Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!

A A
By:

Saturday Selections – Feb. 15, 2025

Charles Darwin’s birthday was Feb. 12, so for this edition we are marking that event by featuring a collection of very different rebuttals. Click on the titles for the linked articles.

Your cells are constantly being recycled and repaired… even as they keep running

Every day your DNA experiences 10,000 lost letters of code in every single cell of your body. Your body is like a library of information… that’s constantly on fire. As fast as the environment burns down your DNA, a host of DNA “librarians” in your cells builds back what was being burnt down.

That means that, right from the beginning, our DNA needed these repair mechanisms. But these mechanisms need all sorts of DNA to be formed. It’s a chicken and egg dilemma – which came first? Both need to have been in place from the beginning, and couldn’t have evolved one at a time.

Better science without Darwin

When you presume that all the life around us came about by random mutation, acting without design or purpose, then you’re not liable to look to Nature for brilliant design. And devotion to Darwin might have you falling for all sorts of mistakes, like believing that much of our DNA is just junk left over from our previous evolutionary incarnations. Or you’d be liable to look for and try to point out flaws in our design.

But you’d be wrong.

What if, instead of looking to Nature for bad design, scientists starting looking to it for Inspired design? That’s what the field of biometrics is all about – looking to Nature for inspiration, because of the brilliant engineering on display.

Evolution can’t explain why we blush

Does blushing make you fitter? Nope. In fact, an argument could be made that this honest unconscious reaction might put someone at a disadvantage. That’s why Darwin was perturbed by it, because even blushing exposes the insufficiency of his evolutionary theory.

The astonishing self-organizing human embryo

You start as a single cell that then subdivides into all sorts of other different types of cells. But how does the one decide to become all the others? “…how exactly does an organism without any central control self-organize?” The more we learn, the more apparent it is, that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.

The Darwin devotion detector

Some years back author and scientist William A. Dembski crafted a test that paired statements – one devoted to Darwin, the other not – that could be used by a person to gauge how devoted or not they might be to Darwin. I think this 40-question test could be used by Christians in university to confront classmates willing to listen (interested opposition, not fingers-in-their-ears fools) to expose to them their blind devotion to Darwin, and how it isn’t anything to do with science. Here’s one pairing, as an example, with the first showing Darwin devotion, and the second lining up better with reality.

  • Darwin’s theory of evolution is as well supported scientifically as Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
  • Putting Darwin’s theory of evolution in the same league as Einstein’s theory of general relativity is an affront to the exact sciences.

The age of the arches

As the article above notes, Arches National Park has about 2,000 natural rock arches, with roughly one collapsing each year and none forming. So, unless there were  millions of arches to start, that makes it seem that these are not the millions of years old they are purported to be. And the article below highlights how they were not formed as they were purported to be either.

Enjoyed this article?

Get the best of RP delivered to your inbox every Saturday for free.



Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Feb. 8, 2025

Monarch butterflies are freaky cool  (7 min) We know that caterpillars become butterflies – two creatures in one! – but did you know that Monarch butterflies themselves have two entirely different life spans? One generation lives just weeks, and the next will live months, long enough for them to make the journey from Canada to Mexico, a route they have never traveled before. That's three creatures in one! Who will you believe about spanking? Big-name psychological groups say spanking is harmful. But that says more about them than about spanking. Sooner or later, babies will be too precious to abort More people die from abortion than all other causes of death combined – abortion may have accounted for 52 percent of all deaths in 2021. Michael Cook thinks the consequences of this slaughter will be such that shrinking nations will have to turn their backs on abortion... or disappear. "Devil with a bluegrass, bluegrass, bluegrass, devil with a bluegrass thumb" Being able to laugh at yourself is grace indeed! Origin-of-life challenge: $10 million, just lying around (10-minute read) Since 2019, a $10 million prize has been available for anyone who can produce “a purely chemical process that will generate, transmit and receive a simple code.” This is a key tenet of evolution – that unguided processes can create and transmit information – and evolutionists have not been able to put up... so we should rightly regard them as having been shut up. Tariffs: why Canada shouldn't hit back  Free trade – free of barriers and restrictions – has, traditionally, been pretty exclusive to the Right side of the political spectrum. But now, with President Trump threatening tariffs on Canada and Mexico, we're even hearing the Left talk about the harms that tariffs could cause. And not just to Canada and Mexico, but to American consumers too. As the far-left stalwart Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (aka AOC) noted on X, "Remember: *WE* pay the tariffs....Trump is all about making inflation WORSE for working class Americans, not better." But what is she talking about when she says Americans pay the tariffs it charges? Think of it this way. Imagine two towns located right next to each other – Town A and Town B – and each has a car mechanic. These mechanics are full-service: they go right to your house to do the repairs. The only difference between the two is that the car mechanic in Town A – let's call him Arnold – is way cheaper, so not only do all the folks in Town A use Arnold, so do most of the folks in Town B. That, understandably, makes the mechanic in town B – we'll him Bill – quite unhappy, as it really hurts his business. So Bill demands that his town put in a tariff of sorts. He wants a 25% surcharge on any "out of town" car mechanics. He argues that this surcharge will be incredibly beneficial – applying it to Arnold for the work he does in Town B will help fund Town B's government. It will also help protect Town B's homegrown car repair businesses - Bill's – by making his prices seem more competitive. And, Bill notes, if he gets more business, the government will benefit from the taxes he'll pay. Bill pitches his tariff/surcharge as a win/win all the way around. But Bill is forgetting someone – several someones, in fact. The surcharge will make Arnold's prices higher. Any Town B clients who do continue to use him will now be paying 25% more. And any clients he loses to Bill will be impacted too, having to pay Bill's higher prices for their car repairs, taking a bigger chunk out of their household budget than ever before. In other words, Bill is staying in business at the expense of the car repair consumers in his own town. That's not win/win at all – that's a win for Bill, at the cost of everyone else in town. This is what AOC meant when she said that Americans will pay the tariffs they charge. Canada rightly fears American tariffs on the energy and goods they produce. Those tariffs could hurt our producers badly. But hitting back at American tariffs with our own tariffs on US goods is only going to compound the pain. It might benefit some of our producers – whoever makes the goods that compete with imported American goods – but that benefit will come at the expense of Canadian consumers overall by making them pay more. Just like Town B's car repair "tariff" hurt Town B's citizens. Is there an explicitly biblical perspective to be brought here? Well, what about Leviticus 19:15? “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly." God equates justice and impartiality, which prompts a question: should a government take actions that benefit some of its citizens – some producers – at the expense of other citizens, the consumers and producers who use those goods? Isn't that partiality? God also speaks to this in his Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12). "Do unto others as you would like done unto you," applied to the economic realm would mean that car mechanic Bill wouldn't argue for his surcharge because he wouldn't want that same surcharge applied to everything he buys. If Town A has cheap car parts, or groceries, or gasoline, he'd love to be able to benefit. That fact is, tariffs always hurt consumers, so no matter what the US does, let's not let tariffs beget more tariffs. Instead of putting up trade barriers, there are interprovincial barriers we could greatly benefit from taking down, as Pierre Poilievre explains below. ...