Information Is Fundamental to Everything

Information Is Fundamental to Everything

At the core of everything is information. DNA carries information in every cell of the human body, as well as in the cells of animals and plants. Without the information in our genes, we could not exist. DNA is a physical molecule, but it contains information that is not physical. We write words with physical ink on physical paper, but the information in those words is not physical, and it is far more valuable than the paper itself. Information is fundamental.

Ancient Greek Stoic philosophers used the word “logos” (translated as “word” in English) to refer to the rational principle behind the universe. The apostle John gave that term a deeper meaning when he used it to refer to the One who created all things. John’s gospel begins with, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” He goes on to say that the Word created all things.

When you read the Genesis creation account, you find, “And God said let there be light” (verse 3). The phrase “And God said” recurs in verses 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, and 29. Hebrews 11:3 tells us, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Words are not visible. Information isn’t visible. We can put information on paper by writing visible words, but the information behind those words is not visible—yet it is more important than the paper on which it is written.

Information is fundamental, immaterial, and invisible. God is spirit (4:24), meaning that He is not material. The cosmic creation event, popularly known as the Big Bang, involved the creation of matter/energy, space, and time. That means the Creator of matter/energy, space, and time must be immaterial and outside of space and time. Matter/energy cannot create itself. God’s Word created everything we see as God spoke the universe into existence. The Bible doesn’t specify when God created the universe, what physical processes He used, or how long it took. Since God is not limited by our time dimension, time means nothing to Him (2 Peter 3:8).

After the physical creation, God used information to create life, with a DNA code far more complex than any human-made computer code. There could be no life without information to guide the production of proteins necessary for forming living cells and to direct the metabolism that sustains life. Information comes only from intelligence.

The bottom line is that information is fundamental, and it’s built into every living cell. If someone says, “I will not believe unless I can see it,” they are not being honest. Everyone believes in things they cannot see. Information is fundamental, and we cannot see it. The Word created all things (John 1:3). At the right time, the Word became visible: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Those who refuse to believe in God because they can’t see Him should remember that “the things that are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (See 2 Corinthians 4:13-18.)

— Roland Earnst © 2026

What Troubled Darwin?

What Troubled Darwin?
Charles Walcott with Wife and Son examine Burgess Shale

In 1831, Charles Darwin, a recent Cambridge University graduate, helped experienced geologist Adam Sedgwick excavate rock layers in northern Wales. They discovered fossils in shale rocks dating to the Cambrian period of Earth’s history. At age 22, Darwin didn’t realize how significant their findings were. It wasn’t until many years later, when he published his book On the Origin of Species, that he was troubled by the “explosion” of Cambrian fossils. What exactly troubled Darwin about these fossils?

Scientists call the sudden appearance of Cambrian fossils the “Cambrian explosion.” These fossils come from a time when Earth’s first major animal groups appeared abruptly, with no clear predecessors. This challenges the idea of gradual evolution. That’s what troubled Darwin. The Cambrian explosion was a rapid appearance of most of the major animal groups that ever lived on Earth.

Darwin published his famous book On the Origin of Species in 1859, twenty-eight years after helping find the first Cambrian fossils. He believed life’s history would look like a branching tree, starting with single-celled organisms and each branch gradually becoming more complex. He thought that life evolved in small steps over long periods through natural selection. What troubled Darwin was the sudden appearance of Cambrian fossils without ancestors, but he expected future fossil discoveries to show gradual evolutionary changes.

However, things didn’t go as Darwin expected. In 1886, during the construction of the Canadian Pacific railroad across Canada, new Cambrian fossils were found in the Rocky Mountains. In 1909, Charles Walcott discovered fossils of soft-bodied Cambrian animals without predecessors in the Burgess Shale of British Columbia. These new animal forms were more complex than the ones Darwin knew, yet they still appeared suddenly without showing gradual evolution.

In 2014, another site in British Columbia, called Marble Canyon, revealed more troublesome fossils. In 1988, paleontologists uncovered exceptionally well-preserved specimens in Chengjiang, China. Now, another site in Huayuan, China, has revealed even more soft-bodied fossils with remarkable soft tissue preservation. Researchers have collected over 50,000 fossils and identified 153 animal species, 59% of which were previously unknown. These fossils span 16 animal phyla.

Some evolutionists suggest that missing links are hard to find because soft animal tissues don’t fossilize well. But this new discovery at Huayuan preserved delicate soft tissues in detail, from worms to jellyfish, showing gills, guts, and even nerves. They were preserved because they were buried quickly in a muddy slurry that turned into shale.

The key point is that many animals from the Cambrian period appear suddenly on opposite sides of the planet, with no signs of gradual change. They show no clear evolution over time. Darwinism cannot fully explain this puzzle, but those who believe in an intelligent divine Creator see these discoveries as making perfect sense. What troubled Darwin in 1859 would trouble him even more today.

— Roland Earnst © 2026

Reference: scienceandculture.com

Milankovitch Cycles and Life on Earth

Milankovitch Cycles and Life on Earth
Milutin Milankovitch statue in Belgrade, Serbia.

It should come as no surprise that the amount of sunlight reaching our planet influences our climate. Serbian mathematician and astronomer Milutin Milankovitch theorized that fluctuations in Earth’s climate are caused by changes in the amount of sunlight the planet receives, and that these changes follow specific cycles. Milankovitch calculated these cycles over the last 600,000 years and suggested they are responsible for ice ages and subsequent warmer interglacial periods. Geologists examining sediment layers in areas that were once ancient ocean beds confirmed the existence of Milankovitch cycles.

The amount of sunlight reaching Earth depends on three parameters that change over long time scales: the tilt of Earth’s axis, the eccentricity of its orbit, and the precession (wobble) of its axis. Because of the tilt of Earth’s axis, we experience seasons. Earth’s orbit is nearly circular but slightly elliptical, so its distance from the Sun varies. The precession of Earth’s axis is a slight wobble over time, similar to the wobbling of a spinning top.

Earth’s orbit is more circular than those of any other planet in our solar system. Because of this, the length of our seasons is approximately equal, but over long periods, these can change. The tilt of our planet’s axis is 23.4°, but it has varied in past ages from 22.1° to 24.5°. The precession of Earth’s axis also shifts over extended timescales. All three factors influence Earth’s climate because they alter the amount of sunlight reaching its surface.

The climate changes driven by these three factors are known as Milankovitch Cycles. The mathematician/astronomer calculated these cycles, and geologists have confirmed his calculations through examination of sediment layers from ancient ocean beds. The last Ice Age occurred about 20,000 years ago, when woolly mammoths roamed on ice sheets covering much of North America, Europe, and Asia. Over the past 10,000 years, the climate has remained remarkably stable, enabling the development of advanced civilizations.

As scientists study exoplanets beyond our solar system, they seek to determine their Milankovitch cycles because these cycles are another critical factor in assessing whether a planet can support advanced life. Mars has Milankovitch cycles that are far more extreme than Earth’s, which limits its potential to sustain life. Without the stabilizing influence of our relatively large Moon, Earth’s axis could oscillate up to 30°, leading to severe climate fluctuations. The more we learn about our unique planet, the more evident it becomes that God has finely tuned it to meet all our needs.

— Roland Earnst © 2026

Reference: space.com

Nonsense About a Created God

Who Created God?
View of Acropolis from Areopagus hill, Athens.

You’ve probably heard this question before. Someone says God created the universe, and then another person asks, “So who created God?” As silly as this question seems, it is often used as an argument against God’s existence by leading atheist Richard Dawkins. His best-selling book from a few years ago, The God Delusion, revolves around this very question. Asking “Who created God?” only makes sense if you are assuming a God who was created. But that’s not the God described in the Bible. It’s not the God that Christians, Jews, or even Muslims believe in. Let’s stop the nonsense about a created god.

When we talk about God, what do we mean? Are we thinking of the God described in the Bible who is eternal, uncreated, and exists before all things? “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1). Not only did God create everything, but He also sustains the universe (Colossians 1:17 and James 1:17). Richard Dawkins makes it clear he does not believe in God, but the god he does not believe in is not the God described in the Bible. I also do not believe in the god that Dawkins does not believe in. The God who created and sustains the universe is eternal, which voids the nonsense about a created god.

The ancient Greeks believed that matter had always existed, and that some god or gods emerged from the matter. Various gods, filled with human passions and sins, fought for control, bringing about a chaotic world. In other words, matter existed forever, but gods arose and kept things in chaos. Because of this misunderstanding of creation, the Greeks didn’t make much progress in what we now call science. If you don’t believe there is order in the universe, you can’t really study and find order within it.

Long before the Greek philosophers, the ancient Hebrews knew about the eternal God, the Creator of the universe. When the apostle Paul addressed the philosophers on the Areopagus in Athens, he pointed out how inadequate understanding of God. In Athens, Paul saw many idols honoring various gods. Just in case they missed one, he saw an inscription “to an unknown God.” Paul told them that even their own poets acknowledged that humans are God’s offspring, and if that’s true, God cannot be made of silver, gold, or stone—carved by human hands.

Therefore, we don’t need the nonsense about a created god. It’s meaningless. God is not a created being. We are His creation, meant to serve Him. Only by establishing a relationship with God can our lives be truly fulfilled, and this is possible because He seeks that relationship with us. He went so far as to send His only begotten Son to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins and to open the way for us to be restored to the eternal God who created, sustains, and loves us.

— Roland Earnst © 2026

The Subnivium World

The Subnivium World

People who live in regions that rarely experience snow are likely unaware of the subnivium world. Scientists call it “subnivium,” from the Latin “sub,” meaning below, and “nivis,” for snow. During winter, the subnivium world becomes active and full of life.

As snow falls, it gradually accumulates in layers that compress, forming a snowpack. When the snowpack reaches about seven inches, the subnivium world appears. This thick snowpack acts like a natural igloo, providing insulation for everything underneath. Regardless of the air temperature outside, the ground beneath the snowpack stays about 1°C above freezing.

The subnivium world isn’t dormant. Bacteria and fungi decompose plant material, consuming oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. This process, called soil respiration, makes the soil rich in carbon. In the spring, plants have the nutrients they need to grow. The soil also hosts springtails, centipedes, rove beetles, and other arthropods that move around, feed, and reproduce. These creatures become food for higher animals like shrews, moles, ground squirrels, pikas, and marmots.

The subnivium world isn’t a result of luck. Just like the environment above the snow, it exists because of careful natural engineering. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that without energy input, systems tend toward disorder, a state called entropy. Recognizing the engineering principles involved in the subnivium world shows the Creator’s intelligence and deliberate design, adding to the evidence for God’s existence.

— John N. Clayton © 2026

Reference: Smithsonian Magazine for February 2026, and smithsonianmag.com

Using Mosquitoes for 3D Printing

Using Mosquitoes for 3D Printing

3D printing has become an invaluable tool in many fields, including industrial manufacturing, medical device development, and even hobbyist projects. These applications often demand nanometer-scale precision, which requires very small nozzles. Printing nozzles can be made from metal, plastic, glass, or even mosquito proboscises. Wait a moment! Did I read that correctly? Can a 3D printing nozzle actually be made from the tube a mosquito uses to pierce your skin and suck your blood? Yes, there is a way of using mosquitoes for 3D printing.

Scientists are experimenting with a new type of biohybrid printing that employs a female mosquito’s proboscis as a 3D printing nozzle. As you may know, female mosquitoes are the ones that feed on blood, and this approach offers a more useful way to utilize their blood-sucking appendage. It could be highly useful in advanced manufacturing, microengineering, and medical applications.

Many times, people have discovered more efficient processes or created new products from observing plants or animals. We call it biomimicry. Examples include the Velcro hook-and-loop fastening system inspired by burdock plants, self-cleaning surfaces modeled after lotus leaves, and humans learning to fly by studying bird wings. We also use natural materials from plants and animals, such as skin to make leather or wood for building homes. So, why not try using mosquitoes for 3D printing?

Traditional bioprinting tips are made of non-biodegradable materials. The finest metal tips are 35 micrometers in diameter and cost over $80 each. The smallest plastic tips are 150 micrometers in diameter, while a mosquito’s proboscis has an inner diameter of only 20 to 25 micrometers—smaller than a human hair. Lab-raised, infection-free mosquitoes cost around 2 cents each, and their proboscises are biodegradable after use. Glass tips can match the size but are more expensive and fragile.

The precision tip of a mosquito proboscis can enable high-resolution drug delivery at a significantly lower cost than other options. God has blessed us with abundant resources to advance manufacturing and medicine while safeguarding the environment. He also gave us curiosity—the drive to explore and learn new things, like using mosquitoes for 3D printing.

— Roland Earnst © 2026

References: Science News for February 2026, page 27, and Science Advances

Looking for Answers in the Wrong Places

Looking for Answers in the Wrong Places - Turin Cathedral
The Turin Cathedral (Duomo di Torino) Turin, Italy

What do the Shroud of Turin, the statues on Easter Island, UFOs, and demon possession have in common? They keep appearing in the media because they are all money-makers for those who promote them, and because people are looking for answers in the wrong places.

The Shroud of Turin is a 14-foot linen cloth with an image of a man burned into it. It is kept in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, and has been used by the Catholic Church as a relic to attract Christian pilgrims to Turin. Facts about the shroud show it is not a supernatural object. The image on the Shroud is too tall for the time of Jesus. The cloth dates back to the 1300s and is a single piece of fabric, yet the Bible mentions two cloths—one for the head and one for the body.

The large statues called the “moai” on Easter Island were visited by Norwegian explorer Thor, who provided a clear explanation for them and how they were erected. This led to a book and a movie, and now they are a popular tourist attraction. Many books have been sold claiming that UFOs and demon possession are real. There are countless claims about Noah’s Ark, many of which have been major money-makers, including a replica in Kentucky. In Texas, a religious group trying to prove the Earth is only thousands of years old has claimed that human and dinosaur footprints are found in the same rock layers.

The problem is that unsupported claims can weaken young people’s faith as they learn about the true evidence. This website aims to show that scientific evidence supports what the Bible actually says. We often spend time and effort countering false claims made by people who lack understanding or are trying to deceive others who are looking for answers in the wrong places.

We don’t claim to have all the answers, but we do have extensive experience and support from people with academic credentials who can address many of the faith-related questions people have.

— John N. Clayton © 2026

Microevolution Does Not Confirm Macroevolution

Microevolution Does Not Confirm Macroevolution

Evolution, simply stated, is “change over time.” When we apply this to living organisms, we see two levels: microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between these can be simply stated. Microevolution involves changes below the species level, while macroevolution involves changes above the species level. For instance, transforming a sea creature into a land animal would be an example of macroevolution. Conversely, a bacterium developing resistance to antibiotics illustrates microevolution. The organism remains a bacterium. Microevolution does not confirm macroevolution.

We observe microevolution. Besides bacteria, we see human-directed evolution in dogs, cows, and roses. In each case, they are still dogs, cows, and roses, but with different traits. When Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species in 1859, he speculated that if his theory was correct, the “number of intermediate varieties” of living things should show up in an “enormous” number of fossils. He acknowledged that, in his time, “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.” However, he predicted that over time, those missing-link fossils would be discovered.

Paleontologists, scientists who study fossils, were some of Darwin’s strongest critics at the time. How is the situation today? The bottom line is that the missing links are still missing. The Field Museum of Natural History has one of the largest fossil collections in the world. In 1979, paleontologist David Raup, in the museum’s bulletin, stated, “We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much” since Darwin’s time. Famed paleontologist Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History wrote in 1985, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the Darwinian theory of gradual change), knowing all the while it does not.”

Now, more than 165 years after Darwin, the missing links are still missing, while the average person believes the fossil record proves Darwinian evolution because that is what we have been told. Microevolution does not confirm macroevolution, nor does the fossil record.

— Roland Earnst © 2026

References: “Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology,” Field Museum of Natural History bulletin, January 1979, p. 25; Time Frames: The Evolution of Punctuated Equilibria, Princeton University Press, 1985, pp. 144-45, and God’s Undertaker by John C. Lennox, Lion Hudson, 2009, pp. 113-14.

Ancestors of Modern Humans

Ancestors of Modern Humans
Anthropologists search for ancient fossils

The history of attempts to develop an evolutionary explanation for modern humans is filled with errors and assumptions. Some foot bones found in 2009 in the Afar Region of Ethiopia, along with other bones discovered since then, have led to the naming of a new “species,” Australopithecus deyiremeda. The Afar Region is also where the fossil known as “Lucy” was discovered, and these fossils have been celebrated as ancestors of modern humans.

The first problem with this type of report is that the word “species” is used very loosely. What exactly does “species” mean? When I took biology classes, species was defined as “a form of life that can breed and produce fertile offspring.” A dog and a cat are different species because they cannot breed to produce fertile offspring. Most of us remember the biological fact that a horse and a donkey can breed and produce a mule, but the mule is sterile because horses and donkeys are different species.

Today, we have two ape forms considered to be different species. The evidence includes a few foot bones, fragments of pelvis, skull, jaw, and teeth—not a complete skeleton. Because these bones were found in close proximity, researchers assumed they must belong to the same species, not to Lucy’s species, Australopithecus afarensis. Since these supposedly show a progression among the ancestors of modern humans, how much variation do we see in humans and apes today?

The name Australopithecus literally means “the ape from the south.” These are not humans but apes. None of this has any connection to the biblical account of God’s creation of humans. The statement in Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image…” does not refer to God’s physical image. God is a spirit (John 4:24). Genesis 2:7 describes man’s physical creation from “the dust of the earth.” The Bible does not tell us what that man looked like, how he was made, or how long it took.

Biblical critics and believers alike should not be concerned about the latest discovery by anthropologists claiming to be the ancestors of modern humans. Like all human endeavors, anthropology is fraught with errors and assumptions. Humans are unique as the only beings created in God’s image, a fact that anthropology does not address.

— John N. Clayton © 2026

Reference: Science News February 2026, page 13

Habitable Worlds Observatory

Habitable World’s Observatory
Artist’s Conception of the Proposed HWO

In a quest to detect life on a planet outside of our solar system, NASA has awarded three-year contracts to seven different companies to address the engineering challenges of a new precision space telescope. Since 2022, the James Webb Space Telescope has been capturing images of the universe in infrared light. Prior to that, the Hubble Space Telescope provided us with a deeper understanding of the secrets of space in the visible-light spectrum. The Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) is designed to pursue a different goal.

The HWO will be NASA’s most powerful space telescope, aiming to find signs of life in the universe. It will analyze light passing through the atmospheres of distant planets orbiting stars hundreds or even thousands of light-years away. Doing this will require a coronagraph thousands of times more powerful than any built before. A coronagraph is an instrument that blocks out the light from the Sun or other stars to reveal the faint atmospheres of exoplanets. It must also be repairable in space if any stray micrometeoroids impact its surface. The optical system must be stable within the width of a single atom. The precision required for the Habitable Worlds Observatory telescope surpasses any current technology.

This telescope must be far more advanced than the Webb Space Telescope, and you may recall the challenges and costs associated with that project. The goal is to have the Habitable Worlds Observatory ready for launch by the late 2030s or early 2040s. Jared Isaacman, the NASA administrator, stated that this is “exactly the kind of bold, forward-leaning science that only NASA can undertake.”

If the project succeeds in demonstrating that life could potentially exist on a planet outside our solar system, what then? If the planet is thousands of light-years away, we would be observing what it was like thousands of years ago. It will also take that long for us to beam a message to it, and if there are intelligent beings there, it will take an equal amount of time for them to respond. Traveling to such a planet would take humans many times longer, since it’s impossible to travel faster than a small fraction of light speed. Furthermore, even if we see signs that life could exist on a distant planet, we still won’t know for sure if life actually does.

One thing we can be certain of is that the project will take a lot of time and cost a lot of money. However, Isaacman says, “We intend to move with urgency.” In other words, there is an “urgent” desire to find out if there is life or any sentient beings beyond our planet. The truth is, there is a Being out there who has communicated with us, and He has even come to our planet to show us how to live and to redeem us from our sins. Perhaps the greatest urgency is for us to communicate with and come into a right relationship with Him.

— Roland Earnst ©2026

References: space.com and youtube.com