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.
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.
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.
Scopes Trial, William Jennings Bryan on the left and Clarence Darrow on the right
Yesterday, July 21, 2025, marked the 100th 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.
Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan at Scopes trial in 1925
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 websitedoesgodexist.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.
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.
Thornton Reef Quarry with Interstate 80/294 crossing it
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.
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.
Since the Scopes trial took place 100 years ago, numerous books and articles have been written in scientific journals, popular media, and other outlets regarding evolution and the biblical concept of God’s creation. We have attempted to clarify that the word “evolution” refers to an unfolding change and that it is a design feature of life on Earth. We have also pointed out that many features of living things are so complex that evolution cannot provide a reasonable explanation for their emergence through unguided gradualism. Today, we consider the evolution of the bobtail squid.
We are familiar with large animals, but often remain unaware of the intricate designs of smaller creatures that are essential for the natural world to exist. An example of this is the bobtail squid, a small creature in the coastal waters of most of the world’s oceans. They rarely reach three inches long but have eight sucker arms and two tentacles. They swim by using fins or by jet propulsion.
Bobtail Squid have a symbiotic relationship with bioluminescent bacteria. The squid supplies a sugar and amino acid solution to the bacteria, which emit light that hides the squid from predators below. Are the bobtail squid a special creation of God, or are they a product of evolution? The answer is that they are a product of unfolding change from cuttlefish.
Bobtail squid are classified in the class of cephalopods, sharing a subclass with squid and cuttlefish. Unlike modern taxonomic rankings, the groupings of animals in the Bible are very broad. Birds, for example, are just identified as fowl that fly, not robins, crows, sparrows, hawks, etc. Flightless birds such as penguins and ostriches have evolved through unfolding change over time. The waters bringing forth “every living thing with which the water teems” is another broad example from the Bible.
Humans benefit by learning about the interactions of living things on Earth. The evolution of the bobtail squid is an excellent example of what we can learn from God’s creatures and their history. God saw that His creation was “good” (Genesis 1:10, 12, 18, 21, and 25), but after He created the first humans, He declared it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). We can rejoice that we are the product of that goodness.
National Geographic published a list of ten animals that you would not like to see in your backyard. They are unloved animals with hidden talents. Their ugliness or repulsive behavior keeps them from being displayed on cereal boxes or featured in animated movies. However, these unloved animals play essential roles, and many of them are endangered.
Vultures are bald, so when they plunge their head into a dead animal, they get no residue on their feathers. They have specialized stomach acid that neutralizes harmful bacteria in what they eat. These birds help prevent the spread of pathogens that cause diseases such as bubonic plague and anthrax.
Other unloved animals include leopard slugs, which consume decomposing plants and insects, thereby returning nutrients to the soil. The three-toed sloth’s fur supports a variety of insects and moths. The proboscis monkey’s huge nose may be unappealing to humans, but it attracts females and serves as a means of communication, much like a bullhorn. The African bullfrog can weigh as much as four pounds and digs burrows that hold water, allowing it to survive dry seasons.
The ferocious honey badgers have a fearsome reputation. Still, they pose virtually no threat to humans and can withstand snakebites, including those from venomous snakes such as cobras and black mambas. They are also unaffected by bee stings and can defend themselves against wild dogs and hyenas. Indian flying foxes are large bats with sharp teeth that live in large colonies. They are one of the world’s largest pollinators, eating fruits and nectar.
Tongan scrub fowl in Australia have large feet with claws that enable them to dig burrows, which can be five feet deep. Aye-ayes are primates found in Madagascar whose diet consists of grubs and insects in trees. Although people have killed them thinking they bring bad luck, they are essential predators of destructive insects and beetles.
Even in the ocean, we see unloved animals. The hairy frogfish has an appendage that resembles a worm, which it wiggles to attract small fish. This fish resembles an amphibian, covered with stringy spines for camouflage.
