Explore the Christian Natural Health Podcast

Dr. Matt Queen is the L.R. Scarborough Chair of Evangelism ("Chair of Fire") and professor of evangelism at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, where he also serves as Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Administration. The author of Recapturing Evangelism: A Biblical-Theological Approach (B&H Academic, 2023), Everyday Evangelism (Seminary Hill Press, 2020) and Mobilize to Evangelize (Seminary Hill Press, 2018), in addition to having edited and contributed chapters in numerous other books, Dr. Queen has been published in multiple academic journals and serves as Associate Pastor of Evangelism at Lane Prairie Baptist Church, Joshua, Texas. Additionally, he serves as an evangelism consultant for the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention and regularly leads evangelism workshops and preaches in churches across the country.To get Dr Queen's book, go to thegospelinvitation.com , or for more info about him, see swats.edu

Suzy Griswold is the Founder and President of HealingStrong. Suzy is a 13+ year Thyroid Cancer Thriver. After surgery and conventional treatment failed and subsequent scans revealed lymph node involvement, Suzy ultimately took a very different route to healing that was revealed after much prayer and research.When friends and family noticed the transformation, they asked Suzy to meet with their loved ones. In 2012, Suzy began HealingStrong as a blog post. That was just the start and as she brought together a group of natural thrivers and caregivers in her living room to pray about next steps, the vision for the very first HealingStrong conference in 2013 became a reality. It began a grassroots movement in small group communities that continues today.To date, 450 groups around the US, Canada, and 8 International countries have been a part of HealingStrong. HealingStrong continues to empower, inspire, motivate and equip group participants and members to live more whole and hope filled lives.For more on HealingStrong, the conference, resources, and finding a group, see www.healingstrong.org



Let's grant for the moment that somehow, the fully functional and the irreducibly complex genetic code necessary for a single eukaryotic, or even prokaryotic cell, came into existence by happenstance (or by panspermia, perhaps, or by an infinite number of parallel universes -- pick your deus ex machina mechanism). Even with a "cheat" like this, could the evolutionary process take it from there?Spontaneous genetic point mutations, in which one of the four DNA base pairs is swapped for another, do occur from time to time, at a rate of around 1.1×10−8 (https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/156/1/297/6051861?login=false) per base pair per generation (that's one in 100 million). However the vast majority of these are either negative or neutral. They're typically neutral if they occur in the non-coding segment of DNA, which is not used as blueprints for proteins. (We're still not entirely sure what the purpose is of all this non-coding DNA. There was a time when all of it was thought to be "junk," or leftovers from previous evolutionary steps. Now we know that at least some of it serves a purpose: of regulation, saying when a given sequence should or shouldn't be transcribed, where the coding gene begins and ends, binding sites for the transcription mechanism to begin, kind of like the coupling component of a zipper, and things like that. Telomeres, the caps on our chromosomes now known to be one of the determining factors of biological age, are also part of non-coding DNA. Other segments of it protect the structure of the chromosomes so that they maintain their integrity during cell replication. No doubt more purposes will be understood in time, but I seriously doubt any of it will turn out to be "junk").Negative DNA mutations in coding sequences is one of the mechanisms by which cancer occurs. These can be either "nonsense" or "missense" mutations. Nonsense mutations are when a point mutation forms what's called a "stop" codon (where a codon is a set of three base pairs, forming a "word" of sorts.) Rather that continuing to code for a protein, the stop codon in the middle of the sequence would simply prematurely truncate the protein code entirely. Missense mutations occur when a point mutation switches one codon to another... like turning "cat" into "bat" or "rat," with an entirely different meaning. Each codon calls for a different amino acid, so such a mutation may substitute a different one with different chemical properties, which (if those properties are different enough) might contribute to different stereochemistry, or folding of that protein once made. The stereochemistry largely determines the protein's function, so it might be thus altered (and nearly always for the worse)... though there are are redundancies, such that multiple codons call for the same amino acids (there are only twenty amino acids, after all). So it's possible the mutation might be "silent" even if in a coding sequence of DNA, in this case.Environmental factors known to increase DNA mutation rates include things like ionizing radiation (UV, x-ray, gamma ray, etc), and various carcinogenic chemicals. If these mutations occur in germ cells, they can be passed on to progeny, assuming that the mutation isn't rapidly fatal before it can be passed on. In some cases, the resulting "disease" may confer a survival advantage in a given environment--for example, sickle cell anemia, a point mutation that changes the shape of red blood cells. It does indeed cause severe disease, but it also happens to protect against malaria, endemic in Africa. This is probably why sickle cell is far more common in Africa that in other parts of the world.But it's quite a stretch to say that was a "positive" mutation. Sickle cell anemia manifests with recurrent hemolytic crises, in which red blood cells burst, leading to severe low levels in the bloodstream (which means not enough oxygen for the tissues). Red blood cells can also get stuck in small vessels, leading to clots, spleen and liver enlargement, etc. Sure, the mutation happens to have a survival benefit in Africa, but "positive," the way a sudden functioning eye might be? I don't think so.And that's the thing: we can't point to a single known unequivocally positive DNA mutation. The most we can do is identify some "bad" ones that happen to have a silver lining in a particular environment. From there, evolutionists extrapolate (tremendously!) that in the distant past, many such mutations must have occurred--even though we have no evidence that they did, and all evidence we do have seems to suggest otherwise.I've seen some sources that speculate that positive mutations occur about 1/1000 times per generation, though the paper, "The population genetics of mutations: good, bad, and indifferent" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871823/) makes the point that this is an exceedingly difficult number to quantify, because how one mutation might interact with another, let alone how multiple mutations might interact in a larger organism, is so very complex. Nevertheless, if we go with the 1/1000 number (which seems like as reasonable an estimate as any), since any sort of genetic mutation (a point mutation anyway) is supposed to occur only 1/100 million times per generation, that means a single positive mutation might occur 1/100 billion times per generation. Since earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, and a generation is usually defined to be about 20 years, that's 225 million generations since the dawn of earth's time, by secular calculations.Do you see the problem here? If those estimations are even in the ballpark, there hasn't been enough time statistically for even one unequivocally positive mutation to occur. The universe literally doesn’t have enough time for evolution to occur (unless you introduce multiple universes... and even then, you'd need a near infinite number of them).

Steve Wiideman is the CEO of Wiideman Consulting Company. Specializing in SEO Strategy, Steve likes to organize search into specific disciplines broken down by business model. For natural search, Steve believes in only three fundamental requirements: Relevancy, Visibility and User Behavior. For local search, Data, Landing Page, Citation and Reputation are the keys to success.While serving as an adjunct professor at UCSD and CSUF, Steve is also building the Academy of Search, while volunteering time to help improve transparency and industry standards as an agency trainer.At the forefront of SEO, Steve has a front-row seat to how AI is changing the landscape of various industries.

This week's podcast comes from this blog post: Which Supplements Are Right For You?

Darwin's original tenants of his theory as laid out in his 1859 seminal work, "The Origin of Species," were these: that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor via minor, undirected changes, and that natural selection determines which of those random mutations get passed down to future progeny. Variations that confer a survival advantage allow the creature who inherits it to live long enough to procreate, and pass down that change to the next generation.Darwin successfully demonstrated "microevolution" with his Galapagos finch study, showing that finches confined to a particular island would evolve differently shaped beaks over time, in accordance with their available food sources. Similar processes have been demonstrated within many other species as well, and few would dispute that such microevolution does, in fact, occur. But Darwin then extrapolated this process, assuming that over the eons, such tiny changes could allow one species to evolve into another. Leaving aside the philosophical objections we've already covered in previous episodes, such as irreducible complexity and information theory negating the possibility of this occurring, is there any evidence that it nevertheless did occur? If it did, the fossil record should be riddled with examples of transitional species--some of which might have been "dead ends," but many of which should have been ancestors halfway between one species and another.Darwin himself wrote in "The Origin of Species," "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." In other words, he figured that in time, and with acceptance of his theory and with scientists all over the globe searching for such evidence, the "missing links" would eventually be found.So, 164 years later, with belief in evolution dominating almost the entire scientific community, have any fossils of missing links been found?A quick YouTube search on evolutionary fossils presents the first arthropod, mollusk, insect, etc as "missing links." They're the "first" because of where they were found in the rock strata (where deeper is older). But all of the creatures presented are part of recognizable classes of creatures alive today, though those exact species are often extinct. This means they're the end of a line; they're not an intermediate on the way to anything we can identify. (Some of the species aren't extinct at all though, and the exact same organism is still alive today. This is what evolutionists call "stasis": no change over millions of years.)The only possible true missing link of which I'm aware is one found in the 1860s, during Darwin's own lifetime, called archaeopteryx. It was a fossil showing characteristics of both a bird and a reptile, and it is the basis of the widely supposed belief that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds.Larry Martin, paleontologist from the University of Kansas, said in 1985 that archaeopteryx is not a true transitional species, but merely an extinct type of bird. According to wikipedia, twelve such fossils of archaeopteryx have been found, and all around the same area of Germany, encased in limestone. Since only 12 fossils of this same species were found in a very localized area, Martin's explanation makes the most sense. We should have found many more intermediates all over the world, in various stages of transition, if the hypothesis that dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds was correct. (We also wouldn't have expected the two to coexist either, if one were the ancestor of the other, but apparently according to both the Smithsonian and National Geographic, they did.)A few other possible contenders for "missing links" have been found over the years, but the case for each of them has been weak at best.One was the Java Man, found in 1891, supposed to be a missing link between humans and apes. All that was found of it was a skull, a femur, and three teeth. These were later determined to have belonged to three different species.Another was the Piltdown Ape, found in England in the early 1900s, also speculated to be a missing link between apes and humans. In Nov 1953, however, Time Magazine published collected evidence of multiple paleontologists that this ape too was comprised of fossils from three different species. The BBC later called it "the biggest hoax in British history."Peking Man was found in China in the 1920s, another supposed common link between apes and humans. All that was found of it were fragments of skull and teeth.Yet another was "Lucy," found in East Africa in 1974, another supposed common ancestor between apes and humans. Because of the structure of her knees, hands, and feet, which were not at all similar to humans, Dr Charles Oxnard wrote in his book, “Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution” that Lucy was an extinct species of ape. It would be a decided understatement to say that the fossil evidence for evolution is underwhelming. One possible counter-argument for this is that it is exceedingly rare for an organism to become fossilized in the first place. This is because of the putrefaction of microorganisms, which consume dead organic matter. The Smithsonian Magazine writes that fossilization can occur via a few mechanisms: petrification (of bone, or wood), or from an organism being rapidly consumed by sediment that later turns to rock, tar, or amber, protecting the organic dead material from putrefying organisms. While most living things therefore do not become fossils after death, one would think, if Darwin's theory were true, that there should still be many more intermediates than there are recognizable species today.There's an even bigger problem than the lack of transitionary fossils. The rock strata defies the narrative of painstakingly slow evolutionary changes over a period of millions of years. Instead, even in Darwin's own time, he became aware of, and was troubled by, the contradictory evidence of the Cambrian Explosion, also dubbed the "Biological Big Bang." The deepest strata of rock, beneath the Cambrian, demonstrates only fossils of single celled or simple multicellular organisms. Then, suddenly, the layers of rock believed to correspond to the Cambrian period 13-25 million years ago showed nearly every phyla of animals alive today, fully formed. This is true worldwide of the strata belonging to this period.The Biological Big Bang raises several additional questions. First, what happened in the Cambrian period that allowed so many creatures to become fossilized all at once, when fossils are generally rare? In many cases the fossils found are even of soft-bodied creatures (The Qingjiang biota—A Burgess Shale-type fossil Lagerstätte from the early Cambrian of South China), which should putrefy quickly after death--preservation of these in such exquisite detail would certainly require very rapid burial. Also, land animals appear alongside marine animals in the Cambrian period all across the globe. What could have caused such intermingling of creatures that do not otherwise cohabitate?(A global flood mentioned in Genesis 6 comes to mind.)Darwin wrote in the sixth edition of "Origin of Species": "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer." Evolutionary paleontologist Stephen J Gould later said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." He went on to propose the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, in which one species makes a large jump rather than the series of tiny changes predicted in classical evolution to explain the deficit of the fossil record, though this mechanism is philosophically even more fraught than tiny progressive changes would have been.Click here for the next in the apologetics series: The Miller-Urey Experiment

This week's podcast comes from this blog post, Hormesis.

In the 1940s, as digital communications ramped up, Claude Shannon codified basic concepts of how to send and receive information along digital channels. His abstract model of communication goes like this: the message source creates a message in an encoding language, transmits the message, and then on the other end it is decoded by the message receiver.If there is a message with any coherence to it, there must be a message source.DNA is an extraordinarily coherent message. It's encoded in nucleotide bases, decoded by first RNA and then transcribed into proteins, which then fold in 3-D shapes that determine their functionality based on the chemistry of the protein sequence.A classic argument is the infinite monkey theorem: this is the idea that if you gave a monkey a typewriter, given infinite time, he might at least once by happenstance write Shakespeare's MacBeth (or War and Peace, or pick your favorite work of literature). Of course, one major problem is that no one argues that there was infinite time--most secular scientists believe the earth is a mere 4 billion years old. The probability of any combination of events occurring in sequence with one another requires multiplying the probability of each individual event--say, a correct first letter out of 26, times the probability of a correct second letter out of 26, times the probability of a correct third letter out of 26, and so on. The probability thus shrinks exponentially. Hamlet is around 130,000 letters. The probability of a monkey typing all 130,000 letters in the correct sequence is thus 1 part in 3.4 × 10^183,946.To put that in context, there are only 7 x 10^27 atoms in the entire universe, and 10^80 protons (since atoms are made of both protons and neutrons bound together in the nucleus). Even if every one of those protons was a monkey who had been typing at random continuously from the estimated time of the Big Bang (usually supposed to be some 13.7 billion years ago), it would still be statistically impossible for one of those protonic monkeys to accidentally produce Shakespeare's Hamlet. In order to have even a one in a trillion probability, we'd have to introduce the multiverse once again--there would need to be 10^360,641 universes, each filled with protonic monkeys typing at random for 13.7 billion years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem#cite_note-10).So for all intents and purposes, the supposition of the Information Theorem is absolutely correct. If there is a coherent message, there must have been a mind to generate it. Information doesn't come from nothing. It cannot.Click here for the next in the apologetics series: The So-Called 'Missing Links' in the Fossil Record

Dr. Haley Perlus knows what it takes to overcome barriers and achieve peak performance. As an elite alpine ski racer, she competed and trained with the best in the world, pushing herself to the limits time and time again. Now, with a PhD in sport psychology, Haley continues to push boundaries and drive peak performance, helping athletes and Fortune 100 executives reach their goals. Haley works with individuals and teams to manage and expand their energy capacity while increasing resilience, focus and drive. Dr. Perlus is a highly sought-after keynote speaker, professor, author and consultant to Division I athletes. She has spoken at many events some of which include VISTAGE, Tec Canada, Elite Fitness and Performance Summit and Trilogy Athletes. She is an adjunct professor at the University of Colorado lecturing on applied sport and exercise psychology at the graduate level. She has authored several books including The Ultimate Achievement Journal and The Inside Drive and her articles have been featured in publications such as Thrive Magazine, Fitness Magazine, IDEA Fitness Journal, EpicTimes, Telluride Inside, MyVega and BeachBody®. Dr. Perlus earned her PhD at the University of Northern Colorado with an emphasis on social psychology of sport and physical activity, her MS at the University of Florida in sport pedagogy and her bachelor’s degree at the University of Western Ontario in kinesiology. Haley loves both water and snow skiing, and hiking. Her favorite meal is anything that requires only chopping or blending.To learn more about Dr Perlus, see www.drhaleyperlus.com

An age-old objection to the concept of evolution is that of the blind watchmaker, and it goes like this. If a man were to find a working watch in an apparently abandoned place, far from civilization, which would be more probable: that the elements all happened to combine perfectly in the wind and heat and rain, such that a watch resulted by mere happenstance--or that another individual who had purchased the watch from an intelligent designer had been in that same place before, and had simply lost it?

It's popularly believed that this argument has been discredited, but I've yet to hear the actual counter-argument to refute it.Darwin himself wrote of his theory of evolution, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." In other words, any organism, or component of an organism, that was irreducibly complex would discredit his theory. He could say this in his day, because at the time, biochemistry was entirely unknown. Author Michael Behe wrote in "Darwin's Black Box" that it was once believed that insects arose spontaneously from dung and spoiled food, because if left to themselves for any length of time, one might go away, return, and find organic material infested with them. When small organisms were assumed to be very simple, this seemed believable. Now we know better. Even the simplest cell is unbelievably complex--akin to an incredibly efficient city in which each citizen knows and performs his job. These jobs include protein synthesis and breakdown, energy production, repair, and communication within the cell and with the outside world, not to mention complete replication of itself. The concept of irreducible complexity, as Behe defines it, is to first determine the function of the system and all the system's components, and then to determine if all of those components are required for its function. If so, then by definition, that system could not have come about by gradual changes. If it did, natural selection would have no reason to select each iteration on the way to functionality, because each in-between step would be at best, useless, and at worst, fatal.The classic example of the former is the eye. Earlier iterations of this incredibly complex system could not see, and would thus be useless. Therefore, natural selection would have no "reason" to pass on the non-functional, half-formed system to future generations. An example of the latter is the clotting cascade: an intricate internal and external feedback system allows blood to clot without a runaway clotting process that might solidify all the blood in the body at once. If the system did not work at all, though, even a minor injury would cause the creature to bleed to death.Objections to the concept of irreducible complexity tend to sidestep actual biochemical mechanisms in favor of conceptual precursors. These argue that light sensing organs were a precursor to the eye, for instance, and did confer survival advantage, and were thus passed down via natural selection. But since tiny steps cannot be demonstrated by which the one evolved into the other, this is a conceptual rather than a physical precursor, much like, as Behe argues, a bicycle might be a precursor to a motorcycle. The former is a much simpler means of transportation on wheels, but you can hardly make small, slight modifications to a bicycle and turn it into a motorcycle from the preexisting components of the bicycle. Even if one were to bring in outside parts to assemble, intermediate phases would still be utterly useless until the whole upgrade were complete. That scenario wouldn't represent evolution anymore, but something else altogether--something called punctuated equilibrium.The theory of punctuated equilibrium tries to rescue evolution from both the quandary of irreducible complexity, as well as the absence of fossil intermediates (which Darwin had predicted we'd be swimming in by now, if his theory were correct). The theory, proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in 1972, holds that evolution occurs in large jumps rather than tiny small changes.This theory reminds me of the deus ex machina literary device: "and then the gods came down and fixed everything." (Only, not God, you understand.)In literature, this device is considered a cop-out. Authors employ it only when they have no idea how to fix the mess they've created. But that's not the case in science, apparently.Click here for the next in the apologetics series: Information Theory Negates the Possibility of DNA's Evolution

This week's podcast comes from this blog post, How Salt Affects Insulin Resistance. 

Even if one were to believe that life evolved on its own, the physical laws are peculiarly conducive to life, apparently fine-tuned to an extraordinary degree. Stephen Hawking wrote in "A Brief History of Time": “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” Other prominent (non-believing) scientists who authored books on the subject of anthropic fine-tuning include Roger Penrose, Frank Tipler, and Paul Davies.There are four fundamental forces that define the subatomic world: gravity (which still isn't fully understood), electromagnetism (the attraction of opposite charges, enabling electron orbitals to remain in proximity to the nuclei, necessary for formation of chemical bonds), the strong nuclear force (binding atomic nuclei together), and the weak nuclear force (which allows protons to become neutrons and vice versa).If gravity were much weaker, matter would not be sufficiently attracted to each other and planets and stars wouldn't be able to form. If it were only slightly weaker, stars would not explode and distribute the heavy elements formed in their cores, necessary for life. If gravity were stronger, smaller and thus shorter-lived stars would have formed, burned out faster, and likewise would not have been massive enough to explode and distribute heavy elements for life.If the electromagnetic force were stronger, the electrons would collapse into the nucleus of an atom, rendering chemistry impossible. If it were weaker, electrons would not hover around the nucleus at all, likewise rendering bonding and thus, more complex molecules impossible.If the strong nuclear force were 50% stronger, hydrogen (the simplest atom and starting point for nuclear fusion in stars) would have been consumed in the early universe. If it were 50% weaker, fusion would either not have occurred at all, or would not occur to the degree necessary to form heavier elements. In order to produce adequate carbon and oxygen for life, the strong nuclear force could not deviate from its present strength much at all.If the weak nuclear force were weaker, conversion of neutrons to protons would be much faster, and thus, hydrogen in stars would turn into helium too fast--ultimately causing the stars to burn up too quickly. In addition to these, the ratio of the masses of protons to neutrons is exactly as it must be for DNA to be possible.The masses of neutrons relative to protons are also exactly as they must be to allow heavy elements to form, without causing all stars to collapse into black holes.The convection in earth's core runs on radioactivity. If there were any less fuel, it might not have eventually formed iron, necessary for the production of earth's magnetic field which protects us from the sun's harmful solar wind, or charged particles that might otherwise destroy us. Any more radioactive fuel, and we'd be constantly beset by earthquakes volcanic eruptions, the ash of which would blot out the sun.Along the same lines, if earth were less massive, the magnetic field would be correspondingly weaker. As a result, the solar wind could strip away our atmosphere and thus, our breathable air. If it were more massive, earth's gravity would correspondingly increase, which would at a certain point cause a more uniform surface (no mountains or sea floors). This would distribute the oceans across earth's surface, making us a water world.In order for water to be present on a planet at all, it must orbit its star at a precise distance, called the circumstellar habitable zone; too close and we would experience the same runaway greenhouse effect that is believed to have occurred on Venus (water evaporates, concentrates in the atmosphere, traps the sun's rays, and the temperature eventually becomes an oven). Too far, and it will freeze into an ice planet. The only way to prevent the water from freezing would be to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide to trap the sun's heat, but too much CO2 would mean not enough oxygen necessary to sustain life as we know it.Our sun also has to be exactly the right size. Too small, and it would be a red dwarf, emitting far less light, and most of it in the red end of the spectrum. This would greatly impede photosynthesis, as plants require both sufficient sunlight, and both blue and red spectrum light as well. Impaired photosynthesis means not enough oxygen. A smaller star would also have a much closer circumstellar habitable zone; the problem is, a much closer orbit to a star would dramatically increase the tides on the planet, too. This would cause the planet to become tidally locked, like Pluto and its moon, Charon. This means one side would always face the star, while the other would always face away, causing dramatic temperature variations.If the sun were larger, its light would be more toward the blue end of the spectrum, which would allow for oxygen production, but would leave us susceptible to intense ultraviolet radiation.Jupiter and Saturn act as guards for earth: their immense gravitational pull tends to protect earth from stray comets that might otherwise collide with us and cause mass extinction.Our moon's size and proximity stabilizes Earth's precise tilt of 23.56 degrees, which is necessary to keep our seasons mild. It also is responsible for 60% of the tides, which, among other things, drive the ocean current and thus help to distribute heat throughout the planet.Earth also has to be placed exactly where it is within the galaxy. There is a 'habitable zone' within galaxies too, such that we have access to heavier elements from the larger stars, but we're still far enough from the spiral arms of the galaxy where supernovae occur from the most massive stars.These are just a few examples of cosmic fine-tuning. Many scientists recognize the improbability of these parameters being just so. A rather circular non-explanation is called the Weak Anthropic Principle by Brandon Carter, which states, "We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers." In other words, things are the way they are because if they weren't, we wouldn't be here to ask the questions of why they are they way they are. The corresponding Strong Anthropic Principle states, "[T]he Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit within it the creation of observers within it at some stage." The classic logical objection to this argument is that of a criminal expecting to die by firing squad, who nevertheless faces the squad and lives. Would it not beg the question for him to conclude that the firing squad missed him simply because if they hadn't, he wouldn't be alive to ask why he was still alive?Those who do not believe in a designer generally get around this objection via the multiverse interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: the idea that every possible quantum event does actually occur in some universe or another. Therefore every possibility, no matter how unlikely, must occur somewhere, at least once... and in the universe where it does, humans will evolve to ask questions such as "why is everything so perfectly fine-tuned for life?"Such an interpretation certainly seems to me to violate Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. (Not to mention, it begs the question--how one universe began in the first place now becomes a far more complicated problem of how multiple universes might be continuously generated with every Quantum Mechanical "choice.")Click here for the next in the apologetics series: Irreducible Complexity

This week's podcast comes from this blog post, Does Salt Raise Your Blood Pressure?

Rev. David Peterson is an ordained pastor and board-certified chaplain, with over thirty years of experience in ministry to congregations, as well as chaplaincy experience in hospitals, fire/EMS, law enforcement and hospice. He's provided emotional and spiritual care on the scenes of devastating events from 9/11 to school shootings and various community tragedies and in 1994, founded Shepherd’s Staff Pastoral Services, where he was able to provide spiritual care to thousands via chaplains he trained and placed at long term care facilities across the U.S. A study in resiliency and forgiveness, David has lived all his life with tremors in his hands and arms and navigated the bullying, harassment and embarrassing moments it has invited from those who lack understanding and empathy. And at the age of 12, he was targeted by a neighborhood pedophile who used alcohol, pornography and affirmation to abuse him sexually, emotionally, spiritually and mentally. Years of silence, anger, shame and self-destructive behaviors followed before healing and forgiveness transformed him. David and his wife, Arden — as well as their four sons and their families — reside in Chesapeake, Virginia.

To learn more about Pastor David or to get his books, go to davidpetersonbooks.com 

To check out some of his sermons, see - apostles-lutheran.org 

Dr. Tait is the founder of ORIGEN Orthopedics and Optimal Health, a medical practice that applies the principles of Functional and Regenerative Medicine with the goal of helping patients lengthen the lifespan of their joints, while simultaneously improving their total health and quality of life. ORIGEN is the only Orthopedic clinic in the region exclusively focused on non-surgical solutions. Dr. Tait has authored three books and has created two courses on his Integrative Regenerative approach to Orthopedic care and optimal health. He gives more than a dozen talks per year on his unique approach to optimizing one’s human potential.To learn more about Dr Tait, see www.origenortho.comebook: 3 Reasons Doctors Never Get Surgery: tinuyrl.com/neversurgeryVideo: Stem Cell 101 Masterclass: tinyurl.com/helphealing

Today's meditation comes from Psalms 6, 38, 39, 42, and 43.

Today's podcast comes from this blog post, How Alkalinity Reduces Risk of Metabolic Disease. 

Bonnie Gray is a Soul Care mentor and the author of Breathe: 21 Days toStress Less and Transform Chaos to Calm,Whispers of Rest, Finding Spiritual Whitespace and Sweet Like Jasmine, an ECPA 2022 Christian Book Award Finalist. Heaving healed from PTSD, Bonnie is passionate about helping thousands of listeners detox stress and flourish in emotional wellness with God’s love through soul care, Bible Study and prayer. Bonnie is a trusted voice writing for Proverbs 31, Christianity Today and Relevant Magazine. She is also the host of Breathe: The Stress Less Podcast. Take Bonnie’s Soul Care Quiz to learn which area of wellness you’re missing at SoulCareQuiz.com. She loves hiking and eating waffles with her husband and two teenage boys in Silicon Valley.To learn more about Bonnie, take her Soul Care Quiz at SoulCareQuiz.com, find her book at thebreathebook.com, or follow her at thebonniegray on Instagram.

This week's podcast comes from this blog review of Preventing and Dissolving Kidney Stones.

Don Newman has more than twenty years of experience in ministry and leading prayer, and is also the acting Executive Director of Publishing for Salem Author Services, a division of Salem Media Group. As a passionate historian of the church and revival, Don has benefited from the writings and stories of many great intercessors of the church, including some of his own ancestors. These inspired truths are all part of his new book Praying for Reign. It is easy to underestimate the impact of prayer; however, Don believes we can develop a thoughtful, intentional prayer practice—a practice rooted in understanding the types of prayers God yearns for us to pray. Cultivating this type of prayer practice is revolutionary, both of our own lives and the world around us. It’s the first step for those who wish to be a part of the army that establishes God’s kingdom here on earth… and it all starts when we learn how to Pray for Reign. Don and his wife Tracee live in Central Florida. They have been married for almost 40 years and have three children and six grand-children.You can preorder "Praying for Reign" here, or you can get his previous books "Respond Up" here, or "Don't Just Speak It, Write It" here.See his YouTube channel, Living a Life Worth Remembering, here.You can also join his private prayer group on Facebook - just search for "Praying for Reign" and ask to join!

This week's podcast comes from this blog post on My Do-It-Yourself Skincare Routine: https://www.naturecurefamilyhealth.com/my-do-it-yourself-natural-skincare-routine/

This week's podcast comes from this blog post, Keeping Your Glycocalyx Healthy https://www.naturecurefamilyhealth.com/keeping-your-glycocalyx-healthy/