People generally know that bees communicate through “waggle dances” to tell others in their colony where to find nectar and pollen. However, we may not be as familiar with bee decision-making.
Honeybees (Apis mellifera) foraging on flowers face numerous decisions that they must make literally on-the-fly. Researchers at the University of Sheffield in the UK recently studied the complexity of bee decision-making. In a split second, a bee must look at the flower’s color and/or fragrance, compare it to previous experiences, and decide if there is a potential reward. The bee must also consider whether it already carries a full load of nectar or pollen, or if it can carry more. Additionally, the bee must think about the needs of the colony and, importantly, whether a potential predator is nearby. Based on these factors, it chooses whether to stop at that flower.
These on-the-fly decisions involve the bee’s sensory, memory, and motor systems. Hovering over a flower can exhaust energy and pose dangers. The bee must decide whether to risk it, operating with a brain that is a hundred times smaller than that of a goldfish. The bee’s brain has fewer than one million neurons, compared to the average human brain with 86 billion neurons.
If you’ve ever struggled with making important decisions—and who hasn’t?—consider the amazing bee decision-making process. It could only be possible with a precision design by an intelligent Designer. Natural selection acting on chance mutations doesn’t provide the best explanation.
It’s well known that trees benefit the environment by taking in carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere through the complex process of photosynthesis. However, recent research indicates another way that trees are beneficial to life. Tree bark is home to over 1000 microbial species that help to eliminate methane, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide from the atmosphere.
There has been much concern about the greenhouse effect produced by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Often overlooked is the fact that the greenhouse effect of methane is many times more potent than that of carbon dioxide, and methane is produced by many natural sources, such as decomposing organic matter. Also, carbon monoxide produced by incomplete combustion is deadly for humans, and many of us have carbon monoxide detectors in our homes because of that. Hydrogen, along with carbon monoxide, apparently helps methane remain longer in the atmosphere. Therefore, removing carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and hydrogen from the atmosphere can reduce the greenhouse effect.
Researchers studied flooded lowlands in the Amazon region, where microbes living in lake and wetland sediments produce methane. When they measured the amount of methane bubbling up and compared that to methane data acquired by satellites, they were surprised. The satellite data indicated only half as much methane as predicted by ground-based measurements. The research showed that methane levels were reduced because microbes in tree bark oxidized methane. They also found that microbes in the tree bark oxidize hydrogen and carbon monoxide from the air. This shows another way that trees are beneficial to life.
The researchers found that different tree species had distinct microbial communities in their bark. Further study is needed to understand which tree species are most beneficial to the atmosphere. Previous research has found that tree trunks harbor many beneficial microbes. The bottom line is that trees are beneficial to life. In addition to being good for the environment, they are beautiful and beneficial for people’s emotional well-being. The more we learn about the design in the natural world, the more we are amazed by how God has given us exactly what we need for a living environment. It is up to us to enjoy and protect what God has provided.
An artist’s impression of 2 neutron stars colliding and merging
For years, many scientists were reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning. Looking through a telescope in the 1920s, Edwin Hubble observed that other galaxies were moving away from us. Going back in time, this suggests that at some point, they were much closer together. If we go far enough back, all matter and energy in the universe would have started from a single point called a singularity. For years, many scientists dismissed this idea, and Fred Hoyle mockingly named it the “big bang.” This leads us to the Hubble constant and gravitational waves, but I am getting ahead of the story.
In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMBR or CMB), which is leftover from the cosmic creation event (aka “big bang”). The CMB scientifically proved that the universe had a beginning. Further evidence in the 21st century made it impossible to deny that the universe had an origin. Since 1998, science has shown that the universe’s rate of expansion is accelerating. They hypothesize a mysterious force called “dark energy” to explain this acceleration, even though they have never detected this mysterious force.
To measure how fast the universe is expanding, scientists look for what they call the Hubble constant. They have two methods for measuring it: one involves using supernovae, and the other is based on physics principles within the standard model of cosmology. Explaining these methods is beyond the scope of this discussion, but the key issue is that they produce different results. This discrepancy is known as the “Hubble tension.” This leads us to a connection between the Hubble constant and gravitational waves.
In a March 2026 research paper, scientists from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and the University of Chicago have proposed a third way to measure the Hubble constant using gravitational waves. Albert Einstein’s 1915 theory of general relativity predicted gravitational waves, but they remained undetected for a hundred years. Then, in 2015, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) in the United States detected a gravitational wave for the first time. Since then, with international collaboration, more detections have followed.
Gravitational waves are produced by the collision and merging of black holes or neutron stars. The new theory suggests that by measuring the speed at which these collisions are moving away from us, it may be possible to determine the Hubble constant more precisely. Achieving this will require more sensitive gravitational wave detectors than the current ones. According to Daniel Holz at the University of Chicago, this could help us “learn more about the age and composition of the universe.”
The Hubble constant and gravitational waves give us new insights into creation. Ever since science was compelled to accept that the universe had a beginning, we have learned more about the power and wisdom of the Creator. The more we discover, the more we realize we can know there is a God through what He has made (Romans 1:20).
Every cell in the human body contains a molecule called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). We often hear about DNA being used in crime investigations because each person’s DNA is unique. The DNA molecule holds a code that determines many characteristics of an individual. It also contains some seemingly non-coding sequences that scientists have called “junk DNA.” Evolutionists suggest that this “junk” proves humans are simply the result of evolution because an intelligent creator would not have inserted ERVs or useless sequences into our DNA.
The most notable of these so-called junk sequences are endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). “Endogenous” means they originate from within the cells, and “retroviruses” because they were believed to be remnants of ancient viral infections that affected the genomes of our ancestors. The theory was that ERVs were inherited through the evolutionary process. However, recent studies paint a different picture.
If ERVs had been random viral insertions in our ancestors’ DNA, they would likely have no important functions. A recent study shows that they are “essential” on a “widespread” scale during the earliest stages of human development. Without them, the human embryo would not survive. Earlier research indicated that ERVs are crucial in our immune system, perform vital cellular functions, and help regulate gene expression.
Scientists should be cautious before assuming that so-called “junk DNA” has no purpose and that humans are simply products of blind evolution. One thing we have been told before is that God doesn’t make junk. Intelligent design predicted that we would find this “junk” has a purpose.
“Little pig, little pig, let me come in. Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin.” That familiar line comes from “The Three Little Pigs,” published in The Nursery Rhymes of England in 1886. It shows the piggy’s response to the wolf’s request to gain entrance to the pig’s home for nefarious purposes. The clever response of the pig could be stated in the less poetic way, “Absolutely not!”
To analyze this quote scientifically, we might ask whether pigs actually have chins. According to the scientific definition of chins, the answer is “absolutely not.” According to a recent scientific study, neither do other mammals, not even chimpanzees. Only humans possess chins. The respected science journal PLOS One published a study exploring why humans have chins. The researchers aimed to determine whether our chins resulted from direct natural selection or are merely a by-product of other factors.
The issue is that my chinny chin chin serves no clear survival purpose and thus cannot be directly explained by the evolutionary process of natural selection or survival of the fittest. Because the human chin is unique, anthropologists use it as a distinguishing feature for identifying our species, Homo sapiens, in the fossil record.
Evolutionists have proposed several explanations for why we humans have chins. One suggestion is that they help facilitate chewing, but many mammals without chins can chew foods that humans cannot. Another idea is that the chin provides more space for our thick tongues, which are crucial for speech. Even sexual selection of mates has been proposed as an evolutionary explanation for chins. However, according to the article in PLOS One, “none of these hypotheses have received strong support” for various reasons.
The study’s author, Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, a professor of anthropology at the University at Buffalo, suggests that the uniqueness of the human chin “does not mean that it was shaped by natural selection to enhance an animal’s survivability.” As for this animal—or human—I believe my chinny chin chin is part of God’s unique design for His creatures, created in His spiritual image.
Science fiction writers love multiverses, and so do many scientists. In science fiction stories, characters step through a portal and emerge in a parallel or inverted world. In the minds of some physicists, multiple universes exist in what is known as the multiverse hypothesis. According to that hypothesis, an almost infinite number of universes exist, each with radically different physical laws and properties. There is no evidence for this, and it is impossible to prove or falsify. So, what is the reason for a multiverse hypothesis?
Agnostic scientists who theorize a multiverse do so not because of evidence but because they cannot explain the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. Why are the particle masses and force strengths in our universe perfectly fine-tuned for us to be here? Slight changes in any of those factors would make it impossible for life to exist and likely for a universe with stars and planets to form.
Speculation about “bubble universes” in a frothing multiverse is pure science fiction at present, so what about another option? Some have proposed an idea based on quantum mechanics. This theory of particle physics states that particles can exist in a “superposition” of possible states until someone measures the particle’s position, at which point it collapses into a single state. It’s difficult to see how this could explain alternate universes, since quantum theory deals with the very small, not entire universes. That brings us back to the reason for a multiverse hypothesis. But, wait! Isn’t there another possible explanation for the fine-tuning of our universe?
Yes, there is another possible explanation for the astonishingly fine-tuned parameters of our cosmos. However, it is one that many stubbornly refuse to accept, or even consider. What about the possibility that the universe was designed by an infinite Intelligence that exists outside of time and space? Isn’t that a more reasonable explanation for the precise design that makes our existence possible?
Quantum fluctuations can’t explain it. Even an infinite number of universes could not explain how we happen to be lucky enough to live in a universe with the right combination of all the exact factors needed for life. Luck and chance are not scientific explanations. Even if there were an almost infinite number of universes, there would still need to be an explanation of how they originated. The design we observe in the cosmos can best be explained by a Designer. Isn’t the only reason for a multiverse hypothesis the desire of skeptics to avoid the most obvious and logical explanation?
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.)
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.
Today, in the Netherlands and Belgium, medically assisted euthanasia is legal, and anyone opting for assisted suicide may be contacted by an organ procurement organization. The same is happening in Canada, and some groups want to bring it to the United States. When medically assisted suicide becomes legal, it seems inevitable that it will lead to organ harvesting of assisted suicide victims.
Assisted suicide advocates suggest that if someone wants to die, their organs could be used to help others. Since they are going to die anyway, why not use their parts? When a country or state allows medically assisted suicide, it’s likely that organ harvesters will follow. When lethal injections are legalized, what stops someone from exploiting the mentally ill or disturbed, especially if there are benefits involved? What prevents abuse of the poor or vulnerable? “We will pay for medical technicians to end your life if you agree to sign your organs over to us. You won’t need them, and you won’t have any final expenses.”
So far, the trend of linking assisted suicide to organ harvesting has not gained wide acceptance in the United States, but it’s not certain that it won’t. Bioethics scholar Thaddeus Mason Pope has advocated for organ procurement organizations (OPOs) to be more aggressive in obtaining organs from patients seeking medical assistance in dying (MAiD). The thought is that people who are seeking MAiD but are not terminally ill might have better organs. Instead of letting people commit suicide on their own, do it in a hospital where the organs could be harvested immediately.
The Christian belief is that every life is sacred, and we do everything possible to save lives. When society begins to treat some human lives as worthless and human bodies as commodities to be traded, where does it end? Organ harvesting from assisted suicide victims is adding grease to a slippery slope with no bottom. The consequences are disastrous for a civilized society. Do we want to live in that kind of world?
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.
