Roland Earnst Archives

February 13, 2026February 9, 2026

Nonsense About a Created God

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.

February 11, 2026February 9, 2026

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.

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

February 9, 2026March 11, 2026

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.

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.

February 6, 2026January 31, 2026

The Energy Efficiency of the Human Brain

There is significant concern about the large amount of energy needed for Artificial Intelligence. AI and the computer processing power required to imitate human intelligence will require constructing new power plants to supply more energy. Compared to this, the energy efficiency of the human brain uses only 17 watts of power while performing functions that AI has not yet mastered. At the same time, the brain makes up only 2% of the body’s mass but consumes 20% of its energy.

The continuous flow of chemical reactions that keep the brain working is called metabolism. For brain cells to function, they need a constant supply of glucose that passes through the blood-brain barrier. If a person fasts for a long time or follows a ketogenic diet, the brain must switch to an alternative fuel source, which is ketones produced by the liver. As a secondary backup, the brain can also operate on lactate.

The brain transforms these energy sources into ATP (adenosine triphosphate). Neurons use ATP to generate electrical signals, which account for most of the brain’s energy use. Glial cells support neurons in various ways, such as breaking down glucose to provide energy.

During deep sleep, the brain’s metabolic rate decreases, but not as much as you might expect. When you are deeply engaged in complex tasks, your brain only uses about 5% more energy. The small difference exists because the brain is constantly performing “housekeeping” tasks, managing your body, and maintaining the functions of various organs and tissues. It continuously monitors your environment, pays attention to sights and sounds, and alerts you to issues that need attention.

After performing mentally demanding tasks, you might feel exhausted, but it could be due to tension. Your brain maintains a delicate energy balance across different neural regions, directing energy where it is needed. The energy efficiency of the human brain allows it to do everything with just 17 watts, while a supercomputer would need megawatts to perform the same tasks. It keeps your lungs breathing and your heart beating while you solve differential equations and think about what’s for dinner.

Artificial Intelligence can’t match the energy efficiency of the human brain. Your brain shows evidence of a designer God.

References: biologyinsights.com and zmescience.com

February 3, 2026January 31, 2026

Habitable Worlds Observatory

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.

References: space.com and youtube.com

February 2, 2026February 8, 2026

Controlling the Sun

The Sun has been very active lately, with sunspots and solar flares, causing auroras to be visible farther south in the Northern Hemisphere. People have enjoyed seeing the colors of the Aurora Borealis, but engineers and scientists are worried about potential effects on satellites and power grids. As we approach the peak of the 11-year solar activity cycle, some are concerned about controlling the Sun.

The truth is that our Sun’s radiation bursts are 10 to 100 times weaker than what scientists have observed from similar stars in the Milky Way galaxy. Why is it that planets we have detected orbiting other sun-like stars might be exposed to deadly radiation that we are protected from? One study by scientists at the German laboratory Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf suggests that Venus, Earth, and Jupiter may be partially responsible for controlling the Sun.

The Sun is most active when its magnetic field is strongest, and the idea is that the gravitational pull of Venus, Earth, and Jupiter creates a tidal force that affects the Sun’s magnetic field. The Sun’s magnetic dynamo generates its magnetic field, while the subtle gravity of these three planets may produce a tidal effect. This may make the Sun’s activity “much more benign than that of other sun-like stars,” according to physicist Frank Stefani and his colleagues.

We’ve often said that many factors need to be just right for our planet to support life. This may be another factor to consider. The research team noted that every 11 years, the tidal forces of these three planets align in a way that could influence the Sun’s magnetic dynamo. They admit there are still “missing pieces in our synchronizing jigsaw,” so more research is needed before definitively claiming that these planets are a factor in controlling the Sun. Nevertheless, the fact is that our Sun’s radiation eruptions are 10 to 100 times weaker than those of similar stars. This suggests our planetary system is not accidental but intentionally designed for life.

References: space.com and hzdr.de

January 22, 2026January 17, 2026

Space Travel Brain Shifting

Space travel can change your brain in more ways than one. We have mentioned the “overview effect” that people experience when looking down on planet Earth from space. It can open a person’s mind to the realization that we are small and that we depend on the components for survival that God has provided on this planet. New research indicates that space travel and weightlessness can also affect your physical brain. You could call it space travel brain shifting.

Brain MRI scans of 26 astronauts and 24 non-astronauts, conducted by Rachel Seidler and others at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), revealed how microgravity affects human brain anatomy. Their research showed that the astronauts’ brains shifted backward and upward while also rotating upward. The effects could still be detected months after returning to Earth. They analyzed MRIs from 15 astronauts before and after spaceflight, and from 11 others after returning. Twenty-four other volunteers participated in a long-duration head-down tilt bed experiment.

There was a measurable change in how the astronauts’ brains fit inside their skulls depending on how long they spent in space. The maximum displacement was 2.52 millimeters. The bed rest control group did not show marked changes. The question is how the space travel brain shifting affects performance after returning to Earth. The astronauts did experience balance issues, apparently due to effects on the inner ear and sensory regions of the brain.

The bottom line is that the study showed that physical shifts in the astronauts’ brains lasted up to six months. The study is concerned about “the long-lasting effects of spaceflight on neuroanatomy.” Again, we are reminded of how much we depend on the components for survival that God has provided on this planet.

Reference: space.com

January 20, 2026January 17, 2026

Newly Discovered Plant Communication Method

This isn’t a new method plants use to communicate with each other, because they have been using it for who knows how long. But for scientists, it’s a newly discovered plant communication method.

The natural world is filled with astonishing forms of communication, and plants are no exception. We have mentioned before that plants communicate underground with the aid of fungi and mycorrhizal networks in what some have called the “woods-wide-web.” They also communicate by releasing chemicals into the air. We have even seen that they communicate with insects by means of sounds. Plant communication does not involve images, spoken words, or written texts, but can still be considered communication.

Plants communicate primarily through chemical signals. When a plant experiences stress—such as an attack by herbivorous insects—it may release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air. These airborne chemicals can be detected by neighboring plants, which may then activate their own defense mechanisms preemptively. This method of plant communication has sometimes been described as “eavesdropping.”

The newly discovered plant communication method involves electrical signals passing from plant to plant when leaves touch. Ron Mittler and colleagues at the University of Missouri in Columbia experimented by growing thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana). They grew some plants in isolation and some in dense patches where the leaves touched. Then they stressed the plants by exposing them to excess light. The plants that were grouped together showed less stress damage than the ones in isolation. The researchers analyzed gene expression in isolated plants and in plants that were touching. They also monitored signals passed between the grouped pants.

According to the report, the plants with leaves touching activated over 2,000 stress-response genes that could help to protect them from excess light, cold, salinity, and wounding. The isolated plants showed greater cell damage under stressful conditions.

Understanding plant communication opens new doors for agriculture, conservation, and our appreciation of design in the natural world. Mittler hopes that this newly discovered plant communication method may be used to design mixed plant communities that are more resilient, perhaps reducing the need for chemical pesticides or fertilizers. We believe that God has given us the tools and the talent to reveal new strategies for ecosystem management and food production.

Reference: sciencenews.org

January 9, 2026December 31, 2025

The Unchurching of America?

American news website Axios featured an article by Russell Contreras titled “The Great Unchurching of America.” It begins with the statement, “The U. S. is undergoing its fastest religious shift in modern history.” The article notes a “rapid increase in the religiously unaffiliated” and “numerous church closures nationwide.” Is there an “unchurching of America?”

The article points out that “nearly three in 10 American adults today identify as religiously unaffiliated” (Also called “nones “). That figure rises to four in ten among Americans aged 18-29. According to a Gallup survey, 57% of Americans “seldom or never attend religious services, ” up from 40% in 2000. According to the article, 15,000 churches will shut their doors this year, while only a few thousand are expected to open. This results in empty buildings that were once community gathering places for AA meetings, town halls, or voting precincts. These abandoned buildings are difficult to sell.

It seems to me that many of the abandoned church buildings are affiliated with liberal denominations that have abandoned the gospel message. The article mentions that megachurches remain stable. Perhaps that is because they can offer more for families than small, aging churches. As we have said before, the church is not a building.

Are we witnessing the unchurching of America, or is this a shift away from religious liberalism toward more conservative, biblical Christian values? Could this also signal a return to political conservatism? Axios notes that only 12% of Republicans identify as religiously unaffiliated, compared to 34% of Democrats.

Axios asserts that “There is no widespread academic or mainstream evidence of a large-scale national religious awakening.” Time will reveal whether this so-called “unchurching of America” reflects a genuine loss of faith or an abandonment of hollow churches that have become mere social clubs, lacking belief in basic biblical truths. A return to fundamental biblical Christian faith and a renewed focus on evangelism and sharing that faith may be on the horizon.

Reference: Axios.com

January 8, 2026August 3, 2026

Believing Extraordinary Claims Despite the Evidence

In his 1979 book Boca’s Brain, the late Carl Sagan wrote, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” That aphorism is often called the Sagan standard or ECREE. I believe Sagan was guilty of making extraordinary claims that he couldn’t prove, but we’ve discussed that before. The truth is that people are often guilty of believing extraordinary claims despite the evidence.

An extreme example of rejecting clear evidence to believe extraordinary claims is Mike Hughes, who died in 2020 while attempting to “prove” that the Earth is flat. Some say he didn’t really believe the Earth is flat but used it as a publicity stunt. What reasons, besides a desire for publicity, could cause someone to reject evidence? Psychologists suggest that cognitive biases play a role. If you expect something to be true, you might dismiss evidence that suggests otherwise.

Another reason for believing extraordinary claims despite the evidence is social influence. If loved ones or admired figures hold those beliefs, it becomes easier to accept something that contradicts the evidence. Conspiracy theories are often embraced by those surrounded by a community of fellow conspiracy believers.

A common reason for believing something extraordinary is that your personal experience has led you to believe it is true. The flat Earth concept may seem reasonable when you stand outside and look around. Does this look like a sphere to you? Do you trust what others tell you, or your own eyes? Strange experiences, hallucinations, or psychoactive drugs can also lead someone to accept an extraordinary claim.

Extraordinary beliefs aren’t inherently good or bad. Scientists challenging the status quo—such as questioning the evidence supporting neo-Darwinism—can lead to new insights. Carl Sagan’s statement, “The cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be,” (from his TV series), cannot be backed by extraordinary evidence. It’s a philosophical statement, not a scientific fact. In fact, science can’t prove that God does not exist, and increasing evidence of fine-tuning points toward an intelligence behind creation.

Both scientists and believers in God should avoid letting social dynamics and peer pressure shape their beliefs. Carefully examine the evidence for what you believe and avoid falling into the trap of believing extraordinary claims despite the evidence.