Explore the Christian Natural Health Podcast

Dr. Alan Bauman is an accomplished hair restoration physician, known for his expertise in treating hair loss and his pioneering work in the field. His state-of-the-art "Hair Hospital" in downtown Boca Raton, FL, covers 12,000 square feet and is recognized worldwide for its advanced hair restoration technologies.His dedication to the field of hair restoration has earned him many accolades throughout his career. He is one of approximately 200 physicians worldwide to have achieved certification from the American Board of Hair Restoration Surgery (ABHRS). He has pioneered numerous technologies in the field of hair restoration.Dr. Bauman's expertise has made him a highly sought-after speaker and guest expert. He has been featured in hundreds of news stories in the media. Dr. Bauman has also been recognized for his contributions to the field of healthcare, receiving the 2022 "Lifetime Achievement Award in Hair Restoration" and being named one of "10 CEOs Transforming Healthcare in America" by Forbes.To learn more about Dr Bauman or for a consultation, visit baumanmedical.com

“Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.” Psalm 46:10That's a command for all of us, but some of us find it easier to do than others.I do a lot of neurotransmitter testing in my practice: urine testing for brain signaling chemicals, including serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, GABA, glycine, and glutamate. I used to simply feed the appropriate pathways with the precursors if they were low, and feed the enzymes for metabolism if one was too high, to try to balance things out. I still do that to an extent, but I've also started to recognize patterns. Sometimes a neurotransmitter test can suggest to me that someone is low in some of the cofactors (vitamins or minerals) for certain pathways. Other times, it can suggest that there's a common genetic predisposition to metabolizing neurotransmitters in a particular way.I also used to do a lot more genetic testing than I currently do (for a variety of reasons, though it can still be useful). Sometimes the genetics can tell me that someone will tend to make an excessive amount of a particular neurotransmitter, or that they don't tend to make enough of it, or that they tend to break it down really fast, or break it down really slowly. That can help inform what I see on neurotransmitter testing, and how I might go about trying to maintain balance, once we've achieved it.There are certain personality types, as well as patterns of thinking, that go along with patterns of neurotransmitters. Serotonin and dopamine tend to be an especially striking see-saw. Those with high (but not too high) serotonin tend to be very laid back and in the moment. Those with high (but not too high) dopamine tend to be very driven, always checking off their to-do list, and then moving straight on to the next thing.Too much of either one, or too little of either one, can lead to a particular type of anxiety or depression. Those with excessively high (but more often excessively low) norepinephrine or epinephrine (together known as adrenaline) tend to be jumpy, and constantly in fight-or flight mode. Usually I see this pattern in people who have been stressed out for a long time.Some of these patterns can be explained by the genetics, but it's also true that neurotransmitters and thoughts are a "chicken-or-egg" scenario: which comes first? We all are familiar with the downward spiral of negative thinking: the more you do it, the harder it is to stop. I think this is why Paul told us to take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ," (2 Cor 10:5), and then to think on "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." Phil 4:8. We do have a choice--but our habitual thinking makes this easier or harder to do.A few years ago I read a fascinating book called "The Molecule of More" by Daniel Lieberman. It fleshed out not so much the acute imbalances, but the personality types that go with certain patterns. Lieberman categorizes norepinephrine, along with serotonin, oxytocin, and endorphins, as “here and now,” or H&N neurotransmitters, meaning they help with enjoyment of the moment and satisfaction in one’s actual, current experience.By contrast, the neurotransmitter dopamine is all about novelty and desire (it is the "Molecule of More," as in always wanting more). The moment that a pleasure is no longer unexpected, or a goal is achieved, dopamine is quenched. The enjoyment associated with expected pleasures or enjoying what one already possesses requires the H&N neurotransmitters–and certain kinds of people are predisposed more toward one over the other. The highest achievers in history tended to be very dopamine dominant, with all its attendant benefits and pitfalls. They are constantly driven, and usually obsessed with achievement and efficiency–but this also means they are rarely “happy”, where happiness is defined by satisfaction with what they actually have. Many of them are more susceptible to affairs and divorce, because for them, it’s more about the thrill of the chase than the actual relationship. They often care for humanity in the abstract, but have little patience with individual people. But on the plus side, they also are quite resilient to adversity and change, since novelty produces the dopamine spike they crave.On the flip side, those more predisposed genetically to the H&N neurotransmitters tend to be happier and more content, and to have stronger interpersonal relationships, but far less driven to achievement, and less resilient to the stress of change.Lieberman doesn't argue that either is "better" than the other per se; each has their own strengths and weaknesses (and he also makes the fascinating argument that one's political leanings can often be affiliated with certain patterns of neurochemistry, too).If you tend toward the H&N neurotransmitters, you'll find it much easier to "be still and know" that He is God, but you might have a harder time seeking out and performing the good works that He has prepared for you to do (Eph 2:10). If this is you, you'll probably do much better with accountability partners and little hacks to keep you motivated. (Another great book for building habits for success, particularly if you're not otherwise inclined to do so, is "Atomic Habits" by James Clear.)If you tend more toward dopamine dominance, you'll likely be an internally motivated high performer who accomplishes a great deal, but you'll struggle to be satisfied with what you've achieved. (A great book that might help with this mentality is "The Gap and the Gain," by Dan Sullivan and Dr Benjamin Hardy.) You'll also likely find it much harder to meditate, and to stop and enjoy the moment--but you're the type of personality that really needs to prioritize the habit of silence and stillness.I prioritize it by setting a timer on my phone, and five minutes a day, I'll close my eyes and picture myself at the beach with Jesus--sometimes meditating on verses, other times just being there, and bringing wandering thoughts back to the mental sound of the waves. I also tend to multitask--and I enjoy it, but I know it can go too far. I have to be intentional about choosing silence: running outside (when it's not blisteringly hot) without headphones, so that I can pray instead. Sometimes completing rote tasks in silence, and choosing prayer and meditation.Some more verses on this topic:

• "You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is stayed on You because he trusts in You," Isaiah 26:3.
• "I remember the days of long ago; I meditate on all your works and consider what your hands have done." Psalm 143:5
• "I will remember the deeds of the LORD; yes, I will remember your miracles of long ago. I will consider all your works and meditate on all your mighty deeds.” Psalm 77:11-12
• "My son, pay attention to what I say; turn your ear to my words. Do not let them out of your sight, keep them within your heart; for they are life to those who find them and health to one’s whole body." Prov 4:20-22
• "Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, but whose delight is in the law of the LORD, and who meditates on his law day and night. That person is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither— whatever they do prospers." Psalm 1:1-3.

Dr Jacob Teitelbaum is one of the most frequently quoted integrative, pain and fibromyalgia medical authorities in the world. He is the author of the best-selling From Fatigued to Fantastic!, Pain Free, 1,2,3!, The Complete Guide to Beating Sugar Addiction, Real Cause Real Cure, The Fatigue and Fibromyalgia Solution, Diabetes Is Optional and the popular free Smart Phone app Cures A-Z. He is the lead author of 8 studies on effective treatment for fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, and a study on effective treatment of autism using NAET. Dr. Teitelbaum appears often as a guest on news and talk shows nationwide including Good Morning America, The Dr. Oz Show, Oprah & Friends, CNN, and FoxNewsHealth.Learn more at:

• Vitality101.com
• endfatigue.com
• You can get Dr Teitelbaum's personalized analysis at energyanalysisprogram.com
• You can contact Dr Teitelbaum for information sheets on various conditions at fatiguedoc@gmail.com

The biggest obstacle to faith for a lot of people is this: “If God is all powerful, then why does He cause (or allow) bad things to happen?”

There's something fundamental that we must establish before we ever address this question directly: God is good, all the time (James 1:16-17).  

We know this, at least in part, by what Jesus did. Jesus said that he who has seen him has seen the Father (John 14:8-9), and Jesus went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil (Acts 10:38, Matt 15:30, Matt 4:23-24, Matt 8:16, Matt 9:35, Matt 10:1, Matt 12:15, Matt 15:30, Luke 4:40, Luke 10:9).  He never refused healing to anyone who came to Him. He never harmed anyone "for their own good," or put a disease on anyone "to teach them something" or "to discipline them." Not once. In fact, He actively worked against all sickness and disease, to destroy the devil's work (1 John 3:8). He is the same today as He was when He was on earth (Hebrews 13:8).  

God the Father doesn't change either (Malachi 3:6). We know of God's character from His names in the Old Testament. He is Jehovah Nissi (The Lord my Banner - Ex 17:15). He is Jehovah-Raah (The Lord my Shepherd, or My Friend - Gen 48:15, Psalm 23:1, 80:1, Ez 34:11-15). He is Jehovah Rapha (The Lord That Heals, Ex 15:26). He is Jehovah Shammah (The Lord is There - He has not abandoned you: Eze 48:35). He is Jehovah Tsidkenu (The Lord Our Righteousness, Jer 23:6, 33:16). He is Jehovah Mekoddishkem (The Lord who Sanctifies You: Ex 31:13, Lev 20:8). He is Jehovah Jireh (The Lord will Provide, Gen 22:14). He is Jehovah Shalom (The Lord is Peace, Judges 6:24). He is Jehovah Sabaoth (The Lord of Hosts, 1 Sam 1:3, Ps 24:9-10, 84:3, Isa 6:5).

Many other scriptures establish His goodness. He is ONLY good. (1 John 1:5, Psalm 84:11-12; Psalm 146:6-10; Psalm 107:9, Psalm 31:19, 1 Tim 4:4-5, Eph 1:3, Romans 8:28, Ps 103:2-5, Ps 145:16-19).

God doesn’t do bad things to His children. Yet He’s powerful enough that for those who trust in Him, He can take even terrible circumstances that were not part of His plan, and bring good out of them.

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).

Those who know their scriptures well may point out Old Testament passages that sound like God, in fact, did do evil things. One example is in 2 Sam 24:1, when it says the Lord moved David (in pride) to count the number of his subjects... and then condemned David's sin in having done so (2 Sam 24:10) and punished him severely for it. Yet the exact same story appears in 1 Chron 21:1, where it says Satan moved David to number Israel. This is a very rare glimpse into what was happening in the spiritual realm in the Old Testament, where there is almost no doctrine of Satan. The primary exception to this is at the beginning of the book of Job; otherwise Satan is only mentioned by name here, and in Zechariah 3:1-2. (He is mentioned in Genesis 3 as "the serpent," of course, and also as Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 and Ezekiel 28 as well.) The Old Testament had almost no doctrine of Satan because the people had no authority over him under the Mosaic covenant. What good would it do to learn that you have a bloodthirsty enemy, but there is nothing you can do to protect yourself from him? Because of this, in the Old Testament, anything supernatural, good or bad, was attributed to God, whether God was the instigator or not. The New Testament (and the revelation in Job 1:6-12) shows that this is not the case; there is a spiritual war going on, and we have an adversary who hates us. (For more on how God's dealings with man changed with different covenants, I'll link in the show notes to my Blood Covenant biblical retellings duology: Blood Covenant Origins and Blood Covenant Fulfilled.)

So if God doesn't cause bad things to happen, why do they happen? Evil comes about as a result of one of or a combination of three things -- 1) Satan, the enemy of God and therefore of us, who would like nothing better than to see us destroyed:

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I [Jesus] have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10).

1 Peter 5:8 — “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”

A fallen world that will be redeemed one day, but isn’t yet: 

“For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God” (Rom 8:20-21).

and 3) people who are sinners, and either aren’t yet saved or aren’t yet perfected:

“There is no one righteous [apart from God], not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God” (Rom 3:10-11).

But if God is truly sovereign, or all-powerful, even if He doesn't cause bad things to happen, doesn't He at least allow them, for His own purposes--which largely boils down to the same thing? I thought this way for a very long time--that He was like a great General of an army, who sometimes had to make sacrifices for a greater good. Sometimes (sorry), that sacrifice turned out to be you.

On one particular night, sitting in front of my fire alone and in the midst of a major life crisis, the Lord disabused me of this mistaken belief about Him. At the time it was an emotional, intuitive understanding, and the fruit of it--renewed joy, hope, faith, and trust in Him--was one layer of evidence that it was true. It was only later that I studied why this definition of God's sovereignty is also biblically inaccurate. God is sovereign in the sense that He is all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing, but He is not all-controlling. God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; they did anyway. Was that God's will? Certainly not! He did everything He could to keep them from doing it, short of making them automatons, when He told them, don't do it. Likewise, any sovereign can set laws that his citizens may not necessarily obey. The US is a sovereign nation and in 1974 the administration set the "National Maximum Speed Law" of 55mph. But many drivers exceeded that speed limit regularly. 

The New English Translation has the word “sovereign” appear more than any other biblical translation (368 times). Not one of the original Hebrew or Greek words connotes the idea that He controls everything that happens. Most of the time it’s just the way they render God’s names.

The word sovereign is often translated from Shaddai (meaning Almighty) when it’s part of God’s name (48 times in the OT). Other times it’s translated from ‘elohiym: supreme God, as a superlative, or ‘elyown, meaning High or Most High. Sometimes it's thrown in as part of the transition of ‘Adonay: an emphatic form of the Lord. Sometimes it's translated from tsaba’, also translated the Lord of Hosts, meaning one who commands an army.

In some cases the word sovereign is used to describe God's characteristics, but in context, it doesn't mean what we typically mean by the word (that His will always happens).

The NET version of 1 Chronicles 29:11 says, "O LORD, you are great, mighty, majestic, magnificent, glorious, and sovereign over all the sky and earth! You have dominion and exalt yourself as the ruler of all." Only this translation uses the word sovereign; the others , translate it Head. This word connotes the idea of a supreme ruler, but not of one who always gets His way. 

Psalm 84:11 is one of my favorites. It says, “For the Lord God is a sun and shield (magen: shield, buckler, protector).” The same verse is translated in NET: "For the LORD God is our sovereign protector." Clearly this doesn't say anything about His will always being done, either.

Sovereign power is also translated as holiness from qadash: "to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy, be sanctified, be separate." This word is used in Ezekiel 28:25: "'This is what the sovereign LORD says: When I regather the house of Israel from the peoples where they are dispersed, I will reveal my sovereign power (or holiness) over them in the sight of the nations, and they will live in their land that I gave to my servant Jacob."

Micah 5:4 says, "He will assume his post and shepherd the people by the LORD's strength, by the sovereign authority of the LORD his God. They will live securely, for at that time he will be honored even in the distant regions of the earth.” Sovereign authority is ga'own (exaltation, majesty, pride) shem (name, reputation, fame, glory): thus, better translated “in the majesty of the name” of the Lord. 

Habakkuk 2:14 says, "For recognition of the LORD's sovereign majesty will fill the earth just as the waters fill up the sea." Sovereign majesty here is yada (to know, to perceive, to make known) kabowd (glory, honour, glorious, abundance), also translated “for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord.”

Of course God's will does not always come to pass. The classic example of this is 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance,” and 1 Timothy 2:4: “Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Matthew 18:14 also says, “Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world, not just those who are saved. 1 John 2:2 says, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world”, and 1 Tim 4:10 says, "That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.” But not everybody will be saved, clearly. God gave us free will; He doesn't force us to choose Him, nor does He make any of our other decisions for us, either. Jesus said in Matthew 7:13: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." God wills it; He paid for it; but He won't get everyone as He would like.

There are other verses that imply the concept of sovereignty (in the sense that when God decides to do something, He does it, and no one can stop Him).  But this refers to God’s right and His power, and says nothing about potential restrictions He places on His right and power one way or the other. Here are a few of those verses:

Job 42:2: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.”

Isaiah 46:10: “I declare the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.”

Romans 8:28: “All things work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose.” (i.e. He can use bad and work it for good.)

So what restrictions did God place on His own power, and why are they there?

God gave dominion of earth to men in the Garden of Eden (Gen 1:26-29)--like the lease on a property, the earth lease. When Adam obeyed Satan instead of God, he gave the earth to Satan, and Satan became the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). Jesus defeated Satan on the cross, but the earth lease has yet to run out. Even the demons whom Jesus cast out knew that there was a set time when they would be evicted--but it was not yet (Matt 8:29).

Once God had given His word, He had to abide by it. Everything in the universe is upheld by the integrity of His word (Hebrews 1:3). And yet, He still wanted to save us--but we'd locked Him outside of His own world by our choices. He had to find a way to "legally" get back on the inside. He'd given dominion of the earth to men (Psalm 115:16), so He had to become a man, to buy it back--our kinsman redeemer (see the book of Ruth for a true story that is also a parable of this). Jesus did buy it back, but even though He now has the rights to it, He won't take possession of it until He returns. He has delayed only so that all who would will be saved (2 Peter 3:9).

Revelation 5 depicts the moment when the earth lease is finally up. Jesus begins to take possession of it, and to "evict" the evil from the world. Even then, He won't do it all at once, but in progressive steps, because part of the purpose of the Tribulation is to redeem His chosen people, Israel. Indeed, their turning to Him and asking Him to return is a prerequisite for His second coming (Matt 23:39).

Until then, though, God has made "legal" provision for those who follow Him through successive covenants with men on earth who could agree to give Him permission. Prior to Abraham, God had no "legal" right to protect His favorites, which is why the book of Job played out the way it did. But once the Mosaic law came, it laid out blessings for those who followed God, and cursings for those who disobeyed Him (Deut 28)--because sin still had to be punished. The story of the Old Testament shows repeated episodes of disobedience, because the Jews could not follow the Law. God always knew this, of course--Paul's treatise in Romans demonstrates that the point of the Law was to show that all people are incapable of following it. Even so, there were those even in the Old Testament who figured out that what God really wanted was a changed heart (Psalm 51:10, Micah 6:8), not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6). Those few, like Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and David, got to enjoy a real relationship with God, even before Christ.

Aside from spiritual blessings from obedience in the Old Covenant, God wanted good things for His people so much that He built in multiple paths to receive it. He designed the body such that it heals itself. In the law, He also instructed His people on how to work with the natural laws so that their bodies would be healthy. He told them to rest one day per week (the Sabbath). The Old Covenant is full of dietary rules, to eat certain things and not to eat others (corresponding to modern recommendations for health), to quarantine those who contracted contagious diseases, to decontaminate objects that had been in contact with mold, and many other things that would have made no medical sense to the Jews at the time.

More than that, the most common command in scripture is to "fear not." We now know that stress (anxiety, fear, panic, etc) contributes to, by some estimation, up to 90% of chronic illness.

From a practical standpoint for provision, scripture is filled with recommendations to be honest, generous, diligent and not lazy, to diversify our efforts, etc --to work with natural laws of sowing and reaping, so that we might prosper.

In the Old Testament, there are accounts of miraculous interventions for healing, provision, victory, etc--but God always worked through a man who cooperated with Him via the covenant in place at the time. In the New Testament, Jesus was the perfect embodiment of the will of the Father. He healed everyone who came to Him--but the method was often different. In some cases, He healed with a touch (Luke 5:13). In other cases, people touched Him (Mark 5:31), or even the hem of His garment (Matt 14:36). In other cases He merely spoke the word (Matt 8:8, John 11:43). In others He put mud on blind eyes (John 9:6). There was no formula; He met people where they were at, individually.

Then in the New Covenant, Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13-14), leaving us with only the blessings for those who are in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). This means that today, there are many promises for blessing, healing, provision, and victory that we can stand on and receive by faith, whether a sudden miraculous intervention or a slow blessing working with natural laws (which is more common, Mark 4:14, 26-29). God sends His word to heal us (Ps 107:20). We can receive the blessings that are now already ours in Christ (Eph 1:3) by abiding in Him (John 15:7), trusting in Him (Prov 3:5-6, Psalm 91), learning what His word says (Hosea 4:6) and renewing our minds with it (Romans 12:2), casting down all imaginations to the contrary (2 Cor 10:5), and resisting the devil when he tries to lie to us about what is truly ours (James 4:7), by speaking God's word in faith (Mark 11:23), and by forgiving others and ourselves (James 5:16). Since God's word is as a seed, it takes time for the harvest to come (Mark 4:14, 26-29) and we will reap if we do not grow weary and lose heart (Gal 6:9).

What if we fail to do our part and for whatever reason, don't or can't seem to receive this way, though? The earth is still under Satan's control until the earth lease runs out, and it's also still dominated by sinful people. The world itself is still corrupted by sin (Romans 8:19-22). God made provision for us to overcome these things, but there is still much to overcome. Job (who had no covenant to protect him at all) complained to God, "Have you eyes of flesh? or do you see as a man sees?" (Job 10:4). Even in the Old Testament, God pitied us and knew that we are but dust (Psalm 103:14), but then Jesus came and walked in our shoes. He can sympathize with our weaknesses exactly (Hebrews 4:15). When Peter walked on water and then took his eyes off Jesus and began to sink, Jesus still reached out and caught him (Matt 14:28-32). When the disciples feared drowning and woke Jesus, Jesus rebuked the winds and the waves (Mark 4:35-41). If we begin to fear and take our eyes off of Him, He's there for us too, to give us mercy and grace in time of need (Hebrews 4:16). He also gave us the body of Christ to stand with us and bolster our faith with the prayer of agreement (Matt 18:19, James 5:14-15).

We also still have all of the alternative methods to receive God's blessings, as well: all truth is His truth. He gave us principles like sowing and reaping (Gal 6:7) which includes blessing the work of our hands (Deut 28:4-8). He gave us the science of natural laws, including medicine and logic. He promises to give us wisdom for whatever we need when we ask for it (James 1:5-8)--we just have to take Him at His word.

Whatever tragedy may have befallen you in your life, God was not the author of it. He wants good things for you, and not evil (Jeremiah 29:11). He is for you, and not against you (Romans 8:31). If He gave you the very best He had, Jesus, to redeem you and make you His, why would He not also freely give you everything else that is good (Romans 8:32)? He weeps with you in your tragedy (John 11:35). He never wanted this for you. But He can take even that tragedy and bring good out of it, if You will trust Him to do so (Romans 8:28).

God has been much maligned, even in the church. It's convenient and even sometimes comforting, in a twisted way, to say that God must have done, or allowed, some tragedy for some greater purpose of His that we cannot see. But the truth is, the earth is still a battleground, and God is the Hero, not the villain.

He is only good. All the time.

‍

Dr. Erik Korem has always been driven by a relentless pursuit of high performance. As time progressed, that drive became a purpose — to improve the lives of others in ways they didn’t know were possible. Whether fueling the performance of NCAA athletes or the U.S. Dept. of Defense, implementing one of the NFL's first sports science programs, or coaching Olympic gold medalists, his desire to leave people and places better than he found them is unwavering.Now, as Founder and CEO of AIM7, he’s employing his unique expertise as an applied performance scientist to unleash the true power of wearables in a way that tangibly improves the lives of others. Their proven algorithms analyze users' health data and provide custom recommendations for enhancing the mind, body, and recovery process. Leveraging the science of adaptive capacity, Erik and his team are unlocking a new level of human performance for anyone with a wearable device.To learn more about Erik, you can find him on Instagram and YouTube @ErikKorem

Sam Black is a renowned author and expert in the field of pornography recovery. As the Director of Recovery Education at Covenant Eyes, he brings a wealth of experience to his work, having joined the organization in 2007 after a distinguished 18-year career as an award-winning journalist. Sam is the author of two groundbreaking books: "The Healing Church: What Churches Get Wrong About Pornography and How to Fix It" and "The Porn Circuit: Understand Your Brain and Break Porn Habits." He has also edited 16 other books on the impact of pornography and regularly speaks at parenting, leadership and men's events across the country. Sam's deep knowledge and compassionate approach have helped countless individuals and families find healing and hope.To learn more about Sam, see thehealingchurch.com, or o to the app store and download the Victory App for content!

Let's bypass the idea that DNA, the blueprint for proteins, couldn't come about by random chance. Perhaps the process worked backwards: perhaps the proteins came first.That was the concept behind the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953, in which the chemicals thought to have been present in earth's "primordial soup" (water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2)) were all combined and subjected to electricity, meant to simulate lightning. Proteins are made of 20 amino acid building blocks, and this experiment successfully produced more than those 20 (there are more possible amino acids than just those used in our own core set). This experiment was heralded as proof of abiogenesis, or the production of life from non-living matter.There are a number of major problems with this, though. First, the amino acids produced in this experiment and in all subsequent experiments like it produce a racemic mixture of amino acids, meaning the orientation of the molecules is a combination of non-superimposable mirror images of one another. This refers to the positions of non-symmetrical components of the amino acids, whether they're on the right or the left side (much like our thumbs on our left and right hands appear on opposite sides, as non-superimposable mirror images of one another). However, in nature, amino acids are almost exclusively in the L-form. Its opposite, called the D-form, causes the subsequently formed protein to mis-fold. Since a protein's 3-D structure is determined by the chemistry of its building blocks, and the structure is critical to its function, this makes a protein built of a racemic mixture of amino acids non-functional and toxic to life.This problem has never been circumvented in the laboratory. But even supposing it were, supposing the early environment beginning with chemicals in the primordial soup might somehow produce only L-form amino acids, we'd still have the information problem. Without DNA instructions to tell the body which amino acids to use in which sequence, the average length of a mammalian protein is about 400 amino acids in length. The probability of each amino acid out of 20 being placed in the correct sequence at random is (1/20)^400. If you plug odds like that into an online calculator, what you get is: zero. The probability is effectively zero. And that's just the random formation of a single protein, assuming the orientation of all the amino acids was somehow magically corrected. A single irreducibly complex cell would require somewhere between 3-500 of those.(And that's not even addressing the entirely separate question in abiogenesis of "what constitutes life." A dead body has all of those functional proteins, but they no longer do anything. Why not? What is the indescribable "something" that they have lost--and thus, what would need to be bestowed upon a spontaneously produced protein to cause it to function, even supposing such a protein could be produced in the first place?)Click here for the last in the apologetics series: The Age of the Earth

There is a bit of a debate amongst believers regarding how to reconcile scripture with scientific claims about the age of the earth. Many assume that the evidence that the earth is millions of years old is water-tight, and therefore we only have three options: find a way to fit millions of years into the Bible somewhere, reject clear scientific evidence, or reject the Bible entirely. Those who do try to cram millions of years into scripture have to do it somewhere in Genesis 1. I've heard this done in two ways. One is the gap theory, which places millions of years in between Genesis 1:1, when God created the heavens and the earth, and Genesis 1:2, when the earth was without form and void. The idea is that earth was created once, destroyed, and then remade in between the verses. There's a fascinating book called "The Invisible War" by Donald Barnhouse that makes this claim fairly compellingly -- but so far as I can tell, even if one were to subscribe to this idea, the earth was still remade in Genesis 1:2--at which point the clock should start over. This won't "solve" the biblical young earth problem.The other possibility uses 2 Peter 3:8, which says that "a day to the Lord is as a thousand years," to extrapolate that a day is also to the Lord as millions of years. Therefore, the six days of creation were actually millions of years apiece.There are a number of philosophical problems with this. In certain places, scripture is poetic and should be interpreted as such. Psalm 91, for instance, says that "He shall cover you with His feathers, and under His wings you shall take refuge" (91:4). This is obvious poetry, meant to evoke the image and feeling that God protects us the way a mother hen protects her chicks. It would be absurd to think this means that God has literal feathers. Many of the psalms employ similar poetic imagery, as do many of the prophetic books, Song of Songs, etc. These should be interpreted as poetry, and not as literal historical books.But Genesis is written like an historical book. Genesis 1 is about as clear as it could possibly be that we're talking about six literal days. After each day the scripture says, "so the evening and the morning were the (blank) day," to illustrate that we are talking about 24 hours.Also, Genesis says after each day, "And God saw that it was good." Death is not good; death is the result of sin (Romans 6:23). Sin didn't happen until Genesis 3. If each of the six days of creation was actually millions of years, do we suppose that no creatures died during that entire time? And if death did enter before Adam and Eve ever sinned, then how was creation pronounced "good"? Romans 8:19-22 tells us that even creation groans under the weight of corruption--it too must ultimately be redeemed. When did it become corrupted, if not by sin in Genesis 3?Finally, if Genesis 1 is really a metaphorical abstraction representing millions of years of evolutionary change, what other apparently historical scriptures can be allegorized? Was there really a flood? How about a real resurrection?In short, what can you trust? The Bible is either true or it's not.If the Bible is literally trustworthy, what do we do with all the evidence that "proves" the earth is millions of years old? Does "science" actually prove this?Carbon-14 dating is the best known dating method that most people think of in conjunction with this question. The most common isotope of carbon is C-12, but all carbon-based life forms start out with a certain, albeit very small, amount of the C-14 isotope in life. C-14 is radioactive, which means over time (after death) it decays via beta decay, in which one of its neutrons becomes a proton, turning it into nitrogen. The half life of C-14 decay is only 5700 years, give or take 30 years in either direction. That means it takes roughly 5700 years for half the amount of C-14 that started out in organic material to decay into nitrogen--so you can't use C-14 dating for anything older than 100,000 years. Past that point, there shouldn't be any C-14 left.And yet, some dinosaur bones have been found to still contain C-14 (https://www.icr.org/article/radiocarbon-dinosaur-other-fossils). How is this possible, if they are supposed to be millions of years old?Those who defend the evolutionary time scale will claim that the C-14 must have crept in via contamination.Yet there are even more remarkable findings in dinosaur bones than C-14. Many still contain intact biomolecules (here's a comprehensive list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit#gid=0). These include hemoglobin and blood residue (https://www.icr.org/article/a-80-million-year-old-mosasaur-fossil), retinal tissue, and skin (https://www.icr.org/article/original-tissue-fossils-creations-silent).Ages at a greater timescale than 50-100K years are determined via radiometric dating of igneous rocks (those formed by volcanic eruption), often using potassium-40, which decays to argon-40. Once the lava cools, the rocks are "born"--and the assumption is that any elements that are in a gaseous state at the time will escape before the lava cools into a solid. Argon-40 is a gas, so once hardened, the igneous rock should start out with no argon. Whatever potassium there is should, over a very long time time, decay into argon-40 (the half-life of this process is 1.25 billion years). Thus, the ratio of potassium to argon can serve as a proxy for the age of the rock.Unfortunately, this isn't always accurate. The igneous rocks formed in the Mt. St. Helens eruption of 1980 were tested using the potassium-argon method, and were dated to be hundreds of thousands of years old. Apparently, all the argon gas did not escape prior to the lava solidifying into rock, making the rocks appear many orders of magnitude older than they really were. Additionally, igneous rock are porous, so gas can diffuse into or out of the rocks, further confounding the process. If this method is so wildly inaccurate for dating a known eruption, how can we trust it for anything unknown?Another common dating method is the ratio of uranium-238 to lead-238. This decay is a 14-step process (not a one-step like potassium to argon), with a half life of 4.5 billion years. Eight of these steps produces a helium atom, so for every one atom of uranium, eight helium atoms should be produced. Because helium escapes from rocks fairly quickly (they are porous, remember), there should be little to no helium left if the rocks were billions of years old. But the RATE project (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) at the Institute for Creation Research determined that some of these rocks had high amounts of helium still trapped in them. This finding is consistent with radioactive decay--it was occurring--but it was inconsistent with the expected 4.5 billion year half life.One possible explanation for this is that half lives might not be as fixed as previously believed. This has been demonstrated for other elements in laboratory experiments: radioactive Rhenium-187 decays to osmium-187 with a 41.6 billion year half life, but if all of Rhenium-187's electrons are experimentally removed, the half life can be sped up to a mere 33 years (https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/acceleration-of-radioactivity-shown-in-laboratory/). Granted, that was under laboratory conditions--but it does cast further doubt on the absolute nature of half-life decay in general.Other common dating methods are relative, using the date of something "known" to infer the date of something unknown. These involve index fossils--i.e. if the fossil of one creature is found next to a dinosaur fossil from the Cambrian period, scientists will then assume that the previously unknown fossil must be 400-500 million years old. (But then of course the question becomes, were they correct in dating the index fossil?)Paleomagnetism is another possible relative method. The earth's polarity has changed at various times in its history, and the polarity of magnetic rocks reflects earth's polarity at the time they were buried. Scientists believe they know when earth's polarity reversed in the last 10,000 years, so ferromagnetic materials bearing a certain polarity can serve as a proxy for the date of anything found nearby (provided it was estimated to be 10,000 years old or younger). But again, this depends on a lot of assumptions--and there is evidence (https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/more-evidence-rapid-geomagnetic-reversals-confirm-young-earth/) that earth's polarity reversed many times, rapidly, over a very short period of time. Creation scientists believed that this was a consequence of the worldwide flood, in which some of the waters came from the "fountains of the deep" breaking up (Genesis 7:11). This sounds very much like shifting tectonic plates, which would have set off volcanic eruptions. Since earth's magnetic field is generated from its churning molten core, it stands to reason that earth's polarity might have been affected by the same process.The Bottom LineWe're bombarded with the narrative that evolution and the "deep time" of earth is established fact, rather than a theory, but it's not true.Majority opinion does not establish a truth--what matters isn't what the majority believes, but whether or not they are right. (The idea that majority opinion equals truth is called the logical fallacy of faulty appeal, or 'the appeal to the many.') Nevertheless, it can be daunting, and perhaps even feel arrogant, for the lay public to challenge the unanimous narrative of the experts.There is, in fact, a large number of experts who do not subscribe to the dominant narrative of evolution as established fact. In April 2020, over 1100 scientists in a vast range of scientific disciplines including chemistry, biology, medicine, geology, and paleontology signed a statement claiming, “We are skeptical that ‘random variation’ and ‘natural selection’ can explain the complexity of life. A serious review of the evidence for Darwinism should be encouraged.” (https://www.discovery.org/m/2020/04/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-04072020.pdf)These voices might be suppressed, but they are out there.Science and religion are not in conflict. God made the universe and everything in it, and science is simply the study of what He made. Psalm 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork."All truth is God's truth. True science always points to Him.

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.