Physics Helps You Understand the Mysteries of Christianity

Dr. John Charlton Polkinghorne was a theoretical physicist whose work was important enough to earn him election as a fellow in the longest-lived scientific organization in the world, the Royal Society. However, after 25 years of contributing to our knowledge of God’s creation, he decided that his best work in physics was behind him, so he began training to become an Anglican priest. After being ordained, he served in the Anglican Church for 14 years before retiring.

Obviously, Dr. Polkinghorne’s education and life experiences make him an authoritative voice when it comes to the relationship between Christianity and Science. He wrote a lot about the subject, and while I often disagree with him, I have read and appreciated much of what he has written. In 2009, he and one of his students (Nicholas Beale) wrote a book entitled, Questions of Truth: Fifty-one Responses to Questions about God, Science, and Belief. I read it quite a while ago, and I reacted as I usually did – agreeing with some parts of the book and disagreeing with others. However, I was thumbing through it to find a quote I wanted to use, and the Foreword caught my eye. I don’t think I read it when I read the book, so I decided to take a look at it.

It was written by Nobel Laureate Dr. Antony Hewish, who was an astronomer and a devout Christian. In less than two pages, he makes one of the most interesting arguments I have ever heard regarding the relationship between science and Christianity. He first makes the point, which I make over and over again when I teach science, that science does not follow common-sense thinking. Aristotle used common-sense thinking to come to the conclusion that all objects have a natural state of being at rest, and you have to force them out of that state to get them to move. Galileo and Newton followed experiments rather than common sense, and they demonstrated that an object has no preferred state of motion. It remains in its current state until it is acted on by an outside force. That non-common-sense notion is now called Newton’s First Law of Motion.

Of course, since Dr. Hewish is well-versed in physics, he gives a better example of how physics doesn’t follow common-sense thinking and then makes a conclusion from this fact:

For example, the simplest piece of matter, a hydrogen atom, cannot be accurately described without including the effects caused by the cloud of virtual particles with which it is surrounded. There is no such thing as truly empty space. Quantum theory predicts that even a perfect vacuum is filled with a multitude of particles that flash into and out of existence much too rapidly to be caught by any detector. Yet their existence modifies the motion of electrons orbiting protons in a calculable way that has been verified by direct observation. The ghostly presence of virtual particles defies rational common sense and is nonintuitive for those unacquainted with physics. Religious belief in God, and Christian belief that God became man around two thousand years ago, may seem strange to common-sense thinking. But when the most elementary physical things behave in this way, we should be prepared to accept that the deepest aspects of our existence go beyond our common-sense intuitions.

(John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Bealexii, Questions of Truth: Fifty-one Responses to Questions about God, Science, and Belief, (Presbyterian Publishing 2009), p. xii)

In the end, Dr. Hewish is making the case that understanding modern physics should make you more inclined to be a Christian (or at least more inclined to be religious), since it conditions you to believe that the universe is based on mysterious processes that cannot be directly observed.

I have to say that this has happened in my own life, even though I was not aware of it. I went from being an atheist to believing in some kind of Creator because science showed me that the universe was obviously the result of design. I eventually became a Christian because after reading extensively on world religions, by grace I saw that Christianity is supported by the most evidence. I was initially very uncomfortable with the mysteries that are inherently a part of Christianity, but as I grew older, I became more and more comfortable with them. I thought that this was because I had grown accustomed to them. However, after reading Dr. Hewish’s foreword, I noticed that my level of comfort with the mysteries of Christianity coincided with my increasing knowledge of quantum mechanics.

Dr. Hewish seems to have hit the nail on the head, at least when it comes to how modern physics has helped me grow in my faith.

The Heavens Tell of the Glory of God

Astronomer Johannes Kepler (left) and Astronaut James Irwin on the moon (right)

As I wrote previously, one of the reasons I took a break from blogging was so that I could concentrate on teaching a Master’s Class at Memoria College this year. In that class, we read the great natural philosophers of the past, from Archimedes to Darwin. Many of the students remarked on how often God was mentioned in these works, especially the works of astronomy. For example, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), the brilliant astronomer who figured out that planets orbit the sun in ellipses, not circles, described the sphere of the universe this way:

For in the sphere, which is the image of God the Creator and the Archetype of the world-as was proved in Book 1-there are three regions, symbols of the three persons of the Holy Trinity – the center, a symbol of the Father; the surface, of the Son; and the intermediate space, of the Holy Ghost.
(Johannes Kepler, Epitome of Copernican Astronomy – Book IV, First Book on the Doctrine of the Schemata [436])


In other words, he saw the Trinity in his model of the universe. The sun represented God the Father, the outer edge of the universe (where he thought all the stars resided) represented God the Son, and the area in between represented God the Holy Spirit.

I find it refreshing that scientists like Kepler were comfortable relating their science to their faith. Nowadays, that kind of language is censored from the scientific literature, but for most of history, it wasn’t. That’s one of the many benefits of reading scientific works from the past. It allows you to see the incredibly strong, positive impact Christianity had on science.

I asked the class why Kepler viewed the universe the way he did. One student (a pastor) gave a Bible verse as his answer:

The heavens tell of the glory of God; And their expanse declares the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.
(Psalm 19:1-2, NASB)


In this student’s opinion (with which I agree), a person must strongly compartmentalize his or her thinking in order to study the universe and deny that God’s power and majesty are reflected in it.

In support of that idea, another student mentioned Astronaut James Irwin. After coming home from walking on the moon, he wrote a book entitled More than Earthlings. In it, he explained how his trip to the moon inspired him to take his Christian faith more seriously:

Being on the moon had a profound spiritual impact upon my life. Before I entered space with the Apollo 15 mission in July of 1971, I was a lukewarm Christian, to say the least! I was even a silent Christian, but I feel the Lord sent me to the moon so I could return to the earth and share his Son, Jesus Christ. The entire space achievement is put in proper perspective when one realizes that God walking on the earth is more important than man walking on the moon. I believe that God walked on the earth 2,000 years ago in the person of Jesus Christ.

As a result, he started the High Flight Foundation, which works “…hand in hand with leaders serving the Nations and the people as they discover God’s destiny for their lives and Nation.”

Johannes Kepler and James Irwin are just two of the many scientists who recognize that the heavens do, indeed, tell of the glory of God. In fact, that is the most important reason students should study science. The more you learn about science, the more you should be in awe of the power and majesty of God!

Slaughtering Species in the Name of “Green Energy”

A wind farm in California at sunset (click for credit)

Nine years ago, I wrote about a study that indicated wind turbines in the U.S. kill more than half a million birds and more than 800,000 bats each year. Five years later, I wrote about another study that indicated wind farms act as apex predators in the ecosystem where they are built. While very little of this important information makes its way into the popular press, it has informed those who actually care about the environment. As a result, more studies have been done, and these studies indicate something rather surprising about two of the “green energy” solutions that have been promoted to “save our planet.”

So far, the most chilling study was published in Royal Society Open Science. The authors of the study collected feathers of dead birds found at selected wind farms and solar energy facilities in California. They found that of the many species killed by these “green energy” sites, 23 are considered priority bird species, which means their long-term survival is threatened. The list is quite diverse, including the American white pelican, the willow flycatcher, the bank swallow, and the burrowing owl.

Now, just because a species is threatened, that doesn’t mean a few extra deaths are going to be a problem. After all, these facilities are in specific places, and bird populations can cover wide geographical regions. A few extra deaths in some regions can be compensated for by more reproductivity in other regions. Thus, the authors used models to estimate the impact that deaths from wind farms and solar facilities will have on the overall populations. They conclude:

This study shows that many of the bird species killed at renewable energy facilities are vulnerable to population or subpopulation-level effects from potential increases in fatalities from these and other anthropogenic mortality sources. About half (48%) of the species we considered were vulnerable, and they spanned a diverse suite of taxonomic groups of conservation concern that are resident to or that pass through California.

In other words, the study indicates that 11 priority bird species that live in or pass through California are now more at risk because of “green energy” sites in that state. Now, of course, this conclusion is model-dependent, and the models might be wrong. However, at minimum, this study identified with certainty that at least 23 species of threatened birds are being slaughtered at wind farms and solar facilities. That should cause people who actually care about the natural world at least some concern. Unfortunately, even though this study was published a month ago, I haven’t seen a single report about it in the popular press.

As an aside, it’s pretty obvious how wind farms kill birds, but how do solar energy facilities do it? The short answer is that we don’t know. What we do know is that birds tend to crash into solar panels. Perhaps they interpret the shiny surface of the solar panels as a body of water where they can land. Perhaps they interpret it as more sky. Whatever the reason, we know that birds are dying at solar farms. Preliminary research indicates that in the U.S., somewhere between 37,800 and 138,600 die each year as a result of crashing into solar panels.

So what’s the take-home message from this study? It’s rather simple:

The “green energy” solutions touted by politicians and the press are not necessarily better for the environment.

The fact is that “green energy” processes are mostly new, so their long-term effects on the environment are mostly unknown. Ten years ago, no one would have thought that wind farms and solar facilities might be threatening the long-term survival of certain bird species. We now know otherwise. And don’t forget the bats. The effect that wind farms have on their populations hasn’t been studied in nearly as much detail, even though more bats are slaughtered by wind farms than birds!

Those who are pushing “green energy” might actually be pushing environmentally-hostile energy without even knowing it. That’s what happens when those who call themselves “environmentalists” ignore science and simply follow the politicians and the press.

Discovering Design With Biology

In 1997, Marilyn Durnell and I published Exploring Creation With Biology, a college-preparatory biology course designed specifically for home-educated students. Because the science of biology changes over time (especially when it comes to classification), we published a second edition of the course eight years later. Unfortunately, we never got the time to write a third edition of the course, but the publisher did eventually use a different author to write a new edition, which was definitely needed. While the content of that new edition is solid and I think it can be used in a setting where there is a teacher who is knowledgeable about biology, I don’t think it is useful in most homeschool situations. As a result, I have teamed up with a different author, Dr. Paul Madtes Jr, to write a completely new biology book, Discovering Design With Biology. You can see samples of the book here (just click on “Product Resources”), but I thought I would use this post to answer the question that I have already been getting: “How is this book different from the second edition of Exploring Creation With Biology?”

Most importantly, Dr. Madtes is the first author. Thus, all the major decisions about the book (what would be covered, how it would be covered, etc.) were made by him. This is important, because he teaches biology at the university level, so he knows what will best prepare high school students for that experience. As a result, the “voice” of this book is different from that of my other books. It is still written in first person in a very conversational style, but the style is that of Dr. Madtes, not me. For example, I rarely include Bible verses in my books unless they relate directly to the material. However, Dr. Madtes thought that the best way to keep students focused on the Creator would be to start every chapter out with one or more verses. Thus, that’s what you see in this book.

Unlike the second edition of Exploring Creation With Biology, this book builds biology from the ground up. After an introductory chapter, we start with molecules, then we discuss cells, then cell division, then genetics, then biotechnology, then single-celled organisms and fungi, then animals, then plants, then environmental science, and then biomes. Within each topic, the focus is also quite different. In genetics, for example, Exploring Creation With Biology, 2nd Edition concentrated on Mendelian genetics and only briefly mentioned non-Mendelian genetics. In this book, we discuss the non-Mendelian mechanisms in more detail. We also discuss the different types of mutations that can occur and how they affect the organism.

Evolution is handled differently as well. In this book, the design you see in nature is stressed. In fact, that word appears on 92 of the 512 pages that make up the 16 chapters of content. However, evolution is only discussed in the final section of each chapter. The last section of the first chapter, for example, deals with natural selection. We discuss how it works and how it ends up being a necessary component in any scientific treatment of origins. Indeed, we discuss how anyone who believes in a Global Flood (which we both do) must use natural selection as a means by which to understand the diversity of life we see today. In other chapters, however, the final section is devoted to explaining how the material that has been discussed demonstrates that there is a limit to the amount of change natural selection can produce. As a result, a recent, supernatural creation followed by a Global Flood is the scenario that best fits the current data.

One other notable difference is our treatment of human beings. Exploring Creation With Biology, 2nd Edition did not discuss human anatomy or physiology at all, but this book devotes almost an entire chapter to it. We also discuss how and why biologists classify people in the same biological order as lemurs, monkeys, and apes, and why there is no problem with that approach. However, we also discuss how humans are unique in creation, since we have been given the Image of God. Thus, while we have several physical characteristics in common with many mammals, we are something wholly different from any of them.

As was the case in the second edition of Exploring Creation With Biology, there are three kinds of laboratory exercises in the course. There are 17 experiments that use household items. These include extracting DNA from fruit, determining the effects of temperature and pH on proteins, exploring reflexes, and exploring the effect of surface area on diffusion. An additional 14 experiments use a microscope kit, and they include identifying different stages of mitosis, examining bacteria cultures, studying blood, and studying invertebrates. The other seven experiments use a dissection kit. In those experiments, students dissect an earthworm, a crayfish, a fish, a frog, an egg, a feather, and a flower. In order for this course to count as a laboratory-based, high-school biology course, students must do all of at least two of those three types of experiments (household and dissection, household and microscope, or microscope and dissection).

Most importantly, we give Glory to the One who created it all. In the book’s introduction, we quote Carolus Linneaus:

I saw the infinite, all-knowing and all-powerful God from behind as he went away, and I grew dizzy. I followed his footsteps over nature’s fields and saw everywhere an eternal wisdom and power, an inscrutable perfection. (Peter Whitfield, History of Science, Scholastic Library Pub 2003, p. 23)

At the end, we quote John Ray:

There is for a free man no occupation more worthy and delightful than to contemplate the beauteous works of nature and honor the infinite wisdom and goodness of God. (Charles E. Raven, John Ray, Naturalist: His Life and Works, Cambridge University Press, 1986, p. 83)

I’m BAAAAACK!!!!!!!!!

Did you miss me? I know some people did. I received a few messages from readers, asking why I have been so quiet lately. Well…I have just been insanely busy. A biology professor, Dr. Paul Madtes Jr, and I have been writing a new high school biology text. While writing with him has been an incredibly rewarding experience, it took a lot of time. In addition, I taught a Master’s Class at Memoria College this year, and it was pretty challenging. We read the great natural philosophers of the past and discussed how their work shaped modern science.

Now things are winding down on both fronts. The book has been sent to the printer, and this week is the final week of the Master’s class. As a result, I can now return to blogging. Tomorrow, I will post an article discussing our new biology course and how it is different from Exploring Creation with Biology, 2nd Edition, which the publisher allowed to go out of print. For now, if you want a preview of what it looks like, you can go here:

Discovering Design with Biology by Dr. Paul Madtes Jr and Dr. Jay L. Wile

If you click on “Product Resources,” you will find a table of contents, the entire first chapter, a scope and sequence, and the details about the experiments.

Dr. Peter Boghossian and the Decline of Higher Education

Dr. Peter Boghossian, who has demonstrated the insanity that exists in some academic circles (click for credit)
Dr. Peter Boghossian is an interesting individual. He holds a doctorate in education (Ed.D.) and specializes in making philosophy more accessible to the average person. I first encountered him when I read his book, A Manual for Creating Atheists. I was not impressed. There are atheists who impress me (see here here, and here, for example), but based on his book, Dr. Boghossian was not one of them. In short, the book is full of misconceptions about the nature of faith, doesn’t engage well with the arguments of Christian philosophers, and exaggerates the strength of atheist arguments.

Nevertheless, I found myself being impressed by him a few years later, when he and two colleagues decided to demonstrate the insanity that exists in some academic disciplines. They did this by following a methodology to write “scholarly papers” that promoted nonsense, but it was nonsense which was perfectly welcome in certain fields of study. As they state:

Our paper-writing methodology always followed a specific pattern: it started with an idea that spoke to our epistemological or ethical concerns with the field and then sought to bend the existing scholarship to support it. The goal was always to use what the existing literature offered to get some little bit of lunacy or depravity to be acceptable at the highest levels of intellectual respectability within the field. Therefore, each paper began with something absurd or deeply unethical (or both) that we wanted to forward or conclude. We then made the existing peer-reviewed literature do our bidding in the attempt to get published in the academic canon.

Not surprisingly, their “scholarly papers” were accepted to be published in the prestigious academic journals of the disciplines that they lampooned, and until the authors themselves came forward, no one in the fields thought there was anything remotely wrong with their work!

Well, it turns out that Dr. Boghossian is back in the news, and I am once again impressed by his actions. This time, he thinks an entire institution, Portland State University (where he had been teaching), has gone off the deep end. He wrote an open letter to the Provost of the university, stating that he had to resign, because the university

…has transformed a bastion of free inquiry into a Social Justice factory whose only inputs were race, gender, and victimhood and whose only outputs were grievance and division.

Students at Portland State are not being taught to think. Rather, they are being trained to mimic the moral certainty of ideologues. Faculty and administrators have abdicated the university’s truth-seeking mission and instead drive intolerance of divergent beliefs and opinions. This has created a culture of offense where students are now afraid to speak openly and honestly.

I strongly encourage you to read the entire letter, as it describes the insanity that is currently infecting many institutions that were, at one time, centers of higher learning. Now, they are craven organizations that have chosen to protect their students’ feelings at the price of their students’ education.

Unfortunately, I think this can be said of a great many “universities” found in the United States. Instead of being institutions in which open inquiry is encouraged, they have become indoctrination centers where many views are considered completely off-limits and free inquiry has been sacrificed at the altar of people’s feelings. If you are thinking of sending your child to a university, please spend some time exploring its views on academic freedom. To give you an idea of what that means, this article has a list of “do’s” and “don’ts” when it comes to evaluating whether an institution is a university or a Social Justice Warrior Indoctrination Center.

It is unfortunate that parents must worry about this kind of nonsense today, but it is not unexpected. When a society ceases to believe in God, it will believe in virtually anything, including the ravings of anti-science, anti-reason lunatics.

Dr. John Sanford, Another Atheist-Turned-Christian

Dr. John Sanford (right) and me (left) at the Creation Science Fellowship Meeting in Costa Mesa, California.

Dr. John Sanford is a brilliant geneticist. He has published more than 100 papers in the peer-reviewed literature and holds several dozen patents in genetics. Most notably, he was the primary inventor of the gene gun, which allows scientists to take genes from one species and insert them into another species so that they work. For 18 years, he was a professor of plant genetics at Cornell University.

When it comes to his worldview early in his career, he puts it rather clearly:

I was totally sold on evolution. It was my religion; it defined how I saw everything, it was my value system and my reason for being.

In his incredible book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome, he tells the reader some of what led him to change his mind. He defines the “Primary Axiom” as the belief that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. He then writes:

Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell Professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” within modern academia…To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the Primary Axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory – in fact, it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives largely from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. (2nd edition, p. vi)

Once he realized that the Primary Axiom is indefensible, he had to reevaluate his entire worldview. He started off coming to the conclusion that there must be a Creator, and then he began submitting to Jesus. He left Cornell University specifically because the academic environment was hostile to Christian values, but he has not stopped using his scientific talents. He continues to publish in the peer-reviewed literature, doing original research that demonstrates how indefensible the Primary Axiom is (see here, here, and here, for example). He is also president of Logos Research Associates, which is focused on original scientific research related to the field of origins.

As those who have read this blog know, science turned me from an atheist into a Christian. While science was clearly a part of Dr. Sanford’s conversion, he makes it clear that his experience was different from mine:

I would not say that science led me to the Lord (which is the experience of some). Rather I would say Jesus opened my eyes to His creation—I was blind, and gradually I could see. It sounds simple, but it was a slow and painful process.

On a personal note, I read Dr. Sanford’s book shortly after it was published in 2005, and I was impressed. Twelve years later, I met him at a Creation Science Fellowship Meeting in California, where we were both speakers. A few months after that, he came to Anderson University to visit with me and discuss a research project that we are currently collaborating on. I have to say that in addition to being a brilliant scientist who is deeply committed to the Lord, he is a truly gentle soul who wants to show everyone the love of Christ. I am thrilled to call him my brother.

The Great Barrier Reef Is Doing Well, Despite What the Alarmists Have Said

A portion of the Great Barrier Reef (click for credit)

Over the years, the headlines have been dire. Just two years ago, USA Today claimed:

Great Barrier Reef can’t heal after global warming damage

Similar news outlets ran similar headlines, because a study showed that the number of new corals being produced was significantly lower than normal.

The problem, of course, is that such studies have no context whatsoever. Yes, the Great Barrier Reef went through some tough years. Lots of corals experienced bleaching, a process by which they expel the algae that live inside them. Since the algae provide a significant amount of food to the corals, bleaching can be deadly. However, it’s a process we still don’t understand well, and there is some evidence that it is actually a mechanism designed to help the coral adapt to changing conditions. In addition, bleaching events have been happening for more than 300 years, and evidence suggests they happened more frequently in the late 1800s, the mid 1700s, and the late 1600s than they do today.

Given these facts, it’s not surprising that the doom and gloom headlines about the Great Barrier Reef have been shown to be completely wrong. The Australian Government, in collaboration with the Australian Institute of Marine Science, has been monitoring the health of the reef since 1985. They have collected an enormous amount of data, but I just want to focus on Figures 3, 4, and 5, which show the amount of coral cover in the Northern, Central, and Southern Great Barrier Reef.

The blue lines represent the percent of the area that is covered in coral, and the light-blue shading represents the uncertainty in that value. Notice that in each part of the Great Barrier Reef, there are times when the coral coverage is high, and there are times when it is low. Sometimes, the coral coverage is very low. Nevertheless, right now, coverage is nearly as high as it has ever been. Contrary to what USA Today claimed just two short years ago, then, the Great Barrier Reef has recovered from its low point over the past few decades.

Does that mean there’s nothing wrong with the Great Barrier Reef? Of course not! With less than 40 years of direct study, we really don’t know what the overall status of the reef should be, so we have no idea whether what we are seeing now is good, bad, or indifferent. My point is simply that it’s too easy for scientists and the media to look at a short-term trend (like 2010-2106 in the Northern Great Barrier Reef) and draw irrational conclusions. In the end, that not only hurts the cause of science, but it also makes it nearly impossible for us to figure out how best to care for the creation God has given us.

COVID-19 Vaccine Seems to Protect Against Variants Better Than Previous Infection

Transmission electron micrograph of SARS-CoV-2 virus particles, isolated from a patient (click for credit)
Since I wrote about the Pfizer vaccine being shown to be effective against COVID-19, people have asked me whether or not those who were previously infected should also get the vaccine. While I tell everyone to talk with a physician who is familiar with their medical history, as a scientist, I didn’t think vaccination after infection was beneficial. That’s certainly true for the vast majority of pathogenic viruses, so it made sense that it was true for the virus that causes COVID-19. In addition, two studies (here and here) indicated that immunity from infection was slightly more effective than immunity from the vaccine. However, a new study has just been published that has changed my mind on the issue.

The study looked at 246 patients who had been infected by COVID-19 in 2020 and then had a laboratory-confirmed reinfection in May or June of this year. It then matched them with 492 people who were roughly the same gender, roughly the same age, had been infected with COVID-19 at roughly the same time in 2020, and had not been reinfected with the disease. It compared the vaccination status of the 246 participants and the 492 controls. It found that those who had been infected but had not been vaccinated were 2.34 times (that number is poorly known, see below) more likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who had been infected and were fully vaccinated (either two doses of the mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson). Thus, the study indicates that vaccination after infection provides more protection than infection alone.

Why does this study contradict the two previous studies? Most likely, it’s because of the variants that have appeared. The earlier studies looked at reinfections that occurred before the variants had become prevalent in the U.S. The reinfections in this new study were more recent, so they probably contained more variants than the previous studies. Indeed, both of the previous studies list variants as an issue that they don’t address well. This interpretation is supported by another study that indicates vaccine-produced antibodies are significantly more effective against variants of the virus than those produced from infection.

Now I do have to include a couple of important caveats. First, this is a pretty small study, as a result, the statistical error is large. The study says people who were infected and not fully vaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected. However, when the small nature of the study is taken into account, that number has a 95% chance of being as low as 1.58 or as high as 3.47. That’s a pretty wide range, indicating that the risk is not well known. However, despite the wide range, the conclusion that the vaccine offers more protection to those who had been previously infected is reasonable.

The study lists five limitations, each of which needs to be considered as additional caveats. However, I will highlight only one of them:

…persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested. Therefore, the association of reinfection and lack of vaccination might be overestimated.

I agree with that. I know many people (my wife included) who got tested for COVID-19 before being vaccinated, but have not been tested since being vaccinated. Since the study is small, it is possible that this issue could radically change the result. Thus, more studies need to be done.

Based on the information that exists right now, however, I do think that those who were infected with COVID-19 would probably be better protected if they got vaccinated. We don’t know that for sure, but the data are certainly leaning in that direction. Of course, no one should get any medical treatment (vaccine or otherwise) without getting the advice of a physician who is familiar with his or her medical history. Everything you put in your body (including food) comes with a risk, and your medical history helps a physician determine that risk.

Discovering Design with Earth Science is Finally Available!

Because of difficulties surrounding supply chains, employment, etc., it took a lot longer than expected, but Discovering Design with Earth Science is finally here! I have to take a moment to praise my publisher, who truly went above and beyond what most publishers would do in this situation. The facility that usually does the printing told my publisher that they couldn’t get the books done in time to get them out to those who are starting school in August. As a result, my publisher ended up contacting several printers and found one that would do a “short run” (printing a smaller number of books) to meet the needs of those who were counting on the book being available in August. Short runs cost more money per book, so my publisher is sacrificing income in order to make the books available to those who need them. Not many publishers would do that, and I want to commend Berean Builders for its commitment to customer service!

The course covers earth science at the late junior high/early high school level. In practical terms, it could be used for either 8th or 9th grade, depending on the student. It covers the basic structure of the earth, geology, fossils, physical oceanography, weather, and space. Like all my courses, it has laboratory exercises built right into the book. Some of the exercises use household items, but there are several that require a kit which has a digital mass scale, some chemistry supplies, and specific samples of sediments, rocks, minerals, and fossils.

As I have tried to do in the past, I strive to present both sides when it comes to the age of the earth. Throughout the first nine chapters of the book, students will learn the data that lead many scientists to conclude that the earth is billions of years old, but they will also learn the data that lead some scientists to believe the earth is thousands of years old. I do not tell the students what I believe, but they can probably figure it out if they want to. Nevertheless, here is how I end the ninth chapter:

“Before I end this chapter, however, I need to make you aware of one very important fact. As a knowledgeable scientist, I could have focused on just the evidence favoring uniformitarianism and against the YEC (young-earth creationist) view. As a result, I could have easily convinced you that science clearly demonstrates that the earth is billions of years old and the uniformitarian view of the geosphere is correct. I could also have focused on the evidence for catastrophism and against uniformitarianism, and I could have easily convinced you that science clearly demonstrates the earth is only thousands of years old, and the YEC view of the geosphere is correct.

Unfortunately, this is something every student experiences. Because your teachers and the authors of your textbooks know a lot more than you do, they can easily convince you of pretty much anything they want. Being a good scientist requires that you respectfully read and listen, but also investigate the issue for yourself. This is probably the most important thing to learn from this chapter. In fact, it is probably the most important thing to learn from all your education:

Regardless of how convincing teachers or textbooks are, do not form an opinion until you have looked at all sides of an issue. Otherwise, you might end up being fooled.”