The Origin of Life on Planet Earth

The Origin of Life on Planet Earth

When I was in college in the late 1950s, our biology professor at Indiana University gave us a nicely packaged explanation of the origin of life on planet Earth. In 1952, scientists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey built a test tube environment containing water vapor, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, the gases Alexander Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane said would be needed for life to begin.

Miller and Urey used an electrical discharge to simulate lightning in the primitive Earth and placed a trap to collect any residue produced. After a time, they found the trap contained some amino acids, the building blocks of life. The media and our textbooks wrongly suggested that science had created life.

An old adage says, “Science education is the process of taking data from the professor’s notes and transferring it to the student’s test paper with as little interference as possible in between.” As a young atheist, I loudly proclaimed that it was impossible for an educated person to believe that God created life.

Nobody thought to question the assertion that the Miller-Urey experiment explained the origin of life on planet Earth. In fact, amino acids are not life, and life contains only specific amino acids. The Miller-Urey apparatus destroyed amino acids faster than it produced them, so the trap was necessary to prevent them from all being destroyed. The apparatus contained no oxygen, but in my geology class, we learned that there was much evidence for oxygen in the Precambrian rocks of the ancient Earth.

The quest to understand the origin of life (OOL) remains a topic of intense debate and exploration. In a recent publication in the esteemed journal Nature, researchers Nick Lane and Joana Xavier candidly acknowledged the persistent challenges in OOL research:

“The origins-of-life field faces the same problems with culture and incentives that afflict all of science—overselling ideas towards publication and funding, too little common ground between competing groups, and perhaps too much pride: too strong an attachment to favored scenarios and too little willingness to be proven wrong.”

Dr. James Tour of Rice University has called this area of research “clueless,” but the media continues to make unsupported claims. Perhaps the most crucial point of this research into the origin of life on planet Earth is that if science ever does discover the OOL, all it will show is that it took intelligence for it to happen in the first place.

We need Christian young people to go into science so they can explain false claims about OOL to those of us who may not have the inclination or the training to understand it solely by ourselves. However, we still need to educate ourselves enough to fulfill the admonition of 1 Peter 3:15, “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.”

— John N. Clayton © 2024

References: “To unravel the origin of life, treat findings as pieces of a bigger puzzle” in the journal Nature for February 26, 2024, referenced in Evolutionnews.org February 28, 2024

Seeing God or Seeking God

Seeing God or Seeking God

We have often referred to Romans 1:19-20 which tells us that God can be plainly seen in the things He has made. However, skeptics frequently challenge us by saying, “If God is real, why doesn’t He reveal Himself?” They want to see God “in the flesh.” But God is not flesh and blood. John 4:24 says, “God is spirit…” Seeing God is just not possible.

God’s desire for us is to seek Him. As Paul shared with the pagans in Athens, God created us with a desire to “seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27 NKJV). The journey of seeking God is not only a path to finding Him but also a source of profound joy as we discover Him in the intricate details of His creation.

Suppose God appeared to us in all His glory. The Bible tells us that in our physical state, we could not stand to see His glory. Moses had to be hidden in the cleft of the rock to protect him from seeing God’s glory. We can’t understand how that sight could have been too much for Moses’ feeble eyes to behold. However, Moses could see God’s work, just as we can.

God loves us and wants us to love Him. If we could see God, would we be terrified? Would we obey God’s commands out of fear rather than love? Fear is a powerful motivating factor, but God wants our love. God showed His love in the form of a physical person, Jesus Christ. Jesus was God, but He was also human. He was Immanuel, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23). He said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Jesus was not hidden, but many people refused to see who He really was despite His miracles. (See John 19:16.)

Seeing God in His full glory is not something we will experience in this life. However, we can find immense joy in seeing His handiwork. If God were to fully reveal Himself before our eyes, our physical beings would not be able to withstand His glory (Exodus 33:20). If we somehow managed to survive, our service to Him would be driven by fear and terror, not love. We would lose the joy of discovering Him in His works. The experience of physically seeing God, even if possible, might be overwhelming. On the other hand, finding God in the things He has made is a delightful experience, akin to a child’s delight in finding the one they seek in a game of hide-and-seek. May we all discover that kind of joy as we earnestly seek and find God.

— Roland Earnst © 2024

Increase in Alcohol Deaths in the U.S.

Increase in Alcohol Deaths in the U.S.

Alcohol is the most destructive drug that has ever existed on planet Earth, and we see that in the increase in alcohol deaths. The Centers for Disease Control reported that from 2016 to 2021, deaths from alcohol use in the United States increased 29.3% from 137,927 to 178,307. Deaths among males increased 26.8%, and among females, the increase was 34.7%. The CDC makes a point that their data is only for deaths that are 100% attributable to alcohol use.

In ancient times, the term used for a substance (not grapes) used as a drug was “strong drink.” The Bible distinguishes between “wine” and “strong drink.” We find wine mentioned 141 times in the Old Testament and 32 times in the New Testament – always referring to the juice from grapes. The difference between “old wine” and “new wine” was the aging and fermentation of the juice. The juice was mixed with water because the water was not fit to drink without it, so the alcohol content was at a maximum between 10 and 15%. The term “strong drink” is mentioned 23 times in the Old Testament and one time in the New Testament (Luke 1:15). Scholars tell us that this refers to any drink derived from sources other than grapes, and the alcohol content could be as high as 20%.

The wine at the wedding feast at Cana (John 2:1-11) was better than all other wines available, but it was not “strong drink.” Modern distillation did not happen until 1500 A.D., and that is when alcohol became a “recreational drug.” Death due to alcohol consumption was virtually unknown until several years later, but it is epidemic today.

Should we be concerned about the increase in alcohol deaths? Suppose death from some other product claimed 178,307 lives in a year. What would we do about it? Christians view our bodies as the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:15) and stand against all things that would damage them. A collateral benefit of that belief is freedom from the damage that alcohol causes.

— John N. Clayton © 2024

Reference: CDC.gov

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Richard Hoyt for researching the meaning of new wine, old wine, and strong drink.

A Conflict that Should Not Exist

A Conflict that Should Not Exist
Dr. John C. Lennox

We have said many times that science and the Bible are friends. We need both for an enjoyable life. Unfortunately, many believers reject science because they think it conflicts with faith, and many scientists reject faith because they believe it is contrary to science. Both of those are false ideas of a conflict that should not exist. The truth is that both science and the Bible testify to God’s existence.

Science helps us understand the physical world. Physics and chemistry give us new and better ways to do things. Medical science helps us live healthier and longer lives. We need science because it benefits us. Likewise, the Bible benefits us in many ways. It tells us how to live fulfilled lives in peace and harmony with each other and with the natural world. Most importantly, the Bible also tells us about Jesus Christ and how we can live beyond this physical existence.

Dr. John C. Lennox is emeritus fellow of mathematics and philosophy of science at Oxford University. In a debate with leading atheist scientist Richard Dawkins, Lennox illustrated the difference between science and biblical faith very simply. He said, “Science can tell you what will happen when you put arsenic in your Aunt Tilley’s tea, but it cannot tell whether or not you should.” That simple statement suggests why this is a conflict that should not exist.

Atheists insist that a person does not have to believe to live a moral life. It is true that sometimes atheists live lives that appear to be more morally upright than some who claim to be believers. However, without faith in God and His Word, what is the objective basis for deciding what is right or wrong? We can’t make valid moral choices without a moral compass to tell us which direction to go.

Science gives us many things that make our lives in this world better. The Bible and faith also improve our lives and the lives of those around us. But faith also gives us some things that science cannot. Our faith in God and the Bible gives us a purpose and reason to live and enjoy this life. Beyond that, it gives us hope for a better existence without the pain and suffering we face now. In science, we find solutions to make life more enjoyable. In the Bible, we discover a reason for our existence and hope for a better future. The animosity between science and faith is a conflict that should not exist.

— Roland Earnst © 2024

What the Church Is Not and What It Is

What the Church Is Not and What It Is

One of the challenges we receive from people is to describe what the Church is. Jesus Christ, in Matthew 16:18, described the Church as built on the rock that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The biblical Church does not even remotely coincide with what people tell us are the reasons why they don’t want to become part of a local church and live as Christ taught. People today are often confused about what the Church is, confusing it with what the Church is not:

1) The Church is not a building, and no money is involved in the construction of the Church described in the Bible.
2) The Church is not a political entity of any kind. (Matthew 22:21)
3) The Church is not made up of perfect people. The only thing Christians have that is not enjoyed by those outside of the Church is God’s forgiveness.
4) The Church’s message is not a bunch of “Thou shalt nots.” The message of Christ is what men and women SHOULD be doing, not the evil they might have done.
5) The Church is not a social club. Fellowship does not revolve around playing Bingo. The fellowship the Bible describes is support and help for hurting people. (James 5:13-20)


We find the biblical description of the Church in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, Ephesians 1:22-24, and Acts 2:44-47. Those passages describe the nature and power of the Church. Who cares for those who desperately need help – the homeless, the abandoned, those needing food, water, clothing, and shelter? Who reaches out to those in prisons and their families? Who reaches out to those broken by their previous mistakes and desperately wanting forgiveness from God and people? It isn’t the atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, but those who are part of the biblical Church.

People often confuse what the Church is not for what the Church is. Those who attack the Church are usually those unwilling to be part of the solution to today’s deepest problems. (John 3:17)

— John N. Cayton © 2024

The IVF War is Not Nearing a Solution

The IVF War is Not Nearing a Solution

In-vitro fertilization has become the latest issue in the political battle. In IVF, multiple eggs are harvested from a woman and then are fertilized and implanted to create a pregnancy. The usual method is to freeze the embryo produced for later implantation. The National Embryo Donation Center says that the number of frozen embryos nationwide is around a million, and nearly 100,000 babies are born annually by IVF, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The IVF war has become a problematic political issue.

After Roe v Wade was made law in 1973, frozen embryos were treated by the courts as private property, and donors could implant them, give them away, or have them destroyed. In February 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that embryos created during the IVF process are “extrauterine children” and have the same rights as any other child.

This issue has produced massive legal hassles. Two couples have sued the company that accidentally destroyed their frozen embryos. Vice President Kamala Harris has been giving speeches that she calls “The Reproductive Rights Tour.” The Democratic party has brought back the overturning of Roe v Wade to make this issue a major one for their 2014 campaign. Various Republicans have taken the view that embryos are babies, but the leaders are in favor of IVF. The IVF war is not nearing a solution.

In the IVF procedure, multiple eggs are taken from the woman, fertilized, and then implanted in the woman’s uterus. The medical experts pick the one or two that look the most promising to implant in the womb and often discard the others. If there are ten eggs and eight are discarded, have eight people been murdered? Advancements in IVF technology have reduced the number of errors in this process, but there are still mistakes.

Any time humans try to take over what God has created, the result is complicated. IVF is one of many issues that resulted from advancements in medical technology. Christians need to be aware of the IVF war and try to help find solutions, not just engage in a battle of words with unbelievers.

— John N. Clayton © 2024

References: National Embryo Donation Center, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and USA Today for 2/23/24 and 2/21/24.

Singing In Praise to God

Singing In Praise to God

The dictionary defines “anthropomorphize” as attributing human characteristics or behavior to an animal or object, such as people’s tendency to anthropomorphize their dogs. We can probably blame Disney for much of this. Beginning with Micky Mouse in “Steamboat Willie,” numerous cartoons have presented animals with human actions, including singing. Even scientific articles tell about whales and birds singing. The fact is that only humans have the unique capacity to compose songs and use them in a variety of human experiences, including singing in praise to God.


When a cardinal “sings” his song outside your window, he is really warning other cardinals to stay out of his territory. Whale songs are communication devices to locate food sources and attract mates. When Penny Patterson taught Koko the gorilla to use the sign language of the deaf, he learned that he would receive a reward. One of my favorite stories about Koko was that when Patterson taught him to recognize a yellow streak on a canvas as a banana, he identified yellow hats and yellow ties as bananas. Only humans could compose a song such as “Yes! We Have No Bananas.”

Humans use singing in many ways. The Psalms in the Bible are creative songs useful for memorizing and conveying spiritual values. The Genesis account of creation is actually a song. Being a song doesn’t make it untrue, but it is a uniquely human way to express and memorize history and values. Have you ever wondered why each military service has its own song? Why do we sing songs at weddings, funerals, and when camping? Singing is a way to express love and praise for others or God, and it can create unity. Most of us remember “We Shall Overcome,” and some will recall the protest song “Abraham, Martin and John,” referring to Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and John F. Kennedy.

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:15, “I will pray with my spirit, and I will also pray with my understanding. I will sing praise with the spirit, and I will also sing praise with my understanding (CSB).” Only humans can do these things, and no evolutionary explanation is supported by evidence. We are created in the image of God, and singing in praise to God is an expression of that unique creation.

— John N. Clayton © 2024

The Transgender Issue in Women’s Sports

The Transgender Issue in Women’s Sports

The transgender issue in women’s sports grows nearly every day. As we have mentioned previously, biological males have an advantage when they claim to be females and participate in women’s sports. Here are some examples of this issue in women’s sports:

Lia Thomas is a six-foot-four-inch biological male who ranked in the 400s in the men’s swimming division but is now a top-ranked swimmer in the women’s division.

Valentina Petrillo is a biological male who identifies as transgender and won the women’s 400-meter bronze medal at the World Para Athletics Championships in Paris in July of 2023.

Austin Kippips is a biological male who finished five minutes ahead of all female competitors to win the Belgian Waffle Ride, a 131-mile cycling event in North Carolina, in June of 2023.

Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood ranked first and second in Connecticut in the girls’ 55-meter dash. Previously, they had ranked 120th and 195th in the male category.

In addition to the locker room and restroom problems, coed dormitory issues in private colleges, and now women’s sports issues, the pressure on legislators to do something is growing. However, this issue continues without any action for fear of the political consequences.

We need to keep in mind the growing transgender issue in women’s sports when we vote for politicians. God designed our bodies, and when we make changes to what God created, we invite pain and suffering for everyone.

— John N. Clayton © 2024

Reference: Family Research Council

Extending Life Without Quality of Life

Extending Life Without Quality of Life

One of the challenges produced by the progress in medicine is the question of the role of doctors when a patient nears the time of death. In the old days, doctors had a code that said they would “do no harm,” which resulted in extending life without quality of life.

I had a personal experience with this issue when my disabled son Timothy was in the hospital after contracting COVID from a care worker. Doctors told me that Tim would never recover, but they had to give him a standard COVID treatment. Tim did survive but was not allowed to have any contact with family. He could not talk, was blind, could not stand or sit up, and could not feed himself. Eventually he was placed in a nursing home where I was allowed to visit him, and I did weekly. Although he could hear me, he was unable to respond. I read to him, tried to feed him, and ensured his stuffed animals were around him. After more than a year in the nursing home, he died.

The question in a case like Timothy’s becomes whether a doctor should be allowed to assist in dying when the apparent result was extending life without quality of life. Laws in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada allow doctors to administer euthanasia. The next step in these countries is to allow physicians to provide medical assistance in dying for the mentally ill. Canada has delayed the implementation of that option for physicians until 2027 to allow doctors and facilities time to adjust to this new law. Peter Singer, the DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, has advocated for euthanasia for virtually any cause.

For Christians, the issue is especially relevant. The New Testament in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 says that God’s Spirit lives in our bodies and that the body is sacred for that reason. I Corinthians 6:15-17 uses that view to explain why prostitution is a sin. As modern medical science has advanced to the point of extending human life, it has also found ways to eliminate pain, but my son never showed evidence of suffering from pain. The problem remains of extending life without quality of life.

Euthanasia involves the same issues as abortion. Singer would empty prisons, nursing homes, and mental facilities by applying euthanasia to the people there. The fact is that much of the money spent on medical treatment is spent during the last year of life. Think of the savings if we were to eliminate everyone deemed to be within a year of dying. Do we really want to live in a culture that uses death as a means of removing a person who is inconvenient or difficult to sustain? But isn’t that what abortion is all about?

— John N. Clayton 2024

Reference: “Canada again delays assisted dying for the mentally ill” on BBC News for February 1, 2024.

Warnings from the Past by George Washington

Warnings from the Past by George Washington

Today is President’s Day in the United States, and it seems appropriate to think about some warnings from the past by our first president. On September 19, 1796, George Washington spoke to the young United States about the dangers the future could bring. It was his farewell address as president, and he said many prescient things as if he could see into the country’s future. He was not a prophet who could see the future, but he was a student of the past and knew the history of other nations.

Washington warned against minor factions bending the laws to put their needs above the needs of others. He warned about the dangers of excessive partisanship, making dangerous foreign alliances, going into debt, and engaging in unnecessary wars. He said the country must follow the Constitution, which creates checks and balances between the government’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches. He saw the dangers of allowing a consolidation of power into one branch or person because of selfish human nature. He did not want to be a king, and he did not want the nation to be under a human king.

Of George Washington’s many warnings from the past, there is none more important than his warning about the need for religion and morality to preserve the country. Here is a portion of what Washington had to say about that:

“Of all the dispostions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports. … Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. … reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Thus, Washington said that morality is essential for preserving the nation and that morality cannot be maintained without religion. He also noted that “institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge” are of primary importance. The message of the Does God Exist? ministry is that scientific knowledge is compatible with faith in God. More than that, knowledge of the teachings of Jesus Christ and a faith commitment to follow Him leads to morality. Washington’s warnings from the past call for the strengthening of knowledge and religious faith. Today, the United States needs more leaders who share Washington’s wisdom.

— Roland Earnst © 2024

Reference: Wikipedia.org – We have also quoted other founders of the United States on religious faith HERE, HERE, and HERE.