also results in loss of memory, sensory awareness, and motor skills, and it affects our emotions. However, physical factors such as fatigue and illness can also impact those things.
It’s essential to understand that despite physical impairments, whether temporary or permanent, we remain the same person with the same soul. For those suffering from dementia, regardless of its cause, loved ones need to realize that the soul, the spiritual part of that person, is still present. Malfunction of the brain makes the person seem very different, but the person’s soul is still present. We are all made in the image of God, who is a spirit (John 4:24), not physical. We are spirits functioning within a physical body. In this life, a damaged brain can limit the functioning of a person’s soul. However, we can thank God that the soul is freed from the brain at the moment of death, and those who have accepted the salvation Jesus offers will spend a blissful eternity with Him.
The issue of gender transition for children is one of the great tragedies in today’s world. Not only is this a biblical issue with Genesis 2:15-24 making it clear that God’s design was a product of His wisdom and purpose, but it is a scientific issue with transgender children having a shortened life full of drugs and medical procedures. The story of Clementine Breen is an example.
A young lady named Clementine Breen is suing the medical establishment for inflicting irreversible damage upon her. She was just 12 years old when counselors and doctors told her she was really a boy. Clementine was sexually abused as a child, leaving her terrified of growing into womanhood. This led to “weird behavioral issues.”
Instead of receiving help with the damage of her past, Clementine was rushed into “transition” drugs and the removal of her healthy breasts. Medical providers scared Clementine’s parents into believing she was “high risk” for suicide. They asked her parents a cliché question we have heard many times, “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?”
Doctors gave Clementine puberty blockers when she was 12 years old, testosterone at 13, and a double mastectomy at 14. During this time, her mental health worsened, and she struggled with bouts of psychosis and even attempted suicide. At age 17, Clementine was encouraged by her providers to have a hysterectomy, but she refused. In 2024, Clementine stopped taking testosterone and found a counselor who helped her understand how her past had led her to become a trans person. She is now a college student and says, “I am a woman.”
Some children have found a temporary peace with their gender change, but ultimately, the negative results of the drugs and surgeries become obvious. There is a massive need for the story of Clementine Breen to be known by families, counselors, and doctors, who must understand that gender change procedures are not a positive way to meet the needs of troubled children. Humans should not be playing God with children’s lives when the results are catastrophic.
Summer brings insect bites and chemical irritation from certain plants. Insect bites or touching poison ivy or another irritating plant activate a series of itching and scratching. Why do we scratch? Why does it feel good? And why does scratching sometimes make the problem worse?
When we scratch, we cause an increase in blood flow to the area, which temporarily eases the itching. Scratching causes a mild soreness that distracts us from the itch. It also activates the brain’s reward system—the same system involved in addiction. The brain releases the happiness hormone serotonin, which increases the desire to scratch even more. This can lead to skin damage and inflammation, turning a minor itch into a bigger problem.
Scientists are exploring the complex system of itching and scratching. Although itching is closely related to pain, researchers have discovered cells in the spinal cord that transmit itch signals separately from pain signals. Both pain and itching have beneficial and harmful effects.
The complexity of our bodies showsevidence of design, not accident. Itching and scratching are designed to cause us to react to external attacks on our bodies, removing the effect of irritants and producing new epidermal cells. This is another demonstration of the truth of Psalms 139:14: “I will praise you, God, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful…”
Bryan was right. Even after a century, his arguments remain unrefuted. A play that fictionalized the famous Scopes trial was first performed in 1955, and film versions were released in 1960 and 1999. Both films were well-produced with talented actors but showed a clear bias toward evolution and against William Jennings Bryan. The character representing atheist Clarence Darrow as the defense attorney was portrayed as an intelligent, kind, and caring man. Conversely, the William Jennings Bryan character was depicted as a fool, which he was not. Yesterday, we examined Bryan’s arguments against evolution based on the origin of life and genetics/morphology. Today, we look at chemistry and species.
In Bryan’s era, advocates of evolution suggested that the chemistry of life could naturally generate complex code. The complexity of living cells was not yet understood. Bryan wrote a closing argument that he was unable to present at the Scopes trial. This document, published after his death, included these words:
“Chemistry is an insurmountable obstacle in the path of evolution. It is one of the greatest of the sciences; it separates atoms, isolates them, and surrounds them, so to speak. If there were a progressive force or an eternal urge in nature, chemistry would discover it. But it is not there. All of the ninety-two original elements are separate and distinct; they combine in fixed and permanent proportions. Water is H2O, as it has been from the beginning. It was here before life appeared and has never changed; neither can it be shown that anything else has materially changed.”
Bryan was right to say that chemistry cannot explain the evolution of life. Today, no scientist can demonstrate that chemistry alone accounts for the origin of new features in living things or the complexity of life.
Bryan’s fourth argument was the lack of the emergence of new species. He pointed out that animals pass on their body plans and features to future generations. According to historian and author Rick Townsend, Bryan “suggested that no evidence had been presented to validate the claim of new species arising naturally.” As Bryan stated, “…many evolutionists adhere to Darwin’s conclusions while discarding his explanations.”
Both the biblical record and the record of paleontology show that the appearance of new, unique species stopped after humans came on the scene. Furthermore, the fossil record suggests that the number of species has decreased rather than increased since the first humans appeared on Earth. After creating humans, God rested from creation until this day.
We observe microevolution within species, but not macroevolutionary changes. The scientific community cannot demonstrate how microevolution can lead to macroevolution because changes within species hit a barrier that cannot be crossed. Random mutations and natural selection are unable to produce entirely new and unique creatures.
In a 2016 meeting of the prestigious Royal Academy of London, the conference leader and evolutionary biologist Gert Muller wrote, “The real issue is that genetic evolution alone has been found insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity…” That’s a fancy way of saying that 100 years after the Scopes trial, evidence for Darwin’s “evolutionary synthesis” is still lacking. In other words, Bryan was right.
Scopes Trial, William Jennings Bryan on the left and Clarence Darrow on the right
Yesterday, July 21, 2025, marked the 100th anniversary of the end of the famous Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Over the past few days, the media have commemorated it, and we have written about it HERE and HERE. The play “Inherit the Wind,” loosely based on the Scopes trial, was adapted into a movie twice, with the names changed to protect the innocent, or guilty. The real name was William Jennings Bryan, and although Bryan’s arguments against Darwin were not presented in the play or movies, they have still not been answered in the 100 years since Scopes.
William Jennings Bryan was a renowned orator of his day and a devout Christian who was not convinced of the truth of naturalistic macroevolution. One of his arguments against it involved the origin of life. Evolution does not explain creation. Evolution requires creation, and Darwin merely suggested that life got started in a “warm little pond” without explaining how that might have happened. Bryan said this:
“Those who reject the idea of creation are divided into two schools, some believing that the first germ of life came from another planet, and others holding that it was the result of spontaneous generation. Each school answers the arguments advanced by the other, and as they cannot agree with each other, I am not compelled to agree with either.”
After 100 years of research, scientists are no closer to solving the mystery of the origin of life than they were in Bryan’s day.
Another area that Bryan challenged was genetics (the passing of traits through generations) and morphology (the shape and structure of living things). Bryan expressed his doubts with a watermelon illustration:
“I was eating a piece of watermelon some months ago and was struck with its beauty…One [seed], put into the ground, when warmed by the sun and moistened by the rain, takes off its coat and goes to work; it gathers from somewhere two hundred thousand times its own weight, and forcing this raw material through a tiny stem, constructs a watermelon. It ornaments the outside with a covering of green; inside the green it puts a layer of white, and within the white a core of red, and all through the red it scatters seeds, each one capable of continuing the work of reproduction. Where does that little seed get its tremendous power? Where does it find its coloring matter? How does it collect its flavouring extract? How does it build a watermelon? Until you can explain a watermelon, do not be too sure that you can set limits to the power of the Almighty and say just what He would do or how He would do it. I cannot explain the watermelon, but I eat it and enjoy it.”
Today, we know that DNA carries the code for proteins and regulates cell functions, but science still does not understand the body plan of living things. What was once called “junk DNA” (non-coding) appears to be involved in morphology, but its mechanism of action remains unknown. Consider the similarities between the DNA of humans and fruit flies, and notice the vast differences in their body plans.
William Jennings Bryan’s arguments against Darwin have still not been answered by science. The origin of life and the secrets of genetics and morphology are still unexplained. Tomorrow, we will look at two more of Bryan’s arguments against Darwin.
Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan at Scopes trial in 1925
In July 1925, what is known as the “Scopes Monkey Trial” was held in Dayton, Tennessee. Now, 100 years later, the battle over evolution continues. USA TODAY ran a 12-page special edition on July 13, 2025, giving an excellent historical exposé and claiming that what was at stake was “modern science versus religion.” The article also addresses current issues, including the representation of LGBTQ+ books in schools today. The paper claims that the so-called “trial of the century” was America’s first major culture war battle.
In an era when American education is undergoing massive change, there are many questions: Do schools have the right to ban certain books? Who should write the curriculum? Can the Bible be displayed in public schools? Should school prayer be allowed? Are vouchers the answer for school choice? Should schools be involved in sex education? Should the 10 commandments be displayed? Should schools have chaplains? These issues are being battled in courts, school board meetings, PTA presentations, and churches.
Many churches have established their own schools, and private schools are increasingly replacing public schools in various locations. One side effect is that money and teachers are being pulled away from the public schools. How do you teach a lab course when you have no funds to purchase equipment for students to use?
The sad part of all of this is that most of the conflict is unnecessary. The “Does God Exist?” ministry is based on the simple fact that science and faith are friends, not enemies. Modern science may disagree with some denominational teachings, but it does not contradict the Bible. If you read the Bible carefully, you will see that it consistently deals with evidence. Science is knowledge, and if God is the source of knowledge, the two MUST BE SYMBIOTIC – mutually supportive of each other.
The Scopes “trial of the century” centered on the topic of evolution. It is foolish to think that change does not occur in living things. How many different breeds of dogs, cats, chickens, cattle, and corn exist today? How did they come into being? The answer is “evolution,” but this was guided evolution. This is not to be confused with naturalism, which holds that blind chance can explain all that we observe in the natural world. Evolution is simply unfolding change, and it is undeniable, as evidenced by adaptive changes within species.
We urge our readers to go to our websitedoesgodexist.org or watch our video series on doesgodexist.tv for more information. Enroll in our correspondence course or read our free books. None of this requires any money – it is all free. It is essential to understand why you believe what you believe and be able to support it with evidence. We are here to help as you wade through the “trial of the century” media presentations.
In recent years, many people have decried “toxic masculinity.” The term started trending on Google searches in 2015. Many social science authors have written about it, defining it in different ways. WebMd.com describes it as “an attitude or set of social guidelines stereotypically associated with manliness that often have a negative impact on men, women, and society.” The topic is not new, and even Charles Darwin addressed it. You might call it Darwinian toxic masculinity.
Are men pigs? In a bestselling book titled The Moral Animal, Robert Wright wrote, “Human males are by nature oppressive, possessive, flesh-obsessed pigs.” In Men and Marriage, George Gilder stated, “Men are, by nature, violent, sexually predatory, and irresponsible.” Where does this hostile view of men come from? We suggest Charles Darwin has something to do with it.
Darwin believed that males are superior to females. He argued that men can achieve a “higher eminence” than women in any field of effort. His conclusion was that “the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.” He believed this was true because of natural selection. Male animals must do many things to win their females and even more to keep them. Therefore, natural selection favors the dominant and combative male. He concluded that their struggles and challenges “increase their mental powers.” Since he saw humans as merely evolved animals, Darwinian toxic masculinity was a consequence of evolution and natural selection.
Darwin also claimed that dark-skinned people were less evolved than those with light skin, and women were less evolved than men because men had to “struggle in order to maintain themselves and their families.” With all the criticism of men’s behavior, perhaps we should call it Darwinian toxic masculinity. Contrasting Darwin’s mistaken ideas, Jesus Christ is the perfect example of true masculinity. He showed love and forgiveness as He made the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. Men today need to learn from Him.
In 1871, Charles Darwin proposed that the difference between human and nonhuman minds was a matter of degree, not kind. A 2008 publication by Cambridge University Press calls that “Darwin’s mistake.”
Animals with very different brains, and sometimes no brain at all, can perform the essential functions needed to live and survive. God has created various animal orders with what they need to fulfill their roles in the system of life. This explains the different sizes and capabilities of brains among animals. However, the mind is something more than just the brain.
According to the team of psychologists who authored the report, only humans possess a mind capable of “the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system.” In this peer-reviewed journal, they wrote, “We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain.” In other words, a vast gulf exists between the human mind and the brain power of any animal.
Darwin’s mistake, according to this Cambridge University article, was suggesting that all differences between humans and nonhumans are a matter of degree, not of kind. This theory is disproved by the fact that only humans can develop abstract thinking and writing because humans alone can invent and use symbols in communication.
When God created humans in His image, He gave us a mind capable of great achievements. Unfortunately, that ability can also be used for great evil. He gave us a spiritual nature with a desire to know Him. Yet, our pride can lead us to reject God and serve only ourselves. We humans are the only creatures who can choose to fulfill God’s purpose for us or to rebel against His will. Darwin’s mistake was to think the difference between humans and nonhumans was merely a matter of degree. It is truly a difference of kind.
