science Archives

August 18, 2025August 17, 2025

The Story of Clementine Breen and Gender Transition

The issue of gender transition for children is one of the great tragedies in today’s world. Not only is this a biblical issue with Genesis 2:15-24 making it clear that God’s design was a product of His wisdom and purpose, but it is a scientific issue with transgender children having a shortened life full of drugs and medical procedures. The story of Clementine Breen is an example.

A young lady named Clementine Breen is suing the medical establishment for inflicting irreversible damage upon her. She was just 12 years old when counselors and doctors told her she was really a boy. Clementine was sexually abused as a child, leaving her terrified of growing into womanhood. This led to “weird behavioral issues.”

Instead of receiving help with the damage of her past, Clementine was rushed into “transition” drugs and the removal of her healthy breasts. Medical providers scared Clementine’s parents into believing she was “high risk” for suicide. They asked her parents a cliché question we have heard many times, “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?”

Doctors gave Clementine puberty blockers when she was 12 years old, testosterone at 13, and a double mastectomy at 14. During this time, her mental health worsened, and she struggled with bouts of psychosis and even attempted suicide. At age 17, Clementine was encouraged by her providers to have a hysterectomy, but she refused. In 2024, Clementine stopped taking testosterone and found a counselor who helped her understand how her past had led her to become a trans person. She is now a college student and says, “I am a woman.”

Some children have found a temporary peace with their gender change, but ultimately, the negative results of the drugs and surgeries become obvious. There is a massive need for the story of Clementine Breen to be known by families, counselors, and doctors, who must understand that gender change procedures are not a positive way to meet the needs of troubled children. Humans should not be playing God with children’s lives when the results are catastrophic.

Reference: Alliance Defending Freedom newsletter for August 2025.

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 13, 2025August 12, 2025

Global Warming in the Past

We all need to be concerned about the impact of human activities on climate change, but the media hype suggesting that global warming is something new is simply not true. Science News magazine reported data on global warming in the past, going back to the Paleozoic era over 485 million years ago.

The data show that temperatures reached nearly 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 degrees Celsius) three different times in Earth’s history. The time of the coolest temperatures is the period in which we are living. Earth cooled about three million years ago, reaching 53.6 degrees Fahrenheit (12 degrees Celsius). According to NASA, the present average global surface temperature is 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius). It appears that our planet is heading into a warm cycle, which humans contribute to, but they are not the only cause.

The media and politicians sometimes present an alarmist view of the future to attract more attention. There has been global warming in the past, and while humans will be affected by future climate change, there are many contributing factors.

Reference: Science News magazine for August 2025 (page 35)

August 11, 2025August 10, 2025

Non-Native Species and the Natural Balance

People often disturb the delicate balance of the natural world by transporting plants, animals, or insects from one region to another, either accidentally or intentionally. When non-native species have no predators to keep them in check, or they outcompete local species for food or space, the natural balance is disrupted. The consequences are often negative.

The list of known cases of destruction caused by non-native species is extensive. Researchers say that introducing outsiders has led to 60% of local bird, mammal, and reptile extinctions. Over the past decade, Florida has spent an estimated six million dollars to control Burmese pythons. These large snakes were brought into the U.S. and sold as pets. When they grew too big to handle, people released them into the Florida Everglades. Without natural enemies in America, these snakes have been preying on local wildlife, including alligators, domestic dogs, cats, and even cattle.

A single Japanese knotweed plant brought into the U.S. can grow rapidly, has no natural predators here, and can crowd out other species, damaging buildings and drainage systems. This plant has appeared in 43 states, including Alaska. Even viruses and bacteria have been introduced from other parts of the world. COVID-19 is one example, but there are lesser-known cases too. For instance, the West Nile virus came into the U.S. from Uganda.

The number of invasive non-native species is huge. It includes Asian carp, parachuting Joro spiders, kudzu, giant hornets, sea lampreys, zebra mussels, South African red weevils, red swamp crayfish, and starlings, among others.

The U.S. government spends over three billion dollars annually on managing invasive species, and more than $150 billion yearly on agricultural damages. Globally, the bill reaches $423 billion. All of this stems from humans acting as poor stewards of the natural resources God has given us.

Reference: The American Legion Magazine for August 2025, pages 20 -26.

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

August 1, 2025July 31, 2025

Toad Churches Are Not the Answer

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.

References: vice.com and wikipedia.org

July 31, 2025July 30, 2025

Cowbird Mystery Solved

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.

Reference: The Week for July 25, 2025, page 21.

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.