What is “precisely nothing?” Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss used that phrase in the preface of his 2012 New York Times best-selling book titled A Universe from Nothing. Krass at that time was a professor at Arizona State University and head of the Origins Project there. He later lost that position due to “moral failure,” and is now an anti-theist blogger. An anti-theist is more than an atheist. He does not believe in God, but also actively opposes faith in a creator. Like other anti-theists, he believes that faith in God is not just wrong, but destructive to society.
On what did Krauss base his statement that there was “remarkable new support for the idea that our universe arose from precisely nothing?” Krauss suggests that quantum gravity fluctuations could allow for “the creation, albeit perhaps momentarily, of space itself where none existed before.” Furthermore, “small-density fluctuations in empty space due to the rules of quantum mechanics will later be responsible for all the structures we observe in the universe today. So we, and everything we see, result out of quantum fluctuations in what is essentially nothingness…” He further writes that the universe arose through “a process whereby the energy of empty space (nothing) gets converted into the energy of something.”
Is what Krauss calls “precisely nothing” actually nothing? You may have the same feeling that I have that someone is trying to fool you into believing nonsense. When he writes that “getting something from nothing is not a problem,” I have trouble believing him. Perhaps I am simple-minded, but I prefer a simple explanation of why there is something instead of nothing. It’s explained in a video called a “Proof of God in 3 Minutes.” I encourage you to watch it by clicking HERE.
Researchers at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute announced the discovery of a new deep-sea snailfish species called the bumpy snailfish (Careproctus colliculi). This fish lives over 10,000 feet below the ocean’s surface and exhibits traits never seen before in the snailfish family.
Other deep-ocean snailfish are sleek and dark-colored, which helps them catch prey and blend into the dark waters. The bumpy snailfish is pink, with a large head and a body covered in bumps. These bumps are gelatinous, watery tissue that may help keep the fish buoyant under the high pressures of the deep sea.
Evolutionary explanations for how the bumpy snailfish came to be are unclear because its traits do not seem to increase its chances of survival but may instead make it more vulnerable to predators. Like all living things, it occupies a specific niche in the ecosystem. Dr. Mackenzie Gerringer, who analyzed the species in detail, said the discovery of this and two other species “is a reminder of how much we have yet to learn about life on Earth.”
As scientists develop new tools for deep-sea exploration, they continue to find life forms in every environment on our planet. Everywhere we look, we see a design in life that hints at an intelligent Creator who made Earth a living, dynamic place for humans. The truth of Romans 1:20, which states that we can know there is a God through the things He has made, appears more obvious today than ever in human history.
A fascinating question that marine scientists have explored is fish communication. Finding a mate, locating food sources, and defending territory are challenges all animals face. Terrestrial animals solve this problem by pushing air through their lungs, with different land animals having various designs to do this. Birds and lions produce sounds for communication differently, but both systems involve air in some form. So, the question is, how do fish communicate?
Researchers from Cornell University placed equipment in the ocean off Hawaii and Curacao to study this question and found that each fish species has its own method for communicating with others. Triggerfish slap their pectoral fins on specialized scales. Glasseye snappers rattle their swim bladders. Blackbar soldierfish use sonic muscles to vibrate their ribs. Aaron Rice, who was the project manager for Cornell, states that the “sounds lack the elegance of birdsong, but they are significantly more diverse.”
The more scientists learn about life on our planet, the more varieties of specialized designs they observe everywhere on Earth. Explaining the origin of things like fish communication as a chance occurrence in the distant past pushes credibility too far. Seeing these as outcomes of design is an example of intelligent purpose, allowing a vast diversity of life forms to exist.
Beginning in 1987, a new glass and metal structure began to rise in the desert near Oracle, Arizona. In 1991, it opened as the world’s largest closed ecological system. It was called “Biosphere 2” because planet Earth is “Biosphere 1.” The idea behind the project was to test whether a closed system could support human life on another planet. This marked the start of a two-year mission in which eight people were isolated inside this artificial biosphere to simulate life on a space colony.
The experiment in Biosphere 2 ran from 1991 to 1993 with only limited success. It was attempted again for six months in 1994. Both attempts encountered technical issues and the strain of human group dynamics. Additionally, during the second try, the company managing the experiment was dissolved, leaving the project in limbo. Initially, Columbia University took control of the facility and used it for scientific research until 2003. When it seemed Biosphere 2 might be demolished for urban development, the University of Arizona (UA) took over in 2007 and gained full ownership in 2011.
Today, about 100,000 tourists visit Biosphere 2 each year while UA continues to conduct experiments there. One of the experimental areas is the Landscape Evolution Observatory (LEO). It consists of three artificial landscapes, each measuring 30 by 11 meters with a 4-meter depth of crushed basalt rock from a volcanic crater in northern Arizona. The scientists aim to observe how these landscapes change “from purely mineral and abiotic substrate to living, breathing landscapes that will ultimately support microbial and vascular plant communities” (UA’s words).
I wonder how the researchers could be sure that the one million pounds of basalt from a volcanic crater could be “abiotic,” meaning free of any life forms. However, if microbes or seeds are present, I believe the landscapes will “evolve.” The key is that for any life to develop, it must already be there. Evolution is change over time, but the development of life requires initial life to exist.
The UA scientists explain that the evolution of cyanobacteria—the first microscopic organisms to use photosynthesis—pumped oxygen into the atmosphere, facilitating the development of aerobic life. This paved the way for multicellular life, an ozone layer to shield life from harmful ultraviolet radiation, and weathering to break down rocks into soil.
Considering the history of Biosphere 2, I doubt it will be around—or that the scientists will be—long enough to observe significant evolution. It takes time for rocks to break down into soil. They describe the “process of primary succession,” where simple microbes expand into organisms of increasing “complexity and biodiversity.” The researchers state that photosynthesizing cyanobacteria will capture nitrogen from the air, preparing the way for mosses to grow. The next step involves “colonization by larger plants with roots,” and the primary succession continues.
Long before Biosphere 2, Genesis 1:11-12 details the process of primary succession: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass” (Hebrew deshe, meaning tender grass such as lichen or algae), “the herb yielding seed” (Hebrew eseb, meaning naked seed or gymnosperm), “and the tree yielding fruit” (Hebrew ets, meaning tree, wood, or timber). The process of primary succession then continues. (For more on this, see John N. Clayton’s booklet “God’s Revelation in His Rocks and His Word.”)
As the UA scientists describe in their explanation of LEO, “The Earth system consisting of air, water, soil, plants, and microbes is a complex, interacting system.” And so it is, as God revealed to Moses thousands of years ago. Complex, interacting systems require an intelligent Designer.
In many regions, apple snails are considered an invasive species and pest. However, scientists are studying one freshwater species, the golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata), for its unique ability to regenerate a lost eye. Researchers hope to learn from the eyes of golden apple snails something that could have potential applications in preserving human vision.
Apple snails have eyes that resemble cameras, similar to human eyes. A golden apple snail’s eye can heal itself if damaged. If the eye is completely removed, a new eye will grow back in less than a month. Of course, human eyes cannot do that. Researchers studying the eyes of golden apple snails hope to find new ways to treat human eye injuries or diseases like macular degeneration.
By using the gene editing toolCRISPR/Cas9 to disable certain genes, scientists are searching for the genes responsible for the snail’s remarkable eye recovery. Disabling the snails’ PAX6 gene prevented them from developing eyes. That same gene is crucial for human eyes. Due to the similarity, further research may lead to new breakthroughs in treating eye diseases.
Humans cannot regrow damaged parts of the eye, and doctors have yet to perform an eye transplant that communicates with the brain. God has given humans curiosity and intelligence to explore life’s mysteries. In the eyes of golden apple snails, He has provided us with a model to study and potentially learn how to restore lost or damaged vision.
Biogenesis is the process of reproduction—life giving birth to new life through natural means. Abiogenesis is the origin of life from non-living matter, the concept that life originated from non-life. It’s an undisputed fact that life began to exist. Equally undeniable is the fact that the universe also began to exist. Therefore, we are presented with two scientifically accepted facts: 1-The non-living matter in the universe came into existence. 2-Life began to exist. Explaining the existence of life remains a challenge that science has yet to overcome.
Since we know the universe had a beginning, life on Earth cannot be explained simply by claiming it was seeded by aliens from another galaxy (panspermia). Their galaxy would have had a beginning too, so how did their life originate? The theory of panspermia merely pushes the question farther back.
The idea that non-living elements spontaneously combined into organic molecules, which then organized into living cells by random chance, is hard to believe and even harder to prove. Many brilliant minds have tried to explain life in this way. Evolution does not account for the origin of life; it only attempts to explain the development and diversity of life that already existed.
It is not a “god-of-the-gaps” argument when we suggest that the best explanation for abiogenesis is that an Intelligence acted upon non-living matter, imparting information (DNA) and organization beyond human understanding. This Intelligence would have to exist outside of the time dimension we live in—without beginning or end and without physical limitations—to explain the existence of life and the creation of time, space, matter, and energy. Such an intelligent Being could also take the form of a man to enter time and space and restore lost creatures to Himself. That is clearly what the Bible describes. (See John 1:1-17.)
Human engineers often draw inspiration from the natural world. When they adapt these designs for human use, it’s called biomimicry. Shark-skin biomimicry utilizes the design principles that enable sharks to move smoothly and quickly through water, applying them for industrial and practical purposes.
In addition to its body shape, a shark’s ability to swim swiftly and quietly through the water is largely due to the design of their skin. Shark skin has a textured pattern, known as riblets, that helps reduce water drag. Researchers at U.C. Berkeley and MIT explored ways to adapt this shark skin design to reduce the water’s drag on towed sonar arrays (TSAs) used by ships and submarines. They discovered that rectangular riblets could cut drag by 5% or more and reduce noise by 14%. Noise reduction is very important for sonar, which depends on detecting sound echoes. Less noise also benefits marine wildlife.
Another application of shark-skin design is in water distribution systems. Biomimetic riblets inside water pipes can lessen turbulence as water flows through. Reducing turbulence and drag decreases the energy needed to pump water to its destination. This means lower costs for supplying water to homes. Researchers found that, under ideal conditions, drag can be cut by up to 10%.
According to another study, shark-skin biomimicry can also improve the efficiency of microchannel heat sinks. Microelectronic components in computers and other devices can be damaged by heat. The researchers reported that “the shark-skin based bionic structure had higher heat transfer capacity and lower friction loss.”
Looking at nature’s designs reveals wisdom at work. Shark-skin biomimicry offers benefits in aviation, marine transportation, water systems, and the cooling of microelectronics. What other new applications of biomimicry are still to be discovered? God’s wisdom shows in what He has made. Humans have no excuse for failing to recognize His eternal power and divine nature (Romans 1:20).
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) can grow up to 30 inches (76 cm) and weigh about 12 pounds (5.5 kg) after spending two years at sea. In four or more years, they can grow much larger, with a record caught in 1960 weighing 109 pounds (49.44 kg). Atlantic salmon migration is an impressive life story.
For four years or more, juvenile Atlantic salmon live in freshwater rivers or streams where they hatched. When the time is right, they undergo a process called smoltification, a complex series of physiological changes that prepare them for life in saltwater. During smoltification, their skin turns silvery and reflective, and their body shape changes. Their gills produce an enzyme that removes sodium from their cells, and various mechanisms are activated to regulate body fluids in the seawater environment.
The first stage of Atlantic salmon migration begins with their journey to the Atlantic Ocean. In the ocean, their diet shifts from primarily insects to larger foods, such as shrimp, eels, squid, and small fish. While in the ocean, they grow faster than in freshwater. After two, four, or more years at sea, something triggers the fish to return to the river where they hatched.
When the salmon reach the river’s mouth, they stop eating and swim upstream. Their primary goal at this point is to return to where their life began. There, they spawn, reproducing to pass on their genes to the next generation. Unlike Pacific salmon, which die after spawning, Atlantic salmon can sometimes recondition themselves to return to the sea and repeat this cycle of migration and spawning. The fact that Atlantic salmon stay in the ocean for varying lengths of time means that a drought in their native river or stream for a year may not halt the reproduction of that year’s salmon.
This impressive life story prompts several questions. How does the Atlantic salmon return to the stream where it hatched? Apparently, they can detect the precise chemical signature of their stream by odor. Another question is why this fish undergoes such a demanding process. Many other creatures in the ecosystems benefit from the salmon’s migration. As predators, Atlantic salmon help control populations of insects in the rivers and smaller fish and other creatures in the ocean. As prey, they serve as food for larger fish, seals, and sharks. They are also valued as a delicious and nutritious food source for humans.
A more challenging question is, how could the impressive life story of the Atlantic salmon migration have happened by chance? We believe it is not by chance. This is more than survival of the fittest; it is a complex system where one animal benefits many others, including humans. Once again, we observe the Creator’s design at work.
Those who reject belief in God assume that humans evolved mechanically and that there was no need for a creator. Unfortunately, the media promotes stories that cater to those who dismiss faith in God, making it easier for them to identify as “none” when asked about their religious beliefs. A recent article is an example of not fully explaining the design required to enable walking upright.
A Reuters News Agency article by Mike Blake titled “How Humans Evolved to Walk Upright” fails to mention a critical design feature for walking upright. The article discusses a study of pelvis designs in primates by Harvard University evolution biologist Terence Capellini. It suggests that the shape of the human pelvis explains how humans walk upright. However, upright posture involves more than just the pelvis.
The opening into the skull that connects the spinal cord to the brain is called the foramen magnum (Latin for “great hole”). It is positioned at the center of the human skull but located towards the rear in other primates. Besides the pelvis, the foramen magnum’s position is an essential part of the design that supports bipedalism, or walking upright on two legs. The human pelvis also plays a crucial role in forming the birth canal that allows the passage of babies with larger brains. The position of the foramen magnum is an essential component of the design that enables bipedalism, or walking upright on two legs.
The Reuters article mentions that researchers identified over 300 genes involved in the design that enables walking upright. The lead author of the study stated that it is not just a single gene but many DNA regulatory elements that must work together to accomplish what seems so simple to humans. Chimpanzees sometimes walk on two legs, but it requires more effort because they lack the unique human design features. Birds, kangaroos, and a few other animals walk on two legs, but they do so because of anatomically different designs.
Bipedalism grants humans the ability to use our hands for carrying objects, using tools, creating art, raising and cooking food, while also allowing us to observe our surroundings from a higher vantage point. We can walk and run long distances because of our distinctive body design. Was this unique design merely an accident of natural selection, or the work of an intelligent Creator?
Most people today are or will be affected by cancer. If they don’t experience it firsthand, they probably have friends or family members who will. Billions of dollars and countless hours have been dedicated to finding a cure. So far, the ultimate cure remains elusive. One challenge is that cancer is, in a sense, many diseases because it affects different parts of the body in various ways. A cancer tumor is a cluster of cells growing uncontrollably. Various factors can cause this, but a cancer expert explains that cancer is a Darwinian evolutionary process.
Karl Krueger, a former senior manager of cancer research at the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, has authored two peer-reviewed papers describing cancer in Darwinian terms. Our cells have fail-safe mechanisms to prevent them from entering a state of runaway replication. If these mechanisms are disrupted, cells can begin to reproduce through cell division, similar to bacteria, resulting in what we call a cancer tumor.
The human body is a multicellular organism in which all components, down to the cellular level, must cooperate for the body’s health. When normal regulatory controls fail, tumor cells become selfish, cloning themselves without regard for the host. Darwin’s concept of natural selection and survival of the fittest, when applied to cancer cells, becomes out-of-control growth.
At the cellular level, according to Krueger, “Those cells which proliferate at faster rates and maintain this growth process at their site of origin, or beyond in the case of metastasis, supersede the role of natural selection. In this game, it is not survival of the fittest but rather the fastest proliferating cells that present themselves most prominently in tumors…” In other words, cancer progression is an evolutionary process.
Krueger’s insights align with Michael Behe’s 2019 book, Darwin Devolves. Behe argued that at the molecular level, the Darwinian mechanism more often breaks features rather than creating new ones. The bottom line is that cancer is a Darwinian evolutionary process, and natural selection is not a creativeforce because, in all biological systems, there is a natural tendency toward disorder. We refer to this as entropy, or simply aging.
