January 2014 : Proslogion

Another Atheist Who Became a Christian

This is Jennifer Fulwiler, another atheist turned Christian. (click for credit) — This is Jennifer Fulwiler, another atheist turned Christian (click for credit)

Those who read my blog regularly know that I like to discuss the stories of other atheists who have become Christians (see here, here, here, and here). Most of the time, these stories are rather different from my own, because God calls to each of us in a slightly different way. Nevertheless, I am always fascinated to see how people are able to find the errors inherent in an atheist worldview and learn the truth. Recently, I ran across the story of Jennifer Fulwiler, who was brought up in an atheistic household. In a short video presentation about her conversion, she says that when she was in fourth or fifth grade, her father would read Carl Sagan’s Cosmos to her at night. Her parents brought her up to believe that science was the answer to everything, and so from a very early age, she was indoctrinated into the materialist worldview.

In 2005, she started a blog called The Reluctant Atheist, and on what appears to be her first post, she wrote:

I was raised to believe that God does not exist…About two years ago I decided to actually do my own research and try to come to my own conclusions about God. I realized that despite my mantra of being “open-minded” about religion I was actually quite closed to ideas that didn’t fit with my atheist worldview.

So here I am. Two years and a lot of research later I’m still not sure what I think. I’ve uncovered a lot of information and philosophical perspectives that I certainly was not told about as a kid and am still trying to process it all. After educating myself more about physics and biology I now believe intellectually in some sort of intelligent design, but my heart has yet to catch up. To be totally honest with myself, I’m still functionally an atheist. But I want to believe. My logical mind tells me some sort of creator exists. Some deep gut feeling tells me God exists. But I have a long way to go.

This sounds a lot like me when I was an atheist. Once I actually started learning serious science, it became abundantly clear to me that a Creator had to exist. As a result, my mind was pushing me to a belief in God, but it took a while for my heart to catch up. If you scan through her posts at The Reluctant Atheist, you see her working through several issues, and it seems that in less than a year, her heart had caught up to her logical mind. She changed her blog from The Reluctant Atheist to Et tu, Jen?, and now it is called Conversion Diary.

Continue reading “Another Atheist Who Became a Christian”

More Amazing News About Breast Milk

This is an oligosaccharide - a molecule made up of a few simple sugars linked together. (click for credit) — This is an oligosaccharide – a molecule made up of a few simple sugars linked together.
(click for credit)

Approximately a year ago, I wrote about the bacteria in human breast milk. While that may sound like a bad thing, it is actually a very good thing. Over the years, scientists have begun to realize just how important the bacteria that live in and on our bodies are (see here, here, here, here, and here), and the bacteria in breast milk allow an infant to be populated with these beneficial microbes as early as possible. Not surprisingly, as scientists have continued to study breast milk, they have been amazed at just how much of it is devoted to establishing a good relationship between these bacteria and the infant who is consuming the milk.

For example, research over the years has shown that human breast milk contains chemicals called oligosaccharides. These molecules, such as the one pictured above, contain a small number (usually 3-9) simple sugars strung together. Because oligosaccharides are composed of sugars, you might think they are there to feed the baby who is consuming the milk, but that’s not correct. The baby doesn’t have the enzymes necessary to digest them. So what are they there for? According to a review article in Science News:¹

These oligosaccharides serve as sustenance for an elite class of microbes known to promote a healthy gut, while less desirable bacteria lack the machinery needed to digest them.

In the end, then, breast milk doesn’t just give a baby the bacteria he or she needs. It also includes nutrition that can be used only by those bacteria, so as to encourage them to stay with the baby! Indeed, this was recently demonstrated in a study in which the authors spiked either infant formula or bottled breast milk with two strains of beneficial bacteria. After observing the premature babies who received the concoctions for several weeks, they found that the ones who had been feed bacteria-spiked formula did not have nearly as many of the beneficial microbes in their intestines as those who had been feed bacteria-spiked breast milk.²

Continue reading “More Amazing News About Breast Milk”

Can Fear Be Inherited? This Study Seems to Say “Yes,” at Least in Mice.

These infant mice might be able to inherit their parents' and grandparents' fears! (click for credit) — These infant mice might be able to inherit their parents’ and grandparents’ fears! (click for credit)

Since the realization that DNA is the molecule that passes traits from parents to offspring, it has been thought that the only way to inherit a trait is through the genes. If offspring have traits that are similar to their parents, it is because they inherited similar genes. If they have a trait that is different from their parents, it’s because the genes are different. Over the past decade, however, that view has been moderated to some extent. There seems to be something other than genes at play when it comes to inheritance. The study of heritable traits that do not involve the genes themselves is called epigentics, and it is a fascinating field of study.

While there have been a lot of studies trying to figure out if traits really can be inherited through epigenetics, many of them have been inconclusive or suffer from experimental design flaws. However, I recently ran across a study that I think produces the most convincing argument yet that at least some new traits can be passed from parents to offspring (and beyond) without any change in the genes themselves.

In the experiment, the authors started by exposing male mice to acetophenone, a chemical that has a fruity smell. When the mice were exposed to the chemical, they were also given a mild electrical shock. As a result, the mice began to associate the shock with the smell. After a while, the mice would shudder when they smelled acetophenone, even if they weren’t given a shock. The authors then bred those males with females who had never been exposed to acetophenone. During the entire time the offspring from this mating were raised, neither the offspring nor the parents were exposed to acetophenone. Once the offspring matured, they were then exposed to acetophenone, and they shuddered, even though no shock was given to them. When those offspring were bred, their offspring also exhibited the same behavior. Offspring bred from males who had not been conditioned with acetophenone and shock did not shudder when exposed to the chemical.¹

Now, of course, there are several possible explanations for these results, and had the authors stopped there, the paper would not be nearly as convincing as it is. However, the authors did several follow-up experiments that seemed to rule out any explanation other than inheritance.

Continue reading “Can Fear Be Inherited? This Study Seems to Say “Yes,” at Least in Mice.”

Will This Bring Back the Moon Dust Argument?

This NASA photo shows the thin layer of dust on the moon. (public domain image)

Answers in Genesis keeps a list of creationist arguments that should never be used. It is a good list, and I am glad that Answers in Genesis maintains it. It would be nice if an evolutionary source did the same thing. I don’t know how many times I have to refute nonsense like vestigial tails, lanugo hair, vestigial hair, the vestigial appendix, junk DNA, and all manner of evolutionary arguments that are simply not consistent with the data we currently know.

In any event, the first item on the list of creationist arguments that should never be used is the Moon Dust Argument. In brief, the argument used an estimate of how quickly dust accumulates on the moon to calculate how much dust the astronauts should have found when they landed there. It claims that if the moon were really billions of years old, there should be more than 100 feet of dust on its surface. Astronauts found only a thin layer of dust when they landed, so the moon is not billions of years old.

The problem with that argument rests on the estimate for how quickly dust accumulates on the moon. It was based on how quickly dust accumulates on earth. Obviously, the earth is quite different from the moon, so it’s not clear how good such an estimate is. In addition, other estimates have been made using other methods, and those estimates mostly disagree with one another. Since there seemed to be no good way of estimating how quickly dust accumulates on the moon, responsible creationists stopped using the argument, and that’s how it ended up on the Answers in Genesis list of arguments that should never be used.

Well, some interesting experiments have been done to provide a more direct measurement of dust accumulation on the moon, and the results are surprising, at least to those who are committed to an old earth.

Continue reading “Will This Bring Back the Moon Dust Argument?”

Cellular Communication – Another “Truth” Destroyed

The insulin-producing cells in the islets of the pancreas use a communication strategy that is probably not the most common form in nature (click for credit).

Naturalistic evolutionists are forced to look at the world very simply. After all, they think there is no plan or design in nature. Instead, they believe that random events filtered by natural selection are responsible for all the marvels we see today. Because of this unscientific way of thinking, they tend to look for simple processes to explain amazingly complex interactions in nature. Cellular communication is a perfect example of how this simplistic way of looking at things can produce serious errors.

In order for the different cells of an organism to be able to work together, they must communicate with one another. One of the most well-studied versions of cellular communication is called endocrine communication, and the insulin-producing cells in the islets of the pancreas (illustrated above) provide an example of how it works. These cells produce insulin, which is then released into the bloodstream. When cells in the liver, skeletal muscles, and fat tissues are exposed to this chemical, they absorb glucose (a simple sugar) from the blood. By controlling the release of insulin from the pancreatic islets, then, the body can control how much glucose is in the blood.

Now, of course, this is a great design for cellular communication that needs to affect a wide array of cells in many different places. It makes the release of the chemicals easy to control but their effect long-ranging. As a result, when the body needs widespread communication in different cells, endocrine communication is used. However, there are often times when cells need to communicate with other cells that are nearby. This is called paracrine communication, and biologists have taught (as fact) for many, many years that paracrine communication happens in essentially the same way as endocrine communication. For example, one of the volumes of the Handbook of Cell Signaling says:¹

Paracrine interactions induce signaling activities that occur from cell to cell within a given tissue or organ, rather than through the general circulation. This takes place as locally produced hormones or other small signaling molecules exit their cell of origin, and then, by diffusion or local circulation, act only regionally on other cells of a different type within that tissue. (emphasis mine)

In other words, a cell releases some signaling chemicals, and those chemicals simply have to find their way to their targets via diffusion or some other local means of movement. Of course, such a signalling scheme is rather inefficient for communication with nearby cells, and new research indicates that it’s not the way paracrine communication is done.

Continue reading “Cellular Communication – Another “Truth” Destroyed”

Watch The Ham/Nye Debate FREE At Home!

On February 4th at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, Ken Ham and Bill Nye will debate the question, Is creation a viable model of origins?

Not long ago, I discussed a debate that will take place between Bill Nye the Anti-Science Guy and Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis. As I wrote, I tried to get tickets to the debate, but they sold out minutes after they went on sale. It turns out that the demand for this debate has been overwhelming, so Answers in Genesis has teamed up with Google+ and Youtube to give anyone who wants it a live streaming video feed of the debate!

The url for the live stream is debatelive.org. If you go there now, you can sign up to watch the debate. If all goes well, I will be watching it via this service and will blog about my thoughts the next day.

Babies Learn Music and Language in the Womb!

Studies show that babies learn words and music in the womb. (click for credit)

As I have written previously, several lines of scientific evidence point to the fact that even while they are in the womb, babies are fully human. Far from being a “mass of flesh” that hasn’t reached the status of personhood, a baby in the womb has all the genetic characteristics of a human being as well as some of the social and mental characteristics of a human being. Three new studies demonstrate that they also have some communication characteristics of a human being.

In one study, for example, 12 pregnant women played a CD loudly five times each week during the last trimester of their pregnancy. It contained excerpts from several different melodies, and there was talking in between the excerpts. However, the important melody on the CD was “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star,” which was repeated 3 times. The babies developing in these mothers’ wombs heard this melody 138 to 192 times before they were born. The mothers then destroyed the CD once their child was born, so that there was no chance the baby could hear the contents of the CD afterwards.

Shortly after birth and again at the ripe old age of 4 months, the babies were played a modified version the “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” melody nine times. In this modified version, 12.5% of the notes from the original melody were randomly changed to a single note – “B.” While the modified melody was playing, an EEG recorded the electrical activity in each baby’s brain. The researchers also chose 12 babies whose mothers had not been given the CD and did the same thing to them. The babies who had heard the CD in the womb had significantly higher electrical brain activity when the modified notes were played, indicating that these notes were unfamiliar to them. For the babies whose mothers had not been given the CD, the electrical activity in the brain was the same during both the original notes and the changed notes.¹ This gives strong evidence that babies can learn the music they hear while they are in the womb.

Continue reading “Babies Learn Music and Language in the Womb!”

Another Atheist-Turned-Christian

This is Rosaria Champagne Butterfield during an interview with Marvin Olasky of World Magazine. (click for credit)

Because I was an atheist who converted to Christianity, I like to read the stories of other former atheists (see here, here, and here). This post is about atheist-turned-Christian Rosaria Champagne Butterfield. She was an English professor at Syracuse University, and in her own words, her conversion to Christianity was a “train wreck.”

A short version of her conversion story is at Christianity Today, and it is well work the read. She has also written a book entitled The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert. I have not read the book, but it is on my list.

What I find most intruiging about her story is how it began. She had written an article in the local newspaper that was critical of the Christian group called Promise Keepers. Like most controversial pieces, the article sparked all sorts of written responses. She says that she filed them into two groups: hate mail and fan mail. However, there was one letter she couldn’t classify. That letter led her down the path to Christ.

Continue reading “Another Atheist-Turned-Christian”

DVD and Live Streaming Options for the Debate

There were 800 tickets available for the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, and they sold out within minutes. As a result, Answers in Genesis is offering both a DVD option and a live streaming option. I chose the live streaming option, so I will be able to see the debate live and blog about it shortly afterwards. If you would like either the DVD or the live stream option, you can go to:

The Answers in Genesis Debate Page

Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Anti-Science Guy

More than a year ago, Bill Nye was in an anti-science video that tried to convince people the creationist view should be censored. As I pointed out then, this is an incredibly anti-science notion. Unfortunately, this isn’t the only example of Mr. Nye’s anti-science behavior.

Nevertheless, I now have to give Mr. Nye some credit for doing something very pro-science: He is going to debate Ken Ham on the question, “Is creation a viable model of origins?” The debate will take place on February 4th at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. It is good to see that Nye is stepping away from his promotion of censorship and is interested in actually engaging the creationist view. I tried to order tickets online as soon as they were available, but the event seems to already be sold out!

Now even though this is a positive step towards a more pro-science attitude for Bill Nye, many evolutionists are trying to convince him to be more anti-science. As one Christian-turned-secular-humanist put it:

Will the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate Advance the Secular Cause? Of course not. Debates are all about the faithful on each side saying their side wiped the floor with the other side. I am not sure why Bill Nye decided to debate Ken Ham. Nothing good can come of it.

I obviously disagree. I think debate is usually a good thing, because it allows us to hear another point of view from someone who actually believes in that view. For the creationists who attend the debate (and I suspect they will be the large majority), they will hear from an evolutionist who actually believes in evolution. This will be good, because most likely, much of what they hear about evolution comes from creationists. For the evolutionists in attendance, they will hear about the creationist point of view from a creationist. This is also good, since most of them have probably never bothered to get the creationist view from someone who actually believes it.

In an effort to help Mr. Nye with his budding pro-science attitude, I will give him a piece of advice: Be Prepared!

Continue reading “Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Anti-Science Guy”