science Archives

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.

July 21, 2025July 20, 2025

Trial of the Century?

In July 1925, what is known as the “Scopes Monkey Trial” was held in Dayton, Tennessee. Now, 100 years later, the battle over evolution continues. USA TODAY ran a 12-page special edition on July 13, 2025, giving an excellent historical exposé and claiming that what was at stake was “modern science versus religion.” The article also addresses current issues, including the representation of LGBTQ+ books in schools today. The paper claims that the so-called “trial of the century” was America’s first major culture war battle.

In an era when American education is undergoing massive change, there are many questions: Do schools have the right to ban certain books? Who should write the curriculum? Can the Bible be displayed in public schools? Should school prayer be allowed? Are vouchers the answer for school choice? Should schools be involved in sex education? Should the 10 commandments be displayed? Should schools have chaplains? These issues are being battled in courts, school board meetings, PTA presentations, and churches.

Many churches have established their own schools, and private schools are increasingly replacing public schools in various locations. One side effect is that money and teachers are being pulled away from the public schools. How do you teach a lab course when you have no funds to purchase equipment for students to use?

The sad part of all of this is that most of the conflict is unnecessary. The “Does God Exist?” ministry is based on the simple fact that science and faith are friends, not enemies. Modern science may disagree with some denominational teachings, but it does not contradict the Bible. If you read the Bible carefully, you will see that it consistently deals with evidence. Science is knowledge, and if God is the source of knowledge, the two MUST BE SYMBIOTIC – mutually supportive of each other.

The Scopes “trial of the century” centered on the topic of evolution. It is foolish to think that change does not occur in living things. How many different breeds of dogs, cats, chickens, cattle, and corn exist today? How did they come into being? The answer is “evolution,” but this was guided evolution. This is not to be confused with naturalism, which holds that blind chance can explain all that we observe in the natural world. Evolution is simply unfolding change, and it is undeniable, as evidenced by adaptive changes within species.

We urge our readers to go to our website doesgodexist.org or watch our video series on doesgodexist.tv for more information. Enroll in our correspondence course or read our free books. None of this requires any money – it is all free. It is essential to understand why you believe what you believe and be able to support it with evidence. We are here to help as you wade through the “trial of the century” media presentations.

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 15, 2025July 14, 2025

Radical Sea Level Changes

Scientific American magazine reported that if the entire Greenland ice sheet melted, global sea levels would rise by 24 feet. The article clarified by saying, “The sheet won’t melt all at once, of course…” What articles like this fail to convey is that Earth has experienced radical sea level changes throughout both geologic and human history.

Geologic history shows marine deposits in places you wouldn’t expect. When I taught earth science, I took my classes to Thornton Reef on the south edge of Chicago, Illinois. I am told that the gravel pit now occupying the reef is the largest in the United States. On one trip there, a student found the tube of a cephalopod, an ancient giant octopus-like creature. Clam shells, snail shells, and brachiopods filled buckets that my students took home. This reef is similar to modern ocean reefs, except it winds through the south side of Chicago with a major interstate highway running right through it.

Other examples of historic radical sea level changes are abundant. Oolitic limestone in southern Indiana consists of tiny ocean creatures called oolites. The limestone in the Grand Canyon contains marine deposits. On the other end of the scale, canyons are cut into continental shelves along the U.S. East Coast of the United States. Those canyons were cut when the shelf was out of water. Scuba divers have reported signs of ancient human-made structures and fire pits in those canyons.

Was the Red Sea at the same level when Moses led the Israelites across? Are people searching for Egyptian armor and chariot remains in the wrong spots? The “Sea of Reeds” was likely dry land at that time, so efforts there are probably doomed to fail. We still have much to learn about climate history, radical sea level changes, and ancient peoples. As our technology improves, discoveries will increase, and we look forward to uncovering more evidence of Earth’s history.

Reference: “Greenland’s Frozen Secret” in the July/August 2025 issue of Scientific American, pages 26-36.

John Cooper explores dry land evidence for the credibility of the biblical account in a series of videos produced by Does God Exist?

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