Plants Archives

July 27, 2026July 26, 2026

Marine Fungi – God’s Solution for Ocean Pollution?

Marine Fungi – God’s Solution for Pollution

One of the great challenges facing humanity today is the amount of plastic pollution in our oceans. Polyurethane plastic is among the most prevalent and harmful pollutants in our oceans today. Researchers have found marine fungi that decompose plastic and turn it into food. Up to 60% of the fungi researchers have found in the ocean have some ability to eat plastic.

Research continues to see whether marine fungi can break down other forms of plastic, such as polyethylene and polyethylene terephthalate. Since less than 1% of ocean fungi are documented, our knowledge is very limited. Dr. Anthony Amend at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa says, “Fungi possess a superpower for eating things that other organisms can’t digest.”

The basic point of this ministry is that science and faith are 100% supportive of one another. There is no conflict between science and faith, and every scientific discovery supports that. We continually see support for the statement in Romans 1:20, which says that “we can know there is a God through the things He has made.” From the galaxies of outer space to the simple cells of marine fungi, we see this truth demonstrated.

Climate change and environmental issues are problems that can be solved by scientists and Christians working together. We need to encourage Christian young people with an aptitude for science to get involved in learning more about God’s creation. That is one of the goals of this ministry.

Reference: Discover Magazine for Summer 2026, page 20.

July 16, 2026July 14, 2026

The La Brea Tar Pits Tell Us About Life

One of the world’s most important fossil sites is the La Brea Tar Pits, located just off Wilshire Boulevard in the heart of Los Angeles, California. La Brea is Spanish for “the tar” and refers to oil that pushes up through narrow cracks in the rocks from as deep as 1000 feet underground. As the lighter-weight oil, gas, and other volatiles evaporate, what is left is asphalt, usually covered with water, creating a death trap. When an animal came to drink, it would sink into the asphalt and be unable to escape. The La Brea Tar Pits tell us about life in North America 13,000-plus years ago.

In many cases, as an animal struggled to free itself from the tar, it would be attacked by a predator. The predator would also get stuck, and both the predator and the victim would sink into the tar and die. Then, a bird that ate dead animals, like today’s vultures, would land on the carcass and also get caught.

Most of the fossil remains of the animals found in the La Brea Tar Pits are not animals that exist today. They include saber-toothed cats, dire wolves, giant ground sloths, giant short-faced bears, dwarf pronghorns, American lions, various insects, and even extinct plants. The La Brea Tar Pits tell us about life in the past, not the animals and plants that are abundant on Earth or indigenous to California today.

No dinosaur remains have ever been found at La Brea because they were already extinct. No sea creatures or plants from the age of the dinosaurs have been found. The La Brea Tar Pits provide no evidence to support a 10,000-year limit to Earth’s age nor any evidence that they resulted from the flood of Noah.

Denominational creationism based on religious dogma is not supported by the Bible or physical evidence. The dispensationalist teaching is destructive to the faith of young people who have visited places like La Brea. The Genesis account is undated and is not designed to give a detailed history of life on our planet. The very first verse of Genesis tells us that God created the Earth – not when or how. The La Brea Tar Pits tell us about life in North America during a limited time in Earth’s history. We must speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent. The Bible is God’s word, and adding to it only dilutes its value and does not help us understand the past.

Reference: Smithsonian magazine April/May 2026, pages 79-87.

July 7, 2026June 30, 2026

Plant Seeds Hear the Sound of Rain

We often think of the trees in our yard as solid collections of molecules that grow and die robotically, and that is all. As scientists investigate plants more deeply and apply new technologies, they are learning that plants seem to “think,” “see,” “hear,” and even make sounds. A new study shows that plant seeds hear the sound of rain.

Plants have cellular structures called statoliths that enable them to sense changes in their environment. These structures are starch-filled envelopes that shift and settle to the bottom of plant cells. They help the plant determine which direction to grow and help germinating seeds know when to grow and which direction to send their roots.

The sound of rain jostles the statoliths in plant seeds, causing them to germinate 30 to 40% faster than seeds in the same environment without the sound of rain. The researchers exposed 8,000 rice seeds to rain sounds and compared them to seeds in the same environment without the sound. The result was that plant seeds hear the sound of rain.

The more scientists study the world around us, the more they find processes that cannot be the result of blind chance. The Bible doesn’t go into detail about the methods God used to set the world around us to work. The reason is obvious when you consider that the Bible was written for ancient humans who could not understand the processes God used, and they didn’t need to.

Everywhere we look in the world, we see a wonder-working hand has gone before. This is not only true of the natural world but also of the instructions God has given in His word about how we should live.

Reference: Scientific American, July/August 2026, pages 14-15.

July 1, 2026June 27, 2026

The Fine-Tuning of the Genetic Code

Yesterday, we examined the fact that the 20 amino acids commonly used in biological proteins are not a random set but are precisely fine-tuned for optimal protein synthesis. But that is only the beginning of the fine-tuning of the genetic code. A series of articles by biologist Dr. Jonathan McLatchie reports on further fine-tuning.

Cell reproduction requires the replication of the DNA contained within those cells. RNA is the molecule that facilitates DNA replication. RNA has 64 different codons–three-letter “words” that are the fundamental units of the genetic code. Of those, 61 specify amino acids that build proteins, and the other three are stop codons that mark the termination point in creating those proteins. As we mentioned before, there are 20 amino acids used for life. Since there are 64 codons, “a marvel of molecular logic” selects the proper amino acids. That coding system shows evidence of a conscious, deliberate, intelligent agent guiding the creation of the genetic code.

The genetic code in living cells seems to be beautifully fine-tuned to protect cells from mutations during replication. As reported by Dr. McLatchie, the statistical rarity of the conventional genetic code is 1 in 2 billion. That does not seem to be a random chance occurrence. But there are additional levels of fine-tuning, including the fact that the genetic code has been written to reduce the impact of frameshift mutations. It’s beyond the scope of this article to discuss what frameshift mutations are, but the point is that the 64-to-20 mapping system is designed to minimize the number of amino acids translated from a frameshifted transcript before a stop codon halts the process.

But that does not fully cover the fine-tuning of the genetic code. It has multiple layers of highly optimized, independent constraints. The genetic code has been established and used by all forms of life on this planet, with each of the 20 amino acids tied to specific codons. Making significant modifications to the code would create major problems in every cell because the relationships between codons and amino acids are essential for every polypeptide (protein) the cell makes.

Dr. McLatchie’s report contains this statement: “Why is the genetic code the way it is, and how did it come to be? That was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, (and) might remain pertinent even in another 50 years.” The point I make is that until scientists consider the possibility of an intelligent Agent who designed the genetic code, that question will never be answered. Why not at least consider the possibility that all these signs of the fine-tuning of the genetic code are not merely accidental but the product of design? The reason modern science refuses to do so is that design requires an intelligent Designer.

Reference: scienceandculture.com HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE

June 30, 2026June 26, 2026

The Amino Acid Set Was Fine-Tuned for Life

Organic compounds are large molecules containing carbon and having carbon-hydrogen or carbon-carbon bonds. Many organic compounds are involved in life, and life as we know it could not exist without carbon. One group of organic compounds, known as amino acids, numbers at least 500. Of those, only 20 (or, in some cases, 22) are used in plants and animals. Why and how were these amino acids selected to make living things? Amazingly, the amino acid set was fine-tuned for life.

There are three possibilities for how they could have been “selected.” The selection could have been due to chance, with no intelligent agent involved. It could have been because of necessity, meaning that some kind of law could allow only those amino acids to be selected. The third possibility is selection by an intelligent agent with a purpose. Did this apparent choice happen because of mere chance or because of laws that required no other choice? No known laws required this selection, and chance seems questionable since the choice appears to be perfect.

With many alternatives, why this 20? Would any 20 out of the 500 work just as well? The answer is “No,” according to a research paper published in the journal Astrobiology, titled “Did Evolution Select a Nonrandom Alphabet of Amino Acids?” by Gayle K. Philip and Stephen J. Freeland. They wrote, “Random chance would be highly unlikely to represent the chemical space of possible amino acids with such breadth and evenness in charge, size, and hydrophobicity (properties that define what protein structures and functions can be built).” In other words, these 20 amino acids represent the best choice. You can say that the amino acid set was fine-tuned for life.

We have often talked about the cosmic creation event (“big bang”), the laws of physics, the physical constants, and the fundamental forces of nature as having been fine-tuned for life. It appears that the amino acid set was fine-tuned for life. The amino acids that make up the proteins in our bodies seem to be optimally selected. They must have been selected by an agent with the wisdom and power to design a complex, finely tuned, information-rich system, which we call life. We suggest that the agent is the God of the Bible. Tomorrow, we will examine more fine-tuning within our DNA.

References: scienceandculture.com

June 25, 2026June 22, 2026

Underground Fungal Networks

We often take for granted that plants grow just about anywhere. However, as more research is done on our planet’s fauna, we get a clearer picture of what plant growth requires. Underground fungal networks sustain virtually all plant life on our planet.

Scientists have discovered gigantic underground fungal networks that connect plants and store vast amounts of carbon in the soil. Known as mycorrh i zal fungi, they partner with the world’s plants, supplying water and nutrients in exchange for sugars produced through photosynthesis. These networks span some 68 quadrillion miles underground and make the plant life we depend on possible.

The Genesis account simply says that God created vegetation (Genesis 1:11). It does not explain the complexity of plants and their networks that enable them to survive the variations in climate and soils on planet Earth. We know more about what it took to create the conditions for the plants that supply us with food. The magnitude of mycorrhizal fungi is hard to comprehend and beyond any chance explanation. God’s wisdom, power, and intelligence are a testimony to our Creator.

Reference: earthweek.com

June 23, 2026June 22, 2026

Seed Dispersal by Ants

Myrmecochory is the term for seed dispersal by ants. Scientists estimate that as many as 11,000 to 23,000 plant species worldwide use myrmecochory to disperse their seeds. Most of the plants that use myrmecochory attach food bodies rich in lipids, amino acids, and other nutrients to their seeds. These food bodies are called elaiosomes, and they exist only to entice ants to take the seeds.

The seed with an elaiosome attached is called a diaspore. When ant workers forage for food, they collect diaspores and carry them back to the colony, where they remove the elaiosome and feed it to their larvae. Then the ants dispose of the seed underground. In this way, the ants move the seeds some distance away from the original plant and leave them where they can germinate and grow into new plants.

This is a mutual arrangement, a symbiosis, between the plants and the ants. The plants gain greater seed dispersal distance. They also get directed dispersal, with seeds underground, where they can germinate and grow, safe from seed predators. The ants get nutritious food as their part of the deal. The plant gives up some vital nutrients in exchange for seed dispersal by ants.

Thousands of different plant species are willing to sacrifice some of their nutrition to entice ants to disperse their seeds to places where they are likely to grow. Evolutionary scientists suggest that these plants independently evolved this trait for survival. The term they use for unrelated species independently evolving similar characteristics is “convergent evolution.” The living system involves many cases of so-called convergent evolution.

We could believe that thousands of unrelated species independently evolved the same technique for seed dispersal by ants. We could also see this as evidence that the Designer of all living things designed this system. Which explanation seems more reasonable?

Reference: Wikipedia.com

June 17, 2026June 16, 2026

Sensing Up and Down

How do you tell the difference between up and down? Vision helps, but blind people still know up from down. We sense gravity mostly through our inner ear. Sensory hairs inside the inner ear are stimulated by small calcium carbonate crystals. As we move, those crystals brush against the hairs, sending electrical signals through our nervous system to the brain. The brain interprets the signals, thus sensing up and down.

We know that plants can determine up and down because, no matter which direction you plant the seed, the roots grow down as the stalk goes up. How does the plant know which direction to grow without a brain or nervous system?

Since ancient times, people have known that plants grow upward while their roots grow downward, but they didn’t know why. Plant growth is controlled by hormones, and the primary one affecting growth is auxin. Plants have specialized organelles known as amyloplasts that enable gravitropism, the ability to sense up and down.

Most plants have heavy amyloplasts at the tips of their roots, where they settle in response to gravity. The amyloplasts trigger the production of auxin. When higher levels of auxin are produced on the lower side of plant roots, the lower side grows downward in the direction of gravity.

A mysterious part of this system is that amyloplasts do not produce auxin. It is produced in another set of cells that are physically distant from the amyloplasts. Without a system of nerves connecting the amyloplasts and the auxin-producing cells, how does the directional information get to the auxin-producing cells? Scientists have not fully answered that question, but they are working on it. The Creator knows.

Auxin is also the major hormone causing plants to grow upward toward light. Phototropins are pigments that sense light and trigger the production of auxin at the tips of the shoots. The auxin is transported to the bottom side of the stem, where it stimulates growth and causes the stem to grow upward toward the light.

Sensing up and down, and many other functions of plants, are carried out without the benefit of a brain or central nervous system. We may think of plants as simple compared to animals, but they must be very complex to accomplish what animals do (including taking in nourishment, defending themselves, and reproducing) without being able to move from where they are planted. The design of living things, both animals and plants, shows that there is an intelligent Designer.

June 15, 2026June 14, 2026

Sunflowers Are Amazing

When we stock our bird feeders with sunflower seeds, many birds come and crack open the hard shells to reach the nutritious kernels inside. Humans do the same, though we prefer them already shelled. When you look at the sunflower head, with its center surrounded by petals, you are actually seeing a cluster of flowers surrounding a cluster of seeds. Sunflowers are amazing not only for the nutritious seeds they produce but also for the way they track sunlight.

Phytochromes are pigments within plant cells that sense light and help maintain a plant’s biological clock. This “circadian rhythm” helps a plant determine the passage of 24-hour periods. It can persist for days, even when sunlight isn’t present. The sunflower head moves during the day to track the Sun. On a cloudy day, it may even “see” the Sun using wavelengths outside the visible light spectrum. Because of the circadian rhythm, the sunflower head turns to the east to await the morning sunrise.

It is hard to believe that this incredible design is a product of blind chance. It seems that the sunflower design is not the result of any fortuitous accident. Sunflowers are amazing, with their nutritious seeds and the plant’s relationship to the Sun exemplifying God’s design.

May 29, 2026May 27, 2026

Intelligent or Unintelligent?

Causes can be of two types: intelligent or unintelligent. As we look for what caused the universe to come into existence or what caused life to appear on this planet, we should ask whether it was an intelligent cause or an unintelligent one, meaning chance. When you see the Grand Canyon, you can conclude that it was the result of natural forces and therefore not a direct intelligent cause. When you see Mount Rushmore, the mountain itself can be attributed to natural causes, but the faces of four presidents carved into that mountain testify to an intelligent cause.

Darwinists agree that the living things we see around us appear to be designed. But those who reject intelligent causation for living things have to keep reminding themselves that what they’re seeing was not designed by an Intelligence, but rather merely happened by chance. Is that attitude intelligent or unintelligent?

The complexity of DNA is certainly a challenge to those who believe that life happened by chance. However, they also have to contend with the fact that DNA relies on proteins for its structure, while proteins require DNA to provide the instructions for how they are to be constructed and folded. Since each requires the other, which comes first: proteins or DNA?

Spontaneous generation of life from non-life was advocated by Aristotle and accepted by science for 2,000 years until Louis Pasteur disproved it. However, those who believe that life came into being without guiding intelligence from purely natural chemicals must accept the concept of spontaneous generation, even though it is not supported by any empirical observation. Francis Crick, an atheist and co-discoverer of the DNA molecule’s structure, said, “Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”

Other scientists, such as Fred Hoyle, recognizing the problem of life’s origin, have proposed panspermia (“seeds everywhere”). That idea suggests that life on Earth was seeded by aliens from another star system. Besides having zero evidence for such a thing, it doesn’t explain where the interstellar life came from, stretches the imagination, and requires a great deal of blind faith. When scientists and others stick to their belief in spontaneous generation or panspermia, is that intelligent or unintelligent?

Physicist and information scientist Hubert Yockey, realizing the difficulty of explaining intelligent life without an intelligent cause, wrote, “The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from nonliving matter is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology.” The faith of those who refuse to believe in intelligent design is not based on scientific evidence but on ideological bias. Do you think that believing in creation without a Creator is intelligent or unintelligent?