Summer brings insect bites and chemical irritation from certain plants. Insect bites or touching poison ivy or another irritating plant activate a series of itching and scratching. Why do we scratch? Why does it feel good? And why does scratching sometimes make the problem worse?
When we scratch, we cause an increase in blood flow to the area, which temporarily eases the itching. Scratching causes a mild soreness that distracts us from the itch. It also activates the brain’s reward system—the same system involved in addiction. The brain releases the happiness hormone serotonin, which increases the desire to scratch even more. This can lead to skin damage and inflammation, turning a minor itch into a bigger problem.
Scientists are exploring the complex system of itching and scratching. Although itching is closely related to pain, researchers have discovered cells in the spinal cord that transmit itch signals separately from pain signals. Both pain and itching have beneficial and harmful effects.
The complexity of our bodies showsevidence of design, not accident. Itching and scratching are designed to cause us to react to external attacks on our bodies, removing the effect of irritants and producing new epidermal cells. This is another demonstration of the truth of Psalms 139:14: “I will praise you, God, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful…”
Americans have come up with some strange ways to replace Christian faith. About 10 years ago, a news story reported that smoking dried secretions from the skin of “trippy toads” (better known as Sonoran Desert toads or Colorado River toads) could produce an intense psychedelic high. To avoid legal issues, people claimed that smoking these dried secretions was an Indigenous religious practice. The truth is that no tribe ever did this, but a market for toad slime grew, putting Sonoran Desert toads on the brink of extinction. Toad churches continue to emerge.
In 2021, a new toad church appeared in Texas, calling itself the Church of Psilomethoxin. They reach out to veterans suffering from PTSD. Like all alternatives for those who reject Christianity, this movement offers no real purpose, only temporary pleasure, and it can cause great harm to both people and toads.
The long-term effects of all drugs are significant. In the 1960s, Timothy Leary promoted LSD and started the Harvard Psilocybin project to support his claims. Forty years later, the disastrous consequences of LSD use are well known. We’re beginning to see the long-term impacts of marijuana, and alcohol remains the most destructive drug mankind has developed.
Rejecting the teachings of Jesus Christ and turning to temporary highs always leads to negative outcomes. Toad churches are just one example among many attempts by skeptics of Christianity to find an alternative.
Cowbirds are quite unique among birds. A female cowbird lays her eggs in another bird’s nest. The parent birds there raise the cowbird chicks as their own, even if they are smaller than the cowbird. The cowbird mystery is how the bird, raised among a different species, finds a mate.
Recent studies have offered an answer. About a month after hatching, the young cowbird leaves the foster parent’s territory. It then encounters adult cowbirds and instinctively follows them. The foster parent does not help with this process, but their behavior allows cowbirds to reproduce.
The scientific term for the cowbird’s behavior is “brood parasitism.” Although the cowbird mystery may seem like an unusual way to reproduce, it helps maintain balance in the bird world. God’s creation has many mysteries we don’t yet understand, but as we learn more, we see the wisdom behind it. This reminds us of Romans 1:20, which states that we can know there is a God through the things He has made.
Did you decide to read this article, or do you just think you made that decision? Do you have the ability to choose or reject any action? When we hear about someone murdering another person or a group of people, did that person choose to do it? Those who deny that we have free will argue that we cannot make our own decisions because the molecules in our brain neurons, our environment, and circumstances control us. This is the view held by atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Stephen Hawking.
Those who deny the existence of free will are materialists, believing that matter is all that exists. What we call our mind is merely the accidental activity of atoms and molecules in our nerve cells. Since these accidents direct our actions, free will is just an illusion. The atheist attorney Clarence Darrow, of Scopes trial fame, wrote, “It has been generally assumed that man was created different from all the rest of animal life; that man alone was endowed with a soul and with the power to tell good from evil; … that man not only knew good from evil, but was endowed with “free will,” and had the power to choose between good and evil…As a matter of fact, every scientific man knows that the origin of life is quite different from this; that the whole current conception of the individual and his responsibility is a gross error…”
Darrow’s views stem from his belief in materialistic evolution. We must ask, “If we have no free will to choose our actions, why do we think we do?” Of course, the atheist would say that blind and undirected evolution has planted within us the illusion that we can make free will choices. If we are nothing but accidental collections of atoms, the mind is an illusion, and free will cannot be possible. If what we perceive as design in the natural world is only an illusion, then free will is also an illusion. If there is an ultimate MIND that created this universe, life, and our minds, that would explain why we see design in the universe, our solar system, planet Earth, life, and our bodies. If God does not exist, there is no design, no purpose, and no free will.
As I consider this scenario, I wonder how anyone can truly live life believing there is no design, purpose, or free will. Most casual atheists probably have not considered the implications of their worldview, or they choose not to dwell on them. They simply say, “There is no God, so just enjoy life.” But how can you choose to enjoy life if you have no real choice? It seems to me that this whole atheist mindset, worldview, philosophy—whatever you want to call it—denies reality. Design in the universe and in nature is real, and so is our ability to choose. Therefore, choose wisely.
Some of the smartest people in history were not wise. Albert Einstein was very intelligent, but he struggled with simple tasks, such as tying his shoes. He would get lost on his way to his office and couldn’t remember birthdays. In 1952, the prime minister of Israel wanted him to become the country’s new president, but Einstein said he lacked the aptitude or experience to “deal properly with people and to exercise official function.” There is a clear distinction between intelligence and wisdom.
There are many kinds of intelligence, and my son Tim exemplifies this. Tim was mentally challenged based on tests involving normal daily functions. His school placed him in classes for the mentally impaired, but on a verbal test, he scored within the normal range. His ability to hold an intelligent conversation was fairly standard, but his capacity to care for himself was nonexistent.
Being wise is a gift from God and is described in James 3:17: “But the wisdom that comes from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.” James 1:5 says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and does not put conditions on what He gives, and it shall be given to him.”
Proverbs 14:32-35 tells us, “When calamity comes, the wicked are brought down, but even in death the righteous have a refuge. Wisdom reposes in the heart of the discerning, but in the heart of fools she is not known. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.”
We can’t deny the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Will America survive the leadership of intelligent people who lack biblical wisdom? As our nation drifts away from belief in God, we can find the answer in the lessons of history that we seem to forget.
The famous Italian poet Dante Alighieri, writing around the year 1300, wrote that “all of the seven deadly sins are an attack on love. Pride, envy, and anger result from perverted love, sloth from insufficient love, and greed, gluttony, and lust from an excessive love of earthly goods.”
The Bible teaches us that God is love (1 John 4:8), and Jesus instructed that Christians should have a special kind of love, expressed in the Greek word “agape.” Christians should see every human being as worthy of love because they are created in the image of God. Dante’s observation that the things God hates are an attack on love resonates with the current state of the world, as many turn away from God.
The Bible uses various Greek words to describe how God wants us to love. The one Greek word that is NOT used is “eros,” from which our English word “erotic” is derived. Those who reject God often turn to a distorted form of love that is more than destructive. It results in frustration and prevents those involved from experiencing the true joy that God created in physical love.
Other religious systems promote what amounts to an attack on love. Practices such as polygamy, polyandry, incestuous relationships, and pedophilia all lead to abuse and frustration for everyone involved. In Matthew 19:8-9 and Mark 10:5-9, Jesus speaks of the hardness of men’s hearts, which results in women being treated as pawns and obstructs God’s plan for the nuclear family.
Hard-heartedness fosters greed, war, violence, and abuse. Ultimately, political systems that endorse such behavior will collapse. You either learn from history or repeat it. The question is, what will happen to America as atheism, naturalism, and secularism replace the teachings of Christ, and as the sins God hates bear their bitter fruit? Only time will tell.
Bryan was right. Even after a century, his arguments remain unrefuted. A play that fictionalized the famous Scopes trial was first performed in 1955, and film versions were released in 1960 and 1999. Both films were well-produced with talented actors but showed a clear bias toward evolution and against William Jennings Bryan. The character representing atheist Clarence Darrow as the defense attorney was portrayed as an intelligent, kind, and caring man. Conversely, the William Jennings Bryan character was depicted as a fool, which he was not. Yesterday, we examined Bryan’s arguments against evolution based on the origin of life and genetics/morphology. Today, we look at chemistry and species.
In Bryan’s era, advocates of evolution suggested that the chemistry of life could naturally generate complex code. The complexity of living cells was not yet understood. Bryan wrote a closing argument that he was unable to present at the Scopes trial. This document, published after his death, included these words:
“Chemistry is an insurmountable obstacle in the path of evolution. It is one of the greatest of the sciences; it separates atoms, isolates them, and surrounds them, so to speak. If there were a progressive force or an eternal urge in nature, chemistry would discover it. But it is not there. All of the ninety-two original elements are separate and distinct; they combine in fixed and permanent proportions. Water is H2O, as it has been from the beginning. It was here before life appeared and has never changed; neither can it be shown that anything else has materially changed.”
Bryan was right to say that chemistry cannot explain the evolution of life. Today, no scientist can demonstrate that chemistry alone accounts for the origin of new features in living things or the complexity of life.
Bryan’s fourth argument was the lack of the emergence of new species. He pointed out that animals pass on their body plans and features to future generations. According to historian and author Rick Townsend, Bryan “suggested that no evidence had been presented to validate the claim of new species arising naturally.” As Bryan stated, “…many evolutionists adhere to Darwin’s conclusions while discarding his explanations.”
Both the biblical record and the record of paleontology show that the appearance of new, unique species stopped after humans came on the scene. Furthermore, the fossil record suggests that the number of species has decreased rather than increased since the first humans appeared on Earth. After creating humans, God rested from creation until this day.
We observe microevolution within species, but not macroevolutionary changes. The scientific community cannot demonstrate how microevolution can lead to macroevolution because changes within species hit a barrier that cannot be crossed. Random mutations and natural selection are unable to produce entirely new and unique creatures.
In a 2016 meeting of the prestigious Royal Academy of London, the conference leader and evolutionary biologist Gert Muller wrote, “The real issue is that genetic evolution alone has been found insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity…” That’s a fancy way of saying that 100 years after the Scopes trial, evidence for Darwin’s “evolutionary synthesis” is still lacking. In other words, Bryan was right.
Scopes Trial, William Jennings Bryan on the left and Clarence Darrow on the right
Yesterday, July 21, 2025, marked the 100th anniversary of the end of the famous Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Over the past few days, the media have commemorated it, and we have written about it HERE and HERE. The play “Inherit the Wind,” loosely based on the Scopes trial, was adapted into a movie twice, with the names changed to protect the innocent, or guilty. The real name was William Jennings Bryan, and although Bryan’s arguments against Darwin were not presented in the play or movies, they have still not been answered in the 100 years since Scopes.
William Jennings Bryan was a renowned orator of his day and a devout Christian who was not convinced of the truth of naturalistic macroevolution. One of his arguments against it involved the origin of life. Evolution does not explain creation. Evolution requires creation, and Darwin merely suggested that life got started in a “warm little pond” without explaining how that might have happened. Bryan said this:
“Those who reject the idea of creation are divided into two schools, some believing that the first germ of life came from another planet, and others holding that it was the result of spontaneous generation. Each school answers the arguments advanced by the other, and as they cannot agree with each other, I am not compelled to agree with either.”
After 100 years of research, scientists are no closer to solving the mystery of the origin of life than they were in Bryan’s day.
Another area that Bryan challenged was genetics (the passing of traits through generations) and morphology (the shape and structure of living things). Bryan expressed his doubts with a watermelon illustration:
“I was eating a piece of watermelon some months ago and was struck with its beauty…One [seed], put into the ground, when warmed by the sun and moistened by the rain, takes off its coat and goes to work; it gathers from somewhere two hundred thousand times its own weight, and forcing this raw material through a tiny stem, constructs a watermelon. It ornaments the outside with a covering of green; inside the green it puts a layer of white, and within the white a core of red, and all through the red it scatters seeds, each one capable of continuing the work of reproduction. Where does that little seed get its tremendous power? Where does it find its coloring matter? How does it collect its flavouring extract? How does it build a watermelon? Until you can explain a watermelon, do not be too sure that you can set limits to the power of the Almighty and say just what He would do or how He would do it. I cannot explain the watermelon, but I eat it and enjoy it.”
Today, we know that DNA carries the code for proteins and regulates cell functions, but science still does not understand the body plan of living things. What was once called “junk DNA” (non-coding) appears to be involved in morphology, but its mechanism of action remains unknown. Consider the similarities between the DNA of humans and fruit flies, and notice the vast differences in their body plans.
William Jennings Bryan’s arguments against Darwin have still not been answered by science. The origin of life and the secrets of genetics and morphology are still unexplained. Tomorrow, we will look at two more of Bryan’s arguments against Darwin.
Researchers at the University of Michigan found that in 2024, 21% of adults aged 50 and older used cannabis in some form, from smoking to consuming edibles. Here in southwestern Michigan, the number of stores where you can walk in and buy edibles is the same as picking up a candy treat at the supermarket. Within 15 miles of my house, there are 10 dispensary outlets selling various forms of over-the-counter cannabis. There’s a common misconception that if something can be bought in a store, it must not be harmful, but the facts on marijuana use by older adults dispute that.
A study of emergency room visits in California from 2005 to 2019 found a 1,804% increase in cannabis-related ER visits among people aged 65 and over. In Canada, cannabis was legalized in 2020, and ER visits by older adults have skyrocketed since then. Marijuana use by older adults may suggest they are unaware of the significant increase in potency of pot products compared to their younger days.
The use of marijuana dates back as far as 2,700 B.C. Marijuana is a drug, and any drug can have side effects that vary from person to person. Recreational drugs often cause problems with medications a person may be taking. The fact is that using marijuana in any form is risky, and there is still much we don’t understand about the long-term effects of this popular drug.
Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan at Scopes trial in 1925
In July 1925, what is known as the “Scopes Monkey Trial” was held in Dayton, Tennessee. Now, 100 years later, the battle over evolution continues. USA TODAY ran a 12-page special edition on July 13, 2025, giving an excellent historical exposé and claiming that what was at stake was “modern science versus religion.” The article also addresses current issues, including the representation of LGBTQ+ books in schools today. The paper claims that the so-called “trial of the century” was America’s first major culture war battle.
In an era when American education is undergoing massive change, there are many questions: Do schools have the right to ban certain books? Who should write the curriculum? Can the Bible be displayed in public schools? Should school prayer be allowed? Are vouchers the answer for school choice? Should schools be involved in sex education? Should the 10 commandments be displayed? Should schools have chaplains? These issues are being battled in courts, school board meetings, PTA presentations, and churches.
Many churches have established their own schools, and private schools are increasingly replacing public schools in various locations. One side effect is that money and teachers are being pulled away from the public schools. How do you teach a lab course when you have no funds to purchase equipment for students to use?
The sad part of all of this is that most of the conflict is unnecessary. The “Does God Exist?” ministry is based on the simple fact that science and faith are friends, not enemies. Modern science may disagree with some denominational teachings, but it does not contradict the Bible. If you read the Bible carefully, you will see that it consistently deals with evidence. Science is knowledge, and if God is the source of knowledge, the two MUST BE SYMBIOTIC – mutually supportive of each other.
The Scopes “trial of the century” centered on the topic of evolution. It is foolish to think that change does not occur in living things. How many different breeds of dogs, cats, chickens, cattle, and corn exist today? How did they come into being? The answer is “evolution,” but this was guided evolution. This is not to be confused with naturalism, which holds that blind chance can explain all that we observe in the natural world. Evolution is simply unfolding change, and it is undeniable, as evidenced by adaptive changes within species.
We urge our readers to go to our websitedoesgodexist.org or watch our video series on doesgodexist.tv for more information. Enroll in our correspondence course or read our free books. None of this requires any money – it is all free. It is essential to understand why you believe what you believe and be able to support it with evidence. We are here to help as you wade through the “trial of the century” media presentations.
