1. Should a wife submit to her husband?

Ephesians 5:22-24 says, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to submit to their husbands in everything.”

As I read this verse, the question we’re trying to answer could be broken up into 2 questions:

One, what is submission?

Two, what is headship, or put another way, what does it mean to have authority?

So the first question – what is submission?

Well, it depends on the context. The same Greek word used for submission in the Bible is used not just for husbands and wives, but with civil authorities, church elders, other believers, employers, and private institutions. So I’m going to propose a definition that covers all these bases. Are you ready?

Submission is a heart-attitude that honors authority, obeys its legitimate commands, forgives its misuses, and respectfully declines commands that are outside of its jurisdiction to give.

The first part of this definition – the part about giving honor and obeying legitimate commands protects the heart against the sin of rebellion. The second part – the part about forgiving misuses and respectfully declining illegitimate commands – protects the heart against the sin of unforgiveness.

When you put them together it’s like putting an impenetrable force-field around the one thing in life that matters most, which is our relationship with God. No matter how unjust or oppressive of an authority a person finds himself under, submission will render that authority powerless to harden a person’s heart toward God.

So, the Bible’s commands about submission are meant to protect us and empower us. Submission is not weakness. In fact, it is the most powerful action a person can take in response to oppressive leadership because it invites the power of God into the situation.

Now let’s look at the second question – What is headship or what does it mean to have authority?

Well, this also means different things in different contexts. For example, church leaders have authority to teach, comfort, or rebuke in a church context. Civil rulers have authority to punish evil if it violates someone’s life or liberty or property. Parents have authority to teach and discipline children.

Furthermore, the Greek word used for authority in the Bible does not only mean the power to make someone do something, but it can also just mean grace or anointing from God to do something you’re called to do.  For example, Mathew 7 says Jesus taught with authority. In 2 Corinthians 13, Paul said God gave him authority for building up the Corinthian church.

So the real question here is, what type of authority does the Bible give a husband?

I believe that the authority given to husbands in the Bible is to love, serve, protect, provide, and lead by example.

Now I know some will say this definition softens what the Bible says to make it more palatable to our politically correct culture. And honestly, I appreciate that kind of challenge. I think Christians and Christian leaders more and more are backing away from hard biblical truths in our culture because they don’t want to offend.

But if that’s your stance here, let me put the burden of proof on you for a moment and ask where do you see in scripture that the specific type of authority given to husbands includes the authority to give a command, or having the final say in a major decision?

Now you might say, well Jesus gives the commands to the church, therefore husbands can give commands to their wives because that’s the metaphor that Ephesians 5 uses. Ok, well let’s think about that.

A husband does not literally die on a cross for the sins of his wife, right? A wife will not appear before the judgment seat of her husband after she dies, will she? Obviously not. So the marriage metaphor has limits.

Well, what are those limits? To find out, we should examine portions of scripture where Christ is specifically portrayed as a husband, or where the Father is portrayed as a husband to Israel, or other passages that speak specifically about godly marriage. Here are several examples:

Ephesian 5:25-33, Isaiah 54:5-8, Hosea 2:14-23, Revelation 19:7-9, Isaiah 62:4-5, Song of Solomon, Jeremiah 31:32, Ezekiel 16:8-14, Ruth 4-5, 1 Peter 3:7, Colossians 3:19, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 5:8

When I look at these and other passages, the impression I get is that husbands are given authority to love, serve, protect, provide, and lead by example.

Now in contrast to these, whenever Jesus is depicted as giving commands, it’s usually in the role of a king or a judge or a master or a creator, not a husband. Those metaphors don’t apply to marriage.

So for a wife, we might say submission is heart-attitude that honors her husband’s calling to love, serve, protect, provide and lead their family, forgives him when he falls short of this calling, and respectfully declines commands (or force or pressure) since they are not within his jurisdiction to give.

My marriage was nearly destroyed in part because I thought submission meant I should always have the final say in every major decision. After God restored my marriage, I began seeing my wife more as a partner and wise counselor, often providing discernment and insights I would never have thought of. This has brought us much closer together and has vastly improved the marriage model we present to our daughters.

2. What was the Impact of the Fall on Society and Family?

In general, God created men to be more accomplishment-oriented and women to be more relationship-oriented. This is why Adam’s primary commission from God was in the area of labor and accomplishment – to cultivate and keep the garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15). Eve’s primary commission was in the area of relationships, as a helper and partner to her husband (Genesis 2:18).

Correspondingly, when mankind fell to sin, Adam and Eve’s curses were also related to labor and relationships. For Adam, the ground was cursed so his labor would become toilsome. For Eve, God multiplied her pain in childbirth and warned her about the effect of sin on her marriage (Genesis 3:16-19).

Of course, men also have a relational side and women also esteem labor and accomplishments. This speaks of our primary orientations, not our only orientations.

Impact of the Fall on Adam’s Labor

Before the fall, I believe both the environment and Adam’s mental and physical abilities were flawless. His labor would have been unimaginably fulfilling, marked by fluid creativity and innovation. Over time, he would have experienced success after success, his influence always expanding, like a career path that goes from one plateau to another.

As the population grew, all people would have used their unique gifts and abilities and labored harmoniously alongside one another. Adam and his descendants would have built homes, cities, technologies, and governing/organizational structures completely devoid of sinful influence.

There would have been an abundance of every kind of valuable good and service. No one would have worried about how to survive. The earth would have been far beyond any conception of utopia fallen mankind has contrived.

After the fall, Adam’s labor became a frustrating struggle. He faced opposition from the environment and diminished mental and physical abilities. He faced setbacks, injuries, and confusing problems with no solution.

As the population grew, people frequently worked against one another, vying for position, ruled by selfish motives. Leaders enslaved and dominated others. People toiled to make ends meet and worried about the future. There was poverty, starvation, and violent conflicts over valuable resources.

Impact of the Fall on Eve’s Relationships

Without sin, Eve’s relationships with her husband, children, and others would have been completely pure. She would have given herself to her husband unreservedly. She would have been delighted to help him because she knew he always had her best interests at heart. She would never have questioned his motives or worried he might try to dominate her. She would never have felt jealous because she knew his romantic desire was for her alone. She would have felt no compulsion to control him because she knew he perfectly relied on God’s grace to lead their family.

She would have freely poured out love and wisdom into her children. She would have watched her beautiful legacy expand to grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and on and on. Her family line would have been forever devoid of pain, fear, or grief. 

After the fall, Adam and Eve’s marriage was distorted by sin. Pain and distrust crept in. Just as God warned (Genesis 3:16), Eve was prone to idolizing Adam, looking more to him for her sense of value and security than to God. This caused her to often feel jealous and insecure.

Also, as God warned, Adam was prone to ruling over Eve from selfish motives (Genesis 3:16). This caused her to become fearful about how he led their family.

She also experienced multiplied pain in childbirth, which paralleled the pain she experienced in their spiritual development. She saw her children rebel, hurt one another, develop addictions, and cause her heavy grief.

Hope for the Future

This contrast between what is and what could have been can honestly be really sad and heavy to think about, but the good news is that for those of us who know Jesus Christ, everything that mankind lost by rebelling against God will one day be recovered.

We will spend eternity as part of God’s eternal family enjoying pure, fulfilling relationships. And we will labor and accomplish incredible things working side by side in a perfectly restored new heavens and new earth.  This is the wonderful hope and the redemption that Jesus Christ purchased for mankind on the cross. This is our future.

3. Are Women a Higher Order of Creation?

When God began to create living things in the Genesis account, each life form He created was progressively more complex and beautiful than the last. This pattern continued in the creation of mankind. Eve being created last means she was the culmination, or highest part, of all that God created.

In a previous video, I discussed how God in general created men to be accomplishment-oriented and women to be relationship-oriented. This was reflected by their commissions from Him. With that in mind, consider the following three logic steps:

Step 1: Men, in general, typify the strength of God and the building, protecting, accomplishing nature of God.

Step 2: Women, in general, typify the beauty of God and the relational nature of God.

Step 3: If there were no beauty, there would be nothing worth protecting. The reason strength exists is to protect and serve that which is beautiful. Likewise, if there were no relationships, building and accomplishing would be empty and meaningless. The reason we build societies is so that relationships (families, communities, churches) can exist and thrive.

 In other words, the strength of God exists to protect and serve the beauty of God. The building nature of God exists to protect and serve the relational nature of God.

I’ve occasionally heard Christian leaders say there is no greater joy in the universe than beholding the beauty of God. It’s not an accident that they choose beauty as His attribute that is most worthy of marveling at. All of God’s attributes are worthy of worship, but there is something truly special about His beauty.

Even King David agreed with this. In Psalms 27:4, when he considered what He would ask of God if he could make only one request, he said:

“One thing I have asked from the LORD, that I shall seek: That I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD.”

Women, in a sense, are the culmination of God’s creation, because they uniquely reflect His incredible, relational beauty.

4. Are Women Weaker than Men?

1 Peter 3:7 says, “You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman…”

This passage can feel insulting to some women because it highlights how women, in general, are physically weaker and emotionally tenderer than men. However, is this actually a negative statement? If we interpret scripture using scripture as we’re often exhorted, it makes sense to ask the question: What does the Bible say about weakness? Consider these verses:

 “…God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong.” (1 Corinthians 1:27)

“And [Jesus] has said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.’ …therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore, I am well content with weaknesses… for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:9-10)

“I was with you in weakness.. my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith [would] rest on… the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:3-5)

Now let’s summarize the verses we’ve read:

1) God’s power is perfected in weakness.

2) When we are weak, then we are strong.

3) God uses the weak to shame the strong.

4) Women are weaker than men.

When I first put these verses together, I started to feel envious of women! So much of the power that is available to believers comes from embracing a position of weakness and dependence on God. Paradoxically, I believe women in some ways are uniquely qualified to steward the power of God because they are inherently weaker. They can be entrusted with authority because they will more naturally acknowledge their dependence on Him.

5. Do Women Belong In the Home?

If someone said to me, “Women are just as competent and qualified as men for the most important jobs in society, so why should they stay home and raise children?” I would say, “You just answered your own question.” The bigger problem in our society is not inequality in the workplace, but the eviction of motherhood from its rightful place of honor.

I fully support equality in the workplace. My mother was a police officer and a therapist during different seasons of my upbringing. My wife worked as a marriage and family counselor. In my professional life, some of the best managers I’ve reported to were women. I don’t deny that women often aren’t compensated for the value they create in the marketplace in the same way as their male colleagues. Nor do I deny that this inequality is wrong, detrimental to society, and should be pointed out in public discourse.

But the idea that a woman who chooses to be a stay-at-home mom is somehow missing out or settling for less is a ridiculous notion. When exactly did raising the next generation, sacrificially teaching them integrity and kindness and wisdom and work ethic day in and day out come to be considered less important than the labor of doctors or lawyers or accountants? How is caring for people’s bodies or companies or money more important than the formation of their souls? It’s not. In the long term, I’d argue it’s less important.

Motherhood is the ultimate act of service, the greatest sacrifice, and the most pressing need. Women are indeed just as competent and qualified for the most important jobs in society. In some ways they are more qualified. This is why those who choose the most important job of all – staying home to raise children – should be held in the highest esteem.

6. Why and How Do I Need to Be Saved? (THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH VIDEOS 41-45.)

7. Does Evolution Disprove God? Part 1

The four major origin questions are:

1. Where did our time/space/matter/energy universe come from?

2. Where did a finely tuned environment that can potentially support life come from?

3. Where did the first life come from?

4. Where did the diversity of life on earth come from?

Evolution only purports to address the last question. Setting evolution aside for the moment, there are valid arguments for the first three origin questions pointing to the existence of God.

First, where did our time/space/matter/energy universe come from?

Most scientists agree that the evidence indicates the universe had a beginning, called “The Big Bang”. If that’s true, it means time, space, matter, energy, and the natural laws that govern them did not exist prior to the Big Bang. This means the cause of the universe was outside of time, space, matter, energy, and natural laws, which by definition means the cause was supernatural – outside of nature.  

In other words, science supports the idea that the universe had a supernatural cause. 

A simple yet profound question worth asking is: If there is no God, why is there something instead of nothing?

Second, where did a finely tuned environment that can potentially support life come from?

Scientists have identified well over a hundred life-enabling constants with very small margins for error that are present on earth or in the universe that are necessary to sustain life. Examples include the earth’s oxygen level, atmospheric transparency, interaction with the moon, carbon dioxide level, water vapor level, crust thickness, rotation speed, and on and on.

The odds of every necessary condition occurring simultaneously for any single planet is astronomical, no pun intended. A Christian astrophysicist named Hugh Ross calculated it as roughly 1 in 10^138, which is more than the total number of atoms in the entire universe.

Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, 2004, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist,” Ch. 4, pg. 106

Some prominent atheists and agnostics have also made statements to the effect that the earth and universe at least give the appearance of being designed to support life. For example, Cambridge astrophysicist Fred Hoyle famously said:

“A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worthy speaking about in nature.”

Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science, November 1981. pp. 8–12

Likewise, the famous atheist author Christopher Hitchens, who won the Richard Dawkins Award for exemplary contributions to secularism and rationalism, stated on camera:

“At some point, certainly, we are all asked which is the best argument you come up against from the other side. I think every one of us picks the fine-tuning one as the most intriguing… It’s not a trivial [argument]. We all say that.”

Quoted in Chapter 16 of “The Miracles Answer Book,” 2019, by Lee Strobel and Mark Mittelberg

Similarly, Cambridge physicist, author, and SETI chairman Paul Davies has said:

“There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life… rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires.”

Smith, W. S., Smith, J. S., & Verducci, D., eds., Eco-Phenomenology: Life, Human Life, Post-Human Life in the Harmony of the Cosmos (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2018), pp. 131–32.

Some have argued that the Many-worlds theory, which is one interpretation of quantum mechanics, renders the fine-tuning argument moot since there are potentially an infinite number of other universes that are not finely tuned.

However, the Many-worlds theory is under ongoing debate and it is not based primarily on the scientific method where one conducts measurable experiments to test hypotheses. In fact, some scientists consider it unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific because the proposed parallel universes are defined in such a way that no information can be passed between them.

Bunge, M. (2012). “Parallel Universes? Digital Physics?”. Evaluating Philosophies. New York: Springer. pp. 152–153.

Ellis, G.; Silk, J. (2014). “Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics”. Nature. 516 (7531): 321–323.

Third, where did first life come from?

The simplest form of life on earth, a one-celled organism, is incredibly complex. It’s like a factory full of delicate instrumentation, communication systems, transport systems, defense systems, production and assembly systems, quality control and repair systems, etc. On top of all this, the DNA message in every cell is equivalent to the complexity of 1,000 encyclopedias.

The process by which first life is theorized to have arisen on earth is “Chemical Evolution” in which a fully functioning, self-replicating cell naturally developed through unguided chemical processes. However, life has never been observed to spontaneously arise from non-life even in the most sophisticatedly idealized conditions contrived in laboratories by top scientists, much less in nature. And due to the cell’s immense complexity, a growing number of scientists are acknowledging the enormous challenges this theory faces.

The cell’s breathtaking complexity has led some secular scientists to consider that an advanced alien race may have designed and seeded life on earth. For example, biophysicist Francis Crick, who won the Nobel prize for deciphering the helical structure of the DNA molecule, first proposed this idea in the 1960s.

Crick, F. H.; Orgel, L. E., 1973, “Directed Panspermia,” pgs. 341–48.

New York Times, 26 June 2007, “Human DNA, the Ultimate Spot for Secret Messages (Are Some There Now?)”

Since then, numerous papers and articles in publications such as Scientific American and National Geographic have discussed the possibility.

Scientific American (blog), 10/15/2012, “The Panspermia Paradox”

National Geographic, 9/5/2013, “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?”

Also see: Paul Davies, 2010, “The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence”

In 2008, the famous atheist and Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated:

“It could be that at… somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved… to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded on to perhaps this planet… it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the at the detail of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” 2008, Richard Dawkins Interview

In 2013, various mainstream and scientific publications covered a paper in which scientists claimed to have found a “signature” like the one Dawkins mentioned. The paper’s summary says:

“…the proposal that [life] might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statistically strong intelligent-like ‘signal’ in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such a scenario. Here we show that the terrestrial [DNA] code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal.”

“Simple arrangements of the [DNA] code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing… The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality [i.e. design]…”

Vladimir Cherbaka and Maxim Makukovb, 2/17/2013, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the Terrestrial Genetic Code”

Huffington Post, 4/9/2013, “ET Genetic Code May Be Found In Human DNA, According To Kazakhstan Scientists’ Biological SETI Theory”

Evolution News, 3/12/2013, “In the Planetary Science Journal Icarus, the ‘Wow!’ Signal of Intelligent Design”

Of course, these sources don’t say anything about God, only aliens. But the point is that life on earth gives the appearance of having been intelligently designed. Many secular scientists philosophically rule out a supernatural cause as impossible prior to examining any evidence. Richard Dawkins and Harvard Evolutionary Biologist Richard Lewontin, for example, have said as much outright. So that really leaves aliens as the only possibility they are able to consider.

The New York Review of Books, 1/9/1997, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” by Richard Lewontin

Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, 2004, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist,” pg. 122 (quoting an e-mail response by Richard Dawkins)

Some have argued that perhaps we just haven’t discovered the answer yet and when you begin explaining things you don’t presently understand with “God did it,” you move away from science and into religion. You resort to “God-of-the-gaps.” It’s a copout.

However, in this case we’re talking about acknowledging positive evidence for intelligent design. This is not resorting to “God-of-the-gaps” any more than the scientists I just mentioned are resorting to “aliens-of-the-gaps.”

Let’s review what we’ve covered. The four major origin questions are:

1. Where did our time/space/matter/energy universe come from?

2. Where did a finely tuned environment that can potentially support life come from?

3. Where did the first life come from?

4. Where did the diversity of life on earth come from?

Regarding question one, we learned that science supports the idea that the universe had a supernatural cause.   

Regarding question two, we learned that the odds of every necessary condition to sustain life occurring simultaneously for any single planet is astronomical.

Regarding question three, we learned that the simplest form of life on earth is incredibly complex, seems to defy chemical evolution explanations, and gives the appearance of having been intelligently designed, which has prompted some leading scientists to theorize alien-seeding.

Clearly, evolution does not disprove God since it only purports to address the last question. But what about question four? Has evolution fully explained the diversity of life on earth? We’ll address this question in part 2. If you’d like to learn more, you check out my free book available at the link provided. Thanks for watching.

8. DOES EVOLUTLION DISPROVE GOD? PART 2

In part 1, we discussed the first three origin questions, which are:

1. Where did our time/space/matter/energy universe come from?

2. Where did a finely tuned environment that can potentially support life come from?

3. Where did the first life come from?

In this video, we’ll discuss the last major origin question: Where did the diversity of life on earth come from?

This question has been conclusively answered by overwhelming evidence for evolution, right? I mean even today we observe new species spontaneously appearing in nature. What more proof do you need?

New York Times, 11/14/2022, “While Other Insects Played, This Species Evolved the Blade”

Scientific American, 12/18/2011, “Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur”

BBC, 11/23/2017, “Galapagos Finches Caught in Act Of Becoming New Species”

Actually, new species appearing is completely irrelevant. This is because standard genetics tells us that new species not only can appear, but they inevitably will appear due purely to natural reproduction.

The major classifications in animal taxonomy are: 1) Domain, 2) Kingdom, 3) Phylum, 4) Class, 5) Order, 6) Family, 7) Genus, 8) Species.

Let’s pretend just for the sake of argument that creationism is true. In this scenario, there is no need for all species to have existed in the beginning. There is only the need for animals that existed in the beginning to be able to produce every known species through natural reproduction, as opposed to DNA mutations. Genetics tells us that this aligns most closely with the family classification.

Take the cat family, for example. If you start with just one male and one female cat, all the genetic information is present for every cat species on earth to appear over time, including tigers, leopards, jaguars, lions, panthers, cougars, small cats, and domestic cats. It can happen through simple reproduction. In fact, as stated, it is inevitable that new species will continuously appear over time through natural reproduction within all animal families.    

Natural selection, common descent or ancestry, gradualism, gene flow, genetic recombination, genetic drift, endosymbiosis. All of these terms refer to processes that are known to occur within families.

All of them are observable and established by the scientific method.

And all of them have nothing to do with debunking creationism.

New species spontaneously appearing, and all the mechanisms by which this happens, are compatible with evolution, but they do not prove evolution any more than they prove creation.

So why do we sometimes read about new species appearing as evidence of evolution? This is something that creationist scientists complain about – evolutionists quote-unquote debunking arguments they have not made for decades or, in some cases, over a century, while never addressing their current arguments.

For example, Harvard geneticist and creationist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, wrote a book called “Replacing Darwin,” which explained the aforementioned reproduction example, among other concepts. After publishing the book, he gave an open invitation for evolutionary biologists to debate him on the content. The invitation was accepted by Dr. Herman Mays of Marshall University.

In his opening statement, Dr. Mays brutally attacked Dr. Jeanson as a pseudo-scientist and then attempted to debunk what he apparently thought were several claims that Dr. Jeanson promoted in his book. Every time, Dr. Jeanson responded by asking Dr. Mays to specify where he found those claims in the book, which Dr. Mays couldn’t do because the book didn’t contain any of them. Dr. Jeanson later stated that Dr. Mays displayed almost no evidence of having read the book at all, despite having claimed to read it twice. In subsequent interviews, Dr. Jeanson pointed out that it is illegal in the United States for public schools to teach intelligent-design-related concepts, which is why most scientists have never considered natural reproduction rather than DNA mutations to explain our planet’s biological diversity.

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson and Dr. Herman Mays, 9/25/2018, “Nonsequitur Presents Replacing Darwin: A Debate on Origins”

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, 2017, “Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species”

For creation to fully explain biological diversity on earth, all you would need is at least one male and one female member of each animal family to be present at the beginning of the diversification process. You wouldn’t even need much time for this to occur.

Have you ever heard that old trick where you ask someone whether they would choose $1000 dollars right now or one penny today, two pennies tomorrow, four pennies the next day, and so on for 30 days?

The trick is that is that, if you chose the pennies, after 30 days you would have over a billion pennies, or over ten million dollars. After 40 days, you would have over a trillion pennies, or a hundred billion dollars. And so on. That’s the power of exponential growth.

The same is true of animal reproduction. Of course, animal numbers are limited by what the available habitats can sustain, but the potential for genetic diversification in even just a couple dozen generations is nevertheless staggering.

Incontrovertible evidence for evolution in accordance with the scientific method would require observing either the emergence of a new animal family by natural causes or one animal family converting into another, which has never been observed. And whatever paleologists assert the fossil record establishes, the hard evidence for such an occurrence resides in the DNA sequences. In fact, over 99% of an animal’s biology is found in the soft tissue. Fossils do not and cannot constitute observable, incontrovertible evidence for evolution in accordance with the scientific method.

Furthermore, even if we set this aside and look for evidence of such occurrences based only on hard skeletal structures, the fossil record still runs into a gargantuan problem known as the Cambrian Explosion or the Biological Big Bang.

The reason it is called the Biological Big Bang is because virtually all major animal phyla, which is three taxonomy classifications above family, appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed – not gradually or in stages. How is this possible?

Shown:

New York Times, 9/17/1993, “Biology’s ‘Big Bang” Took A Mere Blink of the Eye”

Nature, 2/16/2016, “What Sparked the Cambrian Explosion”

Natural History Museum, 2/19/2019, “The Cambrian Explosion Was Far Shorter Than We Thought”

Also see:

Budd, G. E.; Jensen, S., 2000, “A Critical Reappraisal of The Fossil Record of The Bilaterian Phyla”

Budd, G.E., 2003, “The Cambrian Fossil Record and the Origin of the Phyla,” pgs. 157–165.

Steven Gould (Harvard Biology Professor), 1977, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” pgs. 13-14

Jonathan Well, 2000, “Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong,” pg. 37

Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, 2004, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist,” Chapter 6

Interestingly, in 2018 a team of nearly three dozen scientists published a paper in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology positing that the Biological Big Bang occurred as the result of… you guessed it: Alien seeding. The study focused largely on Cephalopods due to their genetic material supposedly being able to survive travel through space, but the larger takeaway was that life on earth appeared to defy unaided terrestrial evolution, in their assessment. The paper’s abstract stated:

“In our view the totality of the multifactorial data and critical analyses assembled by Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe and their many colleagues since the 1960s leads to a very plausible conclusion… living organisms such as… fertilised ova and seeds have been continuously delivered… to Earth… which has resulted in considerable genetic diversity and which has led to the emergence of mankind.”

Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology (Volume 136, August 2018, pages 3-23), 2018, “Cause of Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?”

The natural emergence of a new animal family or one animal family converting into another could only happen through DNA mutations. It cannot happen through natural selection, common descent and any other family-contained mechanisms.

This likely explains the wording chosen by the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” statement which over one thousand Ph.D.’s in scientific fields have publicly endorsed. The statement reads:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The signatories include about 180 biologists, 250 chemists, 120 doctors of medicine. It also includes about 450 university professors (approximately 100 of whom are professors of biology, chemistry, or medicine).

See: https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

Nevertheless, the National Academy of Sciences put out a statement falsely claiming:

“…there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred… scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life’s history.”

Ironically, National Academy of Sciences member and Penn State Chemistry professor Philip Skell is one of the Dissent from Darwinism signatories.

American Civil Liberties Union, undated, “What the Scientific Community Says About Evolution and Intelligent Design”

The Dissent from Darwinism website asserts the list exists in response to efforts by some to quote “deny the existence of scientific critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage open discussion of the scientific evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism.” The website also adds that signing on to the statement does not imply endorsement of any alternative theory, such as intelligent design or creationism.

As one example, the New York Times interviewed atheist and Brooklyn College Biology Professor Stanley Salthe, who said he signed because evolutionary biologists were unfairly suppressing any competing ideas deserved and to be prodded.

A number of criticisms of the Dissent from Darwinism list have been voiced. Let’s take a look at several. One is not well supported. A few are valid but need qualification. One is irrelevant to the core issue, which is that no mechanisms of evolution have been observed to cause the appearance or conversion of any animal family, much less higher taxonomy classifications.

The New York Times ran a derisive article in 2006 asserting that quote “many” of the signers were evangelicals. While this could theoretically be true, the article offered no percentage estimate and the claim was based on interviews of just twenty of the signatories, of whom quote “some” or quote “several” were evangelicals. The twenty interviewees accounted for less than 5% of the signers at the time.

The article also argued that only a quarter of the signers were biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. This is a valid point, although it could also be added that any science-based Ph.D. probably most non-Ph.D.s can easily grasp the core issue.

New York Times, 2/21/2006, “Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition”

The National Center of Science Education called the wording of the statement quote “spin” and quote “misleading” because it only mentioned natural selection and mutations and didn’t name any other mechanisms associated with common ancestry. However, this criticism is irrelevant to the core issue.

National Center of Science Education, 2/26/2016, “Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License”

In his 2015 book “Basics in Evolution,” evolutionary biologist Michael Muehlenbein pointed out that the Dissent from Darwinism statement was created by the Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design and creationist ideas. This point is worth raising. However, as stated, signing on to the statement does not imply endorsement of any alternative theory, including intelligent design or creationism.

Muehlenbein also pointed out that the sum total of the signers accounted for well under 1% of the total number of Ph.D.’s in the world that are qualified to sign it if they chose. This point is also worth raising, although it includes no information about what percentage of those qualified individuals is, one, aware of the list’s existence and, two, aware of the core issue it raises.

Michael Muehlenbein, 2015, “Basics in Evolution”

Nevertheless, to Muehlenbein’s point, it’s fair to say that only a small minority of biologists and other scientists express skepticism of evolution’s ability to fully explain animal diversity.

This raises an important question: Is it theoretically possible for a large majority of experts in a given field to be wrong?

The answer to this question is obviously yes. And there are many examples to point to.

It can happen with governments and intelligence experts, taking many nations to war based on information that turns out to be completely false.

It can happen with economics and financial experts, who somehow fail en masse to detect massive structural problems that plunge the world into a global recession.

U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 7/7/2004, “Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq” (Conclusion 3)

Foreign Affairs, November/December 2013, “Never Saw It Coming,” by Alan Greenspan

And it can happen with scientists as well.

While scientists enjoy the highest public trust of any group of professionals, the trust is arguably not well deserved.

YouGovAmerica, 2/8/2021, “Scientists and Doctors Are the Most Respected Professions Worldwide”

Pew Research Center, 9/29/2020, “Science and Scientists Held in High Esteem Across Global Publics”

Guardian, 8/2/2019, “Scientists Top List of Most Trusted Professions in US”

For example, in 2005, Stanford Professor of Medicine John Ioannidis showed that most published research findings are false because they are framed to satisfy confirmation bias.

Public Library of Science (PLOS) Medicine, August 2005, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” by John P. A. Ioannidis

Scientific retractions are nothing new. But in 2012 a major study of over 2000 retracted scientific articles found that the vast majority were retracted not because of error, but because of misconduct, plagiarism and fraud.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Journal, Vol. 109, No. 42, 10/1/2012, “Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications”

Guardian, 10/1/2012, “Tenfold Increase In Scientific Research Papers Retracted for Fraud”

Guardian, 9/5/2011, “Publish-Or-Perish: Peer Review and the Corruption of Science”

In 2013, another major study of over 1,500 scientists uncovered a major quote “crisis of reproducibility” in which the majority of published and supposedly verifiable findings by scientists could not be replicated.

Phys.org, 9/20/2013, “Science Is in a Reproducibility Crisis: How Do We Resolve It?”

Nature, 9/25/2016, “1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility”

Economist, 10/1/2013, “How Science Goes Wrong”

Washington Post, 8/27/2015, “Many Scientific Studies Can’t Be Replicated. That’s A Problem.”

The fact is that scientists, like all other field experts, are human beings that are subject to confirmation bias, worldview bias, normalcy bias, groupthink, peer pressure, career advancement pressures, self-preservation, and at times just good old-fashioned dishonesty and corruption.

This certainly includes the field of evolutionary biology, as was powerfully illustrated by what was once considered possibly the most important discovery in human history. In 1912, the New York Times heralded that some of the world’s foremost evolutionary biologists had finally found definitive proof of the long-sought missing link between apes and mankind. The human skull with an apelike jaw was dubbed Piltdown Man and was estimated to have lived 750,000 to 950,000 years ago.

The incredible fossil was introduced as proof of evolution during the infamous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. United States public school children were taught that Piltdown Man conclusively proved Darwin’s theory for more than forty years. And over 500 scientific papers were written on it.

There was just one problem: Piltdown Man was an abject fraud.

The teeth were filed down to make them look human. The jaw was boiled and stained to make it look older. Jaw and skull fragments were planted at the site. The ultimate science conspiracy theory was in reality, just a conspiracy. And all of the world’s foremost scientists were none the wiser.

New York Times, 12/22/1912, “Darwin Theory Proved True”

New York Times, 5/26/1925, “Scopes Is Indicted in Tennessee for Teaching Evolution”

Time, 11/30/1953, “Science: End as A Man”

Time, 3/16/2010, “Top 10 Shocking Hoaxes: Pack of Lies; Piltdown Man”

LiveScience, 12/8/2021, “Piltdown Man: Infamous Fake Fossil”

BBC, 2/17/2011, “Piltdown Man: Britain’s Greatest Hoax”

Let’s return for a moment to the topic of public education. Many evangelical Christians have asserted that intelligent design or creationist concepts should be taught alongside evolution in biology classrooms. In response, a number of reputable scientific organizations have vehemently protested the notion.

For example, the American Anthropological Association has stated:

“Science describes and explains the natural world: it does not prove or disprove beliefs about the supernatural.”

The American Astronomical Society has stated:

“Science is not based on faith, nor does it preclude faith… the teaching of important scientific concepts… should not be altered or constrained in response to demands external to the scientific disciplines.”

The National Association of Biology Teachers has stated:

“Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings… are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.”

The Geological Society of America has stated:

“Science, in contrast, is based on observations of the natural world. All beliefs that entail supernatural creation… fall within the domain of religion rather than science. For this reason, they must be excluded from science courses in our public schools.”

The Paleontological Society has stated:

“…creationism is religion rather than science… because it invokes supernatural explanations that cannot be tested.”

American Civil Liberties Union, undated, “What the Scientific Community Says About Evolution and Intelligent Design”

In my opinion, these are fair and valid statements. As a Christian, I’d say the sciences are the study of what God has created, but the actual act of God creating something out of nothing defies science by definition, as we discussed in the last video. This creation act is the subject of theological study, not scientific study.

However, I also believe science should play by its own rules.

There is no evolutionary biologist on earth who has argued or would argue that mankind has observed a present, living animal family spontaneously appear due to natural causes or convert into another animal family.

While some paleontologists claim the fossil record shows this, despite lacking hard DNA evidence, in reality the fossil record shows not only families but virtually all phyla appearing suddenly and fully formed, in seeming defiance of evolutionary explanations.

Thus, science has not conclusively answered the question of how animal families originated, much less the higher classifications. This is a glaring gap in the scientific body of knowledge and science textbooks should acknowledge it.

They also should not claim without evidence that all life evolved from single-celled organisms. And, going back to the last video, they should not claim without evidence that single-celled organisms spontaneously arose from a primordial soup via chemical evolution.

If science textbooks authors want to acknowledge the glaringly obviously appearance of design in one-celled organisms, fine. If they want to add that some scientists speculate without evidence that the cells could have been brought to earth by beings from another planet, fine. But then they should also point out that some scientists speculate without evidence that the origin of the cells could be attributable to the same cause as the Big Bang. The latter speculation is at least as reasonable as the former.

The Paleontological Society is correct that science cannot test or study supernatural causes. However, this also logically means science does not have the ability to rule out supernatural causes until a natural cause has been conclusively identified.  

Science has not identified a natural cause for the existence of our time/space/matter/energy universe.

It has not identified a natural cause for the existence of a finely tuned environment that can potentially support life.

It has not identified where the first life came from.

And it has not identified where animal families and higher taxonomy classifications came from.

Therefore, it has not ruled out a supernatural cause for any of these things.

Furthermore, science will never rule out supernatural causes. Even if we met the aliens that seeded the first cells and traveled to the parallel universes that explained the life-enabling properties of earth, we still wouldn’t have proven the first clue about where those aliens and universes came from.

If there’s no God, why is something instead of nothing. Even an eight-year-old can understand that logic.

If you like to learn, you can check out my free book at the link provided. Thanks for watching.

9. Is It Arrogant to Say Christianity Is the Only Way?

The truth is that every major religion and worldview claims exclusivity on many points. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, secular humanists, new agers, and others all claim that certain beliefs they hold are true and whatever contradicts them is false. And they should. This simply acknowledges that there is such a thing as truth. And it acknowledges that truth is true irrespective of whether it is comfortable or believed in by any individual or group.

The points of disagreement between the different religions and worldviews are not trivial. They typically involve questions about the existence of God, the nature/character of God, the origin of mankind, the problem of evil, the origin of death and suffering, the nature of the spiritual realm, the existence of angels and demons, the nature of the afterlife, etc.

So the real question is not whether Christians are arrogant to claim exclusivity on key points since every other belief system also does. The real question is: What is true? 

If you’d like to learn more, you can check out my free book available at the link provided.

10. Is Kindness More Important Than Doctrines?

Some people assert that treating others with kindness is more important than adherence to any particular religious doctrine. However, in some cases, this assertion is based on an underlying belief that having solid truth convictions and treating people with different convictions kindly are mutually exclusive. They aren’t. In fact, that’s the definition of tolerance. Tolerating another person’s beliefs doesn’t mean saying their beliefs are true. It means treating them with kindness and respect despite disagreeing. And it means respecting every person’s right to choose what to believe.

This, by the way, does not exclude proselytizing. For example, if two Muslim and Christian friends care about each other and sincerely believe they know the correct way to live in relationship with God, it is natural and commendable for them to try to respectfully persuade the other over time. This can absolutely be done with tolerance and kindness. Many people have relationships that could be characterized by this kind of tolerance. It’s not uncommon.

Some opponents of religion claim that any attempt to persuade someone to abandon their beliefs for another set of beliefs is offensive. However, this is only true when it is done with intolerance – that is with unkind or disrespectful pressure, anger, or force. 

Unfortunately, intolerant proselytizing is also common. It happens all over the world, with every major religion and worldview, including Christianity. There are countless instances in which people have tried to intolerantly force their views onto someone else. There are a number of reasons people do this.

• Maybe they are sincerely concerned for the person’s soul and think intolerant pressure is justified.

• Maybe they are subconsciously insecure about their own beliefs and it helps them feel more secure if they can persuade others to agree with them.

• Maybe they attribute certain evils in society to another worldview and feel a civic duty to oppose it.

• Maybe they look up to parents or clergy who have modeled that it is ok to intolerantly force their beliefs on someone.

• Maybe they have been taught that those who reject their worldview deserve to be mistreated.

I admit that I am guilty of intolerant proselytizing in my life due to more than one of these reasons. Nevertheless, for Christians, the Bible specifically commands the opposite. For example, 1 Peter 3:15 says to share one’s faith with gentleness and respect.

Obviously, we’re all human and we all make mistakes at times in how we relate to others, including how share our deepest beliefs. But I don’t believe the answer is to reject any notion of absolute truth when it comes to religion or worldview. This is self-contradicting because it essentially claims that it is true that there is no truth and the beliefs of anyone who says otherwise are false. It’s nonsensical. Not to mention, there are plenty of intolerant people working to promote this view just like every other view. So obviously non-absolutism does not eliminate intolerance.