Feed aggregator

Moreover, life is not only physical, as we have already shown. There is a nonphysical side to life as well. If someone says, “Nonphysical reality? That’s ridiculous!” let the complainant give us a physical description of ridiculous. What about a physical description of purpose? meaning? justice? truth, etc.?

Someone will argue that a doctor doesn’t have to know the origin of life in order to practice medicine; he only needs to know how life functions or malfunctions in the present. That is true, but the analogy doesn’t fit. We are not discussing health issues of life already in existence but the question of how totally sterilized matter gave birth to life, and why.

We read in the first chapter of Romans that God loves us so much that He has given us a general revelation of what He has created. Verse 19 states, “what may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown it to them.” This is certainly true in the field of biological systems.

ICR’s Randy Guliuzza stated, “God did not leave humanity clueless or needing an additional “key” to unlock biological secrets. God is free to design biological systems that operate through principles that totally contrast those of man-made designs—but He didn’t. Research confirms He did just the opposite. Thus, a Christian can claim that creatures were undeniably engineered. How? By pointing to features of living things that 1) correlate to undeniably human-engineered things and 2) function by known engineering principles.”1

Perhaps one of the top evidences for creation are the subcellular and incredibly efficient molecular protein machines that clearly function by known engineering principles.2,3 They are hardly simple. Determining just a part of their function requires the best science has in twenty-first-century technology: “While belonging to the nanoscale, protein machines are so complex that tracing even a small fraction of their cycle requires weeks of calculations on supercomputers.”4

By viewing these amazingly engineered nanomachines, we can see God’s creation is indeed clearly seen, “for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse .”5

Recently, scientists at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands have made a discovery regarding molecular machines called SMC (structural maintenance of chromosomes) protein complexes. Six years ago, they found these tiny machines produce long loops in our DNA. This latest discovery involves these same protein motors putting substantial twists in the coils they form.6

Not surprisingly, SMC “protein complexes are an evolutionarily conserved family of motor proteins.”7 This means the SMC complexes have—according to biologists—remained unchanged over deep evolutionary time. They seem unevolved. But such a description is expected on the basis of young-earth creation. All life was created by God just thousands of years ago.

Christ the Creator has designed our DNA with a plethora of enzymes such as SMC to efficiently pack the genetic material into the nucleus (or the nuclear region in prokaryotes). As scientists stated in the Annual Review of Biochemistry,

All cells require their DNA to be compacted at least 1,000 fold in order to fit within the finite space of a micrometer-sized nucleus (or cell volume for bacteria). Additionally, information encoded in the genome continuously needs to be accessed and processed. Accordingly, the genome is constantly and actively reshaped to sustain all cellular functions.7

The biologists at Delft University unknowingly described how the Creator designed the DNA to be twisted (spoiler alert: “Nature” had nothing to do with ingenious packing strategies).

Imagine trying to fit two meters of rope into a space much smaller than the tip of a needle—that’s the challenge every cell in your body faces when packing its DNA into its tiny nucleus. To achieve this, nature employs ingenious strategies, like twisting the DNA into coils of coils, so-called "supercoils" and wrapping it around special proteins for compact storage.6

Work continues in this fascinating field, with Janissen et al. stating in Science, “SMCs modulate DNA supercoiling but remains incompletely understood how this is achieved.”8

Creationists suggest that once this incredible process of supercoiling is finally understood, it will not be due to chance, deep time, and random mutations.9 These blind naturalistic processes could never produce such precision, especially since the DNA “continuously needs to be accessed and processed”7 for specific and orderly cellular function.

We once again have been given the opportunity to see the hand of the Creator active in molecular biology.

References

Guliuzza, R. 2023. Billions of Biological Nanomachines Point to Christ’s Workmanship. Acts & Facts. 52 (7): 4–6.

Sherwin, F. God’s Protein Pump. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org April 3, 2023.

Sherwin, F. Photosynthetic Proteins Power Plants. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org May 16, 2024.

Flechsig, H. and A. S. Mikhailov. 2019. Simple Mechanics of Protein Machines. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 16 (155): 20190244.

Romans:1:20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
See All....

Delft University of Technology. A New Twist: The Molecular Machines That Loop Chromosomes Also Twist DNA. Phys.org. Posted on phys.org December 13, 2024.

Kim, E. et al. 2023. Looping the Genome with SMC Complexes. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 92: 15–41.

Janissen, R. et al. 2024. All Eukaryotic SMC Proteins Induce a Twist of −0.6 at Each DNA Loop Extrusion Step. Science. 10 (50).

Thomas, B. Mutation Study Contradicts Evolution. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org November 22, 2010.

https://www.icr.org/article/molecular-machines-twist-evolution/

The theory of evolution tries to leapfrog over the uncomfortable question of origins. It starts off with energy/matter already in existence, out of which the universe miraculously emerged, then primitive life, which eventually progressed to what we have today. The question of origins is surely basic. No sound conclusion can be derived until we have an answer to how, from whence, and why life arrived on planet Earth. Science cannot provide this essential foundation for atheism’s only possible response: that life developed by fortuitous chance from dead matter after a “big bang” had sterilized everything.

A Syracuse University professor is worried President Donald Trump will limit her ability to talk about “gender” and “sexuality” and related topics.

The Syracuse student newspaper covered Trump’s recent executive orders to affirm that sex is binary and immutable. President Trump has also ordered an end to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in the federal government while criticizing its use in the private sector. He also removed pro-LGBT content from federal websites.

This has Professor Erin Rand concerned.

“All of us are feeling pretty uneasy about what our jobs are going to look like, especially those of us whose work is centered in questions of gender, sexuality, race and ability,” Rand (pictured) told The Daily Orange. “If I’m not allowed to talk about that stuff, I don’t know what to do anymore.”

According to the student newspaper, the professor “feels the risk is compounded because she also identifies as queer and much of her teaching focuses on queer sexuality and women and gender studies.”

Rand’s “research is concerned with rhetorics of gender and sexuality in public discourse, and focuses particularly on queer and feminist modes of agency, dissent, and social protest,” according to the professor’s faculty bio.

It also includes “queer youth suicide, child pornography legislation, sex education for Black girls and femmes, resistant fashion for queer, trans, racialized, fat and disabled bodies, and contemporary tactics of queer political organizing,” according to the bio.

In a 2019 paper, Rand criticized a 2008 Supreme Court decision upholding a prohibition on real and virtual child pornography. The professor wrote that the decision “circulate[s] a strategic figuration of the child that emphasizes its sexual purity, vulnerability, and whiteness, and disavows the queerness of childhood desires.”

https://www.thecollegefix.com/syracuse-scholar-if-trump-limits-lgbt-topics-i-have-nothing-to-teach-about/

If you need help, look to clergy who do not spout their own beliefs but direct you in sincerity by using the Bible.

—Monica Johnson (February 21, 1946 - November 1, 2010, Christian writer).

Inasmuch as life comes only from life, the origin of the first life poses an unanswerable problem for those who choose to reject God as the Creator of all things and the only source of all life. That foundational question is shoved aside and various theories of how life “evolved” are printed in textbooks for trusting young students and presented in the media as though they were fact. Having rejected God, atheists find it easy to reject facts and logic. As we have seen, even Nobel laureates such as George Wald are driven to accept utter nonsense in their desperate flight from God.

Illinois’ Wheaton College has long traded on its reputation as a doctrinally conservative Christian institution. Its landing page promises prospective students that they will “find [their] Christ-centered calling” at the school. And its alumni list reads like who’s who of evangelical leaders.

But the college is unwilling to honor the accomplishments of one famous son because of his association with the Trump administration.

On Thursday, the Senate confirmed Russ Vought, who has a strong pro-life record, to lead the Office of Management and Budget, with all 53 Republicans voting in his favor. The following day, Wheaton’s social media accounts commended Vought, posting that the school “congratulates and prays” for him.

But by Saturday morning, negative comments left by Facebook users prompted Wheaton to retract the post.

“The recognition and prayer is something we would typically do for any graduate who reached that level of government,” Wheaton said in a statement. “However, the political situation surrounding [Vought’s] appointment led to a significant concern expressed online. It was not our intention to embroil the College in a political discussion or dispute.” 

The college added that “as a non-profit institution, [it] does not make political endorsements,” even though its congratulatory message was not at all partisan.

While Wheaton did not make any formal political endorsements in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election, the school did host a political event with anti-Trump speakers. On September 12, it welcomed The After Party, a political Bible study program created by New York Times columnist David French, Christianity Today editor-in-chief Russell Moore, and Duke Divinity consulting professor Curtis Chang, all three of whom openly opposed Trump’s candidacy. French went as far as to endorse Kamala Harris, while Chang called Trump’s win “a disaster for the country” that left him in “anguish.”

Though The After Party says its mission is to “reframe Christian political thinking,” it was financed exclusively by left-wing secular funders, including Bill Kristol’s anti-Trump group, the Defending Democracy Together Institute — which the campaign finance watchdog Open Secrets highlighted as a major source of dark money in the 2020 and 2024 elections. Moreover, Christian authors like Natasha Crain have highlighted that The After Party’s content is “in no way non-partisan” and seems intended to “confuse [church] members into believing that there’s a moral equivalence between the political parties.”

The Daily Wire reached out to Wheaton about its Vought retraction, The After Party event, and whether it welcomed conservative speakers in 2024. Wheaton spokesman Joseph Moore replied “Offering prayers and congratulations is not a political endorsement. However, the social media post created a distracting amount of conflict on our social media channel, so we removed it and explained why.”

Eric Teetsel, Executive Vice President of the Center for Renewing America and former Vice President of Government Relations at the Heritage Foundation, is, like Vought, a Wheaton graduate with a long history in conservative politics. He told The Daily Wire he’s incredibly disappointed in his alma mater, and no longer feels he can recommend it to friends. 

“Last summer, I proudly walked two of my daughters around campus to see the place that means so much to me,” he said. “It breaks my heart that I could not in good conscience encourage them to attend Wheaton, too. The alumni magazine always features generational students. Some have family members going back seven and eight generations! I always wanted that.”

Economist and author David Bahnsen echoed Teetsel’s sentiments, writing on X, “Admitting you took down a ‘call to prayer’ because people online were mad at you is rank cowardice. Parents should take note of boldness and courage when considering a school for their young adult children, because this is seriously pathetic.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/christian-college-caves-to-woke-mob-apologizes-for-congratulating-alum-in-trump-admin?utm_medium=email&utm_source=cnemail&seyid=50249

Atheists cannot deny this logic but reject it as “unacceptable” to them. This is hardly a good reason, and it is certainly not a scientific one. What does atheism offer as an alternative? It has nothing to offer but insists that it is “working” on the problem and “one day” will have it solved. This is not science but religion, a religion of no God—not theism but a-theism.

Question:I am a registered psychotherapist and I reject Freudian and Jungian beliefs, however I did find that when you remove these demonic influences and stick with the "science" behind psychology and filter it through the Bible that it's a powerful tool. Proverbs particularly and New Testament scriptures encourage us to guard our heart and mind, renew our mind with God's Word and find peace of mind. The Bible is actually the BASIS of TRUE Psychotherapy if you study the subject biblically. What do you say?

Response: It's instructive that just in the last week we have been contacted by Christian psychologists who insist that "psychotherapy" by name has been discarded by Christians who limit themselves to being called Biblical Counselors. Further, secular psychologists have also gone down this path. We appreciate your "rejection" of Freudian and Jungian beliefs. It is clear that your heart is for those you seek to help. With that in mind, the pertinent question to ask, however, is how thorough that process has been? We say that because some of these counselors are still using the teachings of those you correctly label as "demonic influences."

Other psychologists have "come out" with the same concern for how they have been trained, and what they have learned in practices that span several decades.

More recently, the Transgender movement has shown that "science" has very little to do with an utterly emotional, anti-science practice. So, we have to make sure we've gutted the structure of psychology/psychotherapy.

There is, however, the often seen reference to the “Science” of psychology. There's a fascinating article entitled The Puzzle of Paul Meehl: An intellectual history of research criticism in psychology (i.e., checking them out from the perspective of real science [https://bit.ly/4ihy1qX]).

Professor Andrew Gelman writes, "There’s nothing wrong with Meehl. He’s great. The Puzzle of Paul Meehl is that everything we’re saying now, all this stuff about the problems with Psychological Science and PPNAS and Ted Talks and all that, Paul Meehl was saying 50 years ago. And it was no secret. So how is it that all this was happening, in plain sight, and now here we are?"

Meehl concluded his 1967 article by saying, "Some of the more horrible examples of this process would require the combined analytic and reconstructive efforts of Carnap, Hempel, and Popper to unscramble the logical relationships of theories and hypotheses to evidence. Meanwhile our eager-beaver researcher, undismayed by logic-of-science considerations and relying blissfully on the ‘exactitude’ of modem statistical hypothesis-testing, has produced a long publication list and been promoted to a full professorship. In terms of his contribution to the enduring body of psychological knowledge, he has done hardly anything."

We will pray that as you devise your way, the Lord will direct your steps further.