Should Christians Believe Relativity? Einstein and the Bogeyman

Einstein ponders matter curving space

Einstein ponders matter curving space

Should Christians believe Einstein’s theories (there are two) of Relativity? Should anyone? Since I haven’t seen any scientists oppose the theory (test it, yes; oppose no), I have always assumed that pretty much everyone accepted Einstein’s General and Special Relativity. That’s the position I was writing from when about a decade ago I wrote an article about how people can be convinced to move from believing something is impossible, to believing that that very thing is not only possible, but true. The article is titled Science and the Paradox of the Unbelievable.

The article uses as its illustration the change in the understanding of how gravity works which was ushered in by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. It starts with the original concept of gravity, formulated by the person many consider to be the father of modern science, Isaac Newton, and went on to show how Newton’s understanding, based in straight forward Euclidean space and standard time, which passes at a steady, unchanging rate, has given way to a new concept of gravity formulated by Albert Einstein in his theory of General Relativity. The point in that article was that many concepts that are common in Einstein’s theory of General Relativity were previously considered impossible and thus inconceivable, particularly to those with a good understanding of Newtonian dynamics.

Continue Reading

Question Evolution Day 2026 – Molecular Machines


Bacterium Flagellum  molecular machine

Do you believe that complex machines can come about by random processes without a designer? I don’t know anyone who believes the engine under the hood of their car, or the outboard motor on a boat, came about without designers or engineer, i.e. without people intending to design an engine and then using their knowledge and intelligence to bring the ideas in their minds to fruition by putting on paper (or computer) their ideas, and then using those ideas to mold and shape the actual parts, then using an intelligent process to put those parts together.

As I noted in my article titled 15 Reasons Why Evolution has Never Happened, Part 3  I pointed out that: Continue Reading

Question Evolution Day 2025: Birds using Quantum Physics?


For this Question Evolution day article I want to revisit a topic I discussed briefly in my article “Earth’s magnetic field: Testament to more than a young earth.” In the article I discussed how earth’s magnetic field, due to its rapid decay rate, is young. This demonstrates that the earth is much younger than the 4.5 billion years secularists claim it to to be, and that proves that both Darwinian evolution and the Big bang are false. I went on to discuss how the earth’s magnetic field displays properties of intelligent design—namely that it is used by some of God’s creatures for navigation. It’s that topic I return to for this Question Evolution article.

Some migrating birds navigate over hundreds or thousands of miles in order to find the same tree that they left months earlier. As the following X (nee Twitter) posts indicate, researchers  indicate birds use quantum physics to achieve this. You read that correctly. Birds are using properties of quantum theory—the theory of very small particles  which we only recently (relative to how long birds have been around) learned about—to navigate. Take a look: Continue Reading

CIB: Like Superman with no Kryptonite Weakness

Super CIB - Creation Information Barrier

“To what can I compare this generation?” Said Jesus (Matt 11.16) preparing to use a simile as an illustration of what the people of his day were like. In the same vein, to what can I compare the power of the Creation Information Barrier evidence/argument/truth compared to other arguments in support of the necessity of a supernatural intelligence in the creation of life when discussing the origin of life? Superman, I think, is appropriate.

Superman, with all his powers, is clearly the most powerful superhero. He is so powerful in fact, that they had to give him a weakness just to make a way to have a story line without Superman defeating the villain in the first few seconds of a fight. Because a fight between Superman and a human is like a fight between a 150,000 pound sauropod dinosaur and, not a human (as in the graphic below) but, a mouse. It is simply no contest.

Sauropod and human - size comparison

Humans compared to Sauropods

Continue Reading

Q11 – Why are Christians so stuck on believing their Bibles instead of science?

Science Research

We now consider the question, “Why are Christians so stuck on believing their Bibles instead of science.” This is a false dichotomy because Christians do not reject all science. The question either reveals a profound ignorance of the nature of science and the scientific process or implicitly denies that science, by its very nature, is constantly rejecting things as false that were previously thought to be true. Tenets, previously accepted as good science one day, can be rejected as foolish and obsolete the next.

Regarding the nature of God, the question reveals either ignorance concerning God or a denial of the nature of God and the Bible. God is omniscient. He has perfect knowledge (John 21.17, Heb 4.13). He never learns anything because he already knows everything. The Bible is the word of God, breathed out from the omniscient God (2 Tim 3.16) and all it affirms is true (Ps 119.160). Therefore, as expected of knowledge coming from God who is perfect in knowledge, the Bible is wholly true and without error in all it affirms. This is known as the doctrine of inerrancy. Continue Reading

The “But You’re Not a Scientist” Fallacy

Skeptic

“But you’re not a scientist…”

The “… but you’re not a scientist” fallacy is an often-used ploy by evolutionists to try to disqualify any critique or observation about evolution (or actually any scientific discipline) that is not presented from what they consider to be a qualified evolutionist. Typically “qualified” means someone with a PhD in some evolutionary field like evolutionary biology. Without it, the objection goes, you’re not qualified to make any critiques or point out any problems with evolutionary theory. Continue Reading

Distant Starlight – Under Occam’s Razor – Part 2: Critique and Cuts

Supernova SN1987a

As noted in part 1 of this article, distant starlight has been called the best argument against biblical creation and a young earth. A serious charge. So I thought it would be helpful to identify the best answer to this “best” charge against creation. A number of solutions to this problem have been offered by scientists who happen to also be creationists.  We briefly examined the popular ones in the previous article.  Now that we’ve completed an overview of possible solutions, we’ll get to the meat of the matter: identifying which theory or theories both have a possibility of working, and surviving the principle of Occam’s razor. So without further ado: Continue Reading

Distant Starlight – Under Occam’s Razor – Part 1: Contenders

The Milkyway from the International Space Station

Distant starlight: It’s been called the best argument against biblical creation and a young universe.[1] Why is that? Because Big Bang Theorists, secularists and anyone who believes in an ancient universe believe they have an iron clad case against a young universe with regard to distant starlight. The argument goes like this.

The Problem

We can see stars hundreds of thousands, millions even billions of light years away.  Take the Andromeda galaxy – 2.5 million light years away. A supernova was observed in that galaxy. That implies the light took 2.5 million years to get to earth. But if the earth (and indeed the entire universe) is only 6,000 years old. How can we see Andromeda or the supernova? Using standard understandings and formulas, there hasn’t been enough time for the light to get here from Andromeda. Yet we can see it. On the face of it that suggests that the earth is at least 2.5 million years old – much older than the 6,000 years that Biblical creationists claim for the universe. And the problem only gets worse for more distant stars. This is indeed an acknowledged problem. Continue Reading

More Questions for Question Evolution Day

Question Evolution Day is February 12

Theoretical physicist and science popularizer Michio Kaku said,

“Science, however, is never conducted as a popularity contest, but instead advances through testable, reproducible, and falsifiable theories.”[1]

Real operational science is testable, reproducible and falsifiable. Which of course excludes Darwinian evolution, since it is neither testable, reproducible nor falsifiable – at least it can’t be falsified to the satisfaction of Darwinists. Nevertheless in the scientific spirit of inquiry it is good to examine what many believe to be the “science” of evolution.  Creation.com and The Question Evolution Project have established February 12 – Darwin’s birthday – as Question Evolution Day. A day to inquire about and question a theory many erroneously think has been established as a “fact” due to the incessant cheerleading by its advocates.[2]

Creation Ministries International has published an excellent article titled “15 Questions for Evolutionists” that covers well many of the unanswered challenges to evolutionary theory. Also for your consideration: a few years back Buzzfeed did a “listicle” featuring creationists asking questions that are either problematic for evolution or supportive of creation. The questions sought to expose a problem with evolutionary theory, but were asked in a manner that made them easy to refute, so I wrote an article to fine tune the questions called “Refining the Questions for Question Evolution day.” It’s in the spirit of these articles that I offer a few more questions (and challenges to evolutionists) for Question Evolution Day. Continue Reading

Testimony of the Golden Gate: Bridges, Body Parts and Intelligent Design

The Golden Gate Bridge

I enjoy looking for evidences of the Creator imprinted on his creation when I travel. This past summer we had the opportunity of visiting San Francisco where we saw the awe inspiring Golden Gate bridge and I snapped the above picture.  I was also reminded of the Creator – in an indirect way. Obviously God didn’t directly build the bridge – but the bridge is a reminder of the design inherent in His creation. Let me explain. It is abundantly evident that the Golden Gate bridge is intelligently designed. But beyond that, not only is it intelligently designed,  it’s clear it is also irreducibly complex. And irreducible complexity is an undeniable evidence of intelligent design..

Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity in his book “Darwin’s Black Box, and defined it this way: Continue Reading