Roland Earnst Archives

August 19, 2025September 12, 2025

Only a Mind Can Create a Mind

Did the universe originate with matter or with a Mind? If matter was the starting point for all things, then we are simply matter. In that case, how can we have a mind? Are our minds just collections of cells formed from molecules that consist of atoms, which are made up of subatomic particles? Could unguided matter create our minds? Do we merely imagine that we have minds?

It seems more reasonable that a Mind was the starting point for all things. In that case, the Mind initiated the matter that formed the entire cosmos, all living things, and us. That Mind gave us minds, because only a Mind can create a mind.

The human mind has two parts working together. The physical part is what we call the brain. Materialists try to tell us that the brain is all there is. The brain handles material processes, including sensory and motor functions. It also influences emotions and memory. The other part, the soul, is not made of material substance. The soul performs abstract reasoning, makes moral choices, and exhibits free will. It is what makes us different from all other animals.

This non-material part of our mind works in conjunction with the physical brain. The brain controls our physical movements but deciding what to do is primarily under the influence of the soul. Reasoning and decision-making are activities of the soul, but damage to the brain can severely affect our ability to reason and make moral choices.

The physical and spiritual aspects of our minds must work together to make us fully functioning humans. For that reason, a person who experiences brain damage from stroke, brain cancer, severe brain injury, Alzheimer’s, or other causes struggles with abstract reasoning and decision-making. Dementia also results in loss of memory, sensory awareness, and motor skills, and it affects our emotions. However, physical factors such as fatigue and illness can also impact those things.

It’s essential to understand that despite physical impairments, whether temporary or permanent, we remain the same person with the same soul. For those suffering from dementia, regardless of its cause, loved ones need to realize that the soul, the spiritual part of that person, is still present. Malfunction of the brain makes the person seem very different, but the person’s soul is still present. We are all made in the image of God, who is a spirit (John 4:24), not physical. We are spirits functioning within a physical body. In this life, a damaged brain can limit the functioning of a person’s soul. However, we can thank God that the soul is freed from the brain at the moment of death, and those who have accepted the salvation Jesus offers will spend a blissful eternity with Him.

For more on the reality of the human soul, watch this video.

August 14, 2025August 13, 2025

Fraud in Scientific Research Data

Fraud is something we encounter in every area of life, including religion, business, and science. Some scientists are becoming very concerned about fraud in scientific research data. They face pressure to publish research papers to secure grants, advance their careers, or gain prestige. When financial gain is involved, scientists may be tempted to falsify the statistics they report. A recent study suggests that the number of fraudulent scientific publications is growing “at a rate far outpacing that of legitimate science.”

Scientists rely on the work of others and depend on the accuracy of published research. When data is falsified for financial gain, it can be deadly, especially in medical research. Faking scientific data for personal gain damages scientific knowledge. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly important across many fields, including medicine. If AI is trained on false data, it creates even bigger problems.

Reputable scientific journals are supposed to publish “peer-reviewed” research, but sometimes they must retract articles once errors are found. Other predatory journals publish without verifying the accuracy of the research. One British journal stopped publishing, and a criminal organization took over its domain, posting fraudulent research. Even legitimate science journals can be hacked by bribing employees. Often, fraudulent science comes from developing countries or nations with weak moral standards.

The point is that, like all human endeavors, there are instances of fraud in scientific research data. We often say that science and faith in God are friends, not enemies. True science about God’s creation and genuine faith in God and His word must align, as they both come from the same trustworthy source. However, humans are not always trustworthy, and that truth applies to both science and religion.

References: space.com and pnas.com

August 8, 2025August 8, 2025

Earth’s Age Is Irrelevant

How old is planet Earth? Why does it matter? Various branches of science agree, based on substantial evidence, that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Many Christians argue that it is only a few thousand years old, and they make it a matter of faith. In other words, if you disagree with their timeline, you are an evolutionist and Bible denier. Scientists have methods for calculating Earth’s age, and they have nothing to do with faith or denying the Bible. The truth is that Earth’s age is irrelevant to Christian faith.

Why do many Christians insist on a “young” Earth? It may be because they believe the Bible says so. They base that on a document written by an archbishop of the Church of Ireland, James Ussher, published in 1654. He calculated that Earth’s creation took place on October 22, 4004 B.C. He based his calculations on the assumption that the genealogies of Genesis are complete and that they are recorded for the purpose of chronology. Those assumptions are not correct. The biblical genealogies are incomplete, and their purpose is to show lineage, not chronology. Of course, the lineage eventually led to the Messiah. Because early English translations of the Bible included Ussher’s chronology, many came to believe it was the gospel truth.

Another significant reason many Christians today choose to believe in the young-earth doctrine is that they think it refutes evolution. Scientists don’t insist on billions of years to allow time for evolution. A little-known fact that scientists are reluctant to admit is that 4.5 billion years is not long enough for unguided evolution to create the diversity of life on Earth today. In reality, no amount of time is sufficient for random mutations and natural selection to accomplish the task. But not all of the 4.5 billion years are available for evolution. A large amount of time would be required for the planet to cool and become suitable for life. Then, more time would be needed for non-living elements to organize themselves into the first living cells. (They couldn’t do it by themselves in any amount of time, but that’s another issue.)

The bottom line is that Earth’s age is irrelevant to Christian faith. The age of the Earth is essential to the sciences of geology, paleontology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and others. As it relates to the Christian faith and the accuracy of the Bible, Earth’s age is irrelevant and always will be. Archbishop Ussher was an intelligent church leader and scholar, but his chronology fails because he based it on false assumptions. False assumptions lead to false conclusions.

August 6, 2025August 5, 2025

Shortest Day on Record?

If you’re thinking that you didn’t accomplish much yesterday, August 5, 2025, it might be because the day was shorter than usual. I don’t mean that the daylight hours were shorter. Earth’s solar day was shorter than the typical 24 hours, which equals 86,400 seconds. You probably didn’t notice because the day was only 1.25 milliseconds shorter. Blaming the shortest day won’t help—you’ll need to find some other reason for not achieving more.

Earth’s rotation speed had been gradually slowing down, but for some reason it started speeding up in recent years, making the days shorter. Official and precise records of solar day lengths since 1973 show that they were getting longer. Earth’s gravity creates friction against the Moon, causing it to drift farther away and slowing Earth’s rotation. A slower rotation results in longer days.

The Moon’s position relative to Earth’s equator creates tidal forces that very subtly influence Earth’s rotation rate. Scientists speculate that the slower rotation of Earth’s liquid core might cause the outer layers of the planet to spin faster, but that remains only speculation.

We can’t really say that yesterday was the shortest day because July 5, 2024, was 1.66 milliseconds shorter than the usual 24 hours. Don’t worry about any noticeable change in the length of days. God has given us an incredibly stable planet on which to live. Many finely tuned factors make life on Earth and our existence possible, and it could not have been accidental. This remarkable planet is further evidence that God exists.

Reference: space.com

July 30, 2025July 29, 2025

Free Will: Is It an Illusion?

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.

Reference: “Crime: Its Cause and Treatment” by Clarence Darrow

July 24, 2025July 24, 2025

Bryan Was Right About Macroevolution

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.

Reference: “Still Unrefuted: William Jennings Bryan’s Key Arguments Against Darwinian Theory” by Rick Townsend in the summer 2025 issue of Salvo magazine, Pages 28-32. 28-32.

July 23, 2025July 22, 2025

Bryan’s Arguments Against Darwin

Yesterday, July 21, 2025, marked the 100^th 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.

Reference: “Still Unrefuted: William Jennings Bryan’s Key Arguments Against Darwinian Theory” by Rick Townsend in the summer 2025 issue of Salvo magazine, Pages 28-32.

July 16, 2025July 15, 2025

Darwinian Toxic Masculinity

In recent years, many people have decried “toxic masculinity.” The term started trending on Google searches in 2015. Many social science authors have written about it, defining it in different ways. WebMd.com describes it as “an attitude or set of social guidelines stereotypically associated with manliness that often have a negative impact on men, women, and society.” The topic is not new, and even Charles Darwin addressed it. You might call it Darwinian toxic masculinity.

Are men pigs? In a bestselling book titled The Moral Animal, Robert Wright wrote, “Human males are by nature oppressive, possessive, flesh-obsessed pigs.” In Men and Marriage, George Gilder stated, “Men are, by nature, violent, sexually predatory, and irresponsible.” Where does this hostile view of men come from? We suggest Charles Darwin has something to do with it.

Darwin believed that males are superior to females. He argued that men can achieve a “higher eminence” than women in any field of effort. His conclusion was that “the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.” He believed this was true because of natural selection. Male animals must do many things to win their females and even more to keep them. Therefore, natural selection favors the dominant and combative male. He concluded that their struggles and challenges “increase their mental powers.” Since he saw humans as merely evolved animals, Darwinian toxic masculinity was a consequence of evolution and natural selection.

Darwin also claimed that dark-skinned people were less evolved than those with light skin, and women were less evolved than men because men had to “struggle in order to maintain themselves and their families.” With all the criticism of men’s behavior, perhaps we should call it Darwinian toxic masculinity. Contrasting Darwin’s mistaken ideas, Jesus Christ is the perfect example of true masculinity. He showed love and forgiveness as He made the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. Men today need to learn from Him.

References: Wikipedia, WebMd.com, and The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes by Nancy R. Pearcey (available on Amazon)

July 14, 2025July 11, 2025

Darwin’s Mistake According to Psychologists

In 1871, Charles Darwin proposed that the difference between human and nonhuman minds was a matter of degree, not kind. A 2008 publication by Cambridge University Press calls that “Darwin’s mistake.”

Animals with very different brains, and sometimes no brain at all, can perform the essential functions needed to live and survive. God has created various animal orders with what they need to fulfill their roles in the system of life. This explains the different sizes and capabilities of brains among animals. However, the mind is something more than just the brain.

According to the team of psychologists who authored the report, only humans possess a mind capable of “the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system.” In this peer-reviewed journal, they wrote, “We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain.” In other words, a vast gulf exists between the human mind and the brain power of any animal.

Darwin’s mistake, according to this Cambridge University article, was suggesting that all differences between humans and nonhumans are a matter of degree, not of kind. This theory is disproved by the fact that only humans can develop abstract thinking and writing because humans alone can invent and use symbols in communication.

When God created humans in His image, He gave us a mind capable of great achievements. Unfortunately, that ability can also be used for great evil. He gave us a spiritual nature with a desire to know Him. Yet, our pride can lead us to reject God and serve only ourselves. We humans are the only creatures who can choose to fulfill God’s purpose for us or to rebel against His will. Darwin’s mistake was to think the difference between humans and nonhumans was merely a matter of degree. It is truly a difference of kind.

Reference: “Darwin’s Mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds” at Cambridge.org

July 7, 2025July 7, 2025

Taxonomic Ranking of Living Things

Suppose that billions of years ago, a once-in-an-eon event took place. In a primordial soup of chemical elements, some of them came together to form amino acids. Over time, some of these amino acids assembled themselves into complex organic molecules such as RNA or DNA. Eventually, a living cell formed, complete with a nucleus and cell walls. It became the first living cell capable of metabolizing and reproducing through cell division. This was the first species in the taxonomic ranking of living things.

Next, imagine that mutations and natural selection acted on this initial species, causing it to evolve into different species. Over eons, more species appeared until one developed sexual reproduction. Then, things started to accelerate. Billions of years of reproduction and speciation resulted in a completely different animal. This was no longer a new SPECIES but the beginning of a new GENUS. More billions of years later, a new FAMILY of living creatures emerged. As life diversified, new ORDERS of animals appeared, followed by new CLASSES. Eventually, new PHYLA emerged within the animal KINGDOM. The tree of life finally grew into the amazing diversity we have today.

The problem is that the narrative we described seems to be in reverse order. Scientific classification, or the taxonomic ranking of living things, aims to illustrate the progression of genetic change, or evolution. The taxonomic ranking follows: species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom. This bottom-up progression described in our narrative does not align with the fossil record.

The stages of life development seem reversed in the fossil record. Dr. Hugh Ross noted, “…in many instances, such as the Avalon and Cambrian explosions, enormous macroevolutionary changes occurred rapidly; later, over long time spans, mere microevolutionary changes occurred. Diversification of phyla occurred first, and in no time, while diversification of species and genera occurred over eons.”

In summary, the fossil record appears to show the opposite of what naturalistic evolution predicts. However, the pattern in the fossil record aligns with the biblical view that God created various kinds of animals, each capable of change and adaptation. Their genetic design allows for microevolutionary adaptations over time to address changing circumstances and environments.

Today, we observe microevolution happening naturally and through guided human breeding and hybridization. We see this clearly in dogs and cattle. Even though humans have bred dogs to be very diverse, they remain within the canine (Canidae) family and do not evolve into a new order. Many varieties of cattle exist, but they are still cattle. Likewise, fossil evidence of animals transforming into a different class or phylum is lacking.

The best explanation for the incredible diversity of life on this planet, whether in the animal or plant kingdom, is that it was designed by a wise Creator who endowed living things with the ability to adapt and change on a microevolutionary level. The taxonomic ranking of living things seems to occur from the general to the specific rather than from the specific to the general.

Reference: “Unconfirmed” by Hugh Ross in Salvo magazine, summer 2025, pages 38-41