Question of the week: Does the account of Joshua’s long day in Joshua 10 mean that God stopped Earth’s rotation or altered in some dramatic way the positions of the Sun and Moon?

My answer: Based on Genesis 8:22 alone, the answer is no: “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night will not cease.” Scientifically, any stoppage in Earth’s rotation or dramatic alterations of the positions of the Sun and Moon would have wiped out all life on Earth. The miracle described in Joshua 10 likely is limited to the geography of the Valley of Aijalon. This valley is small.

Joshua 10 is not an easy text to translate into English. The biblical Hebrew original text here can mean either that God brought about an extended period of light of roughly 24 hours in duration into the Valley of Aijalon or that he brought about an extended period of darkness lasting about 24 hours. Which option is preferred depends on whether one thinks Joshua’s troops needed light to see their enemies or they needed the coolness of night to continue the battle. Since the Valley of Aijalon is located in the Negev Desert, which is noted for its heat, most Old Testament scholars prefer the latter interpretation.

One possible explanation for the miracle of Joshua’s long day would be for God to alter the local weather so as to bring very heavy, low-lying clouds over the Valley of Aijalon sufficient to make the valley as dark, or nearly as dark, as night even at noon. While such a meteorological event occurs on rare occasions at mid- and high-latitude rain forests, it is unheard of in the Negev Desert. Joshua and his troops immediately would have recognized the event as a divine miracle.

Another possible explanation for the miracle of Joshua’s long day would be for God to do something akin to the miracles he performed during the exodus from Egypt. There God either put a “pillar of fire” or a “pillar of cloud” adjacent to the Israelite encampment. In the Valley of Aijalon God could have illuminated the valley with “fire” or darkened the valley with “cloud.”

God is light both spiritually and physically. Yet another option for Joshua’s long day would be for God to shine his Shekinah glory into the valley. God also has the power to cause a dark shadow to enshroud the valley.

Joshua 10 gives no specific details on the nature of the extended darkness or extended light in the Valley of Aijalon or exactly how God performed the miracle. Therefore, the list of options for the miracle of Joshua’s long day I have just described is not complete. I provide a more thorough explanation of the miracle of Joshua’s long day in a DVD entitled Mysteries Examined, a video recording of a television episode in which I describe the miracles of Joshua’s long day, Hezekiah’s sundial, and Jonah and the whale.Bible

SOCIALICON
Default publications post thumbnail
Q&A: Did God Make Time Stand Still for Joshua?

Joshua 10 is a bit ambiguous about the nature of the “long day.” It is possible to interpret the event as an extra-long night…Bible

How Did Daniel Cope with Trauma during Captivity?
How Did Daniel Cope with Trauma during Captivity?

Humans in all eras of history have suffered trauma, especially from the horrors of war. How might people in the ancient world have coped…History

Default publications post thumbnail
Podcast Highlight: A Treasure Chest of Discoveries

The month of July has been chock-full of scientific breakthroughs. RTB’s flagship podcast, Science News Flash (SNF), seeks to address some of these headline-grabbing…Bible

Support Our Mission

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.Donate Now


facebooktwitter

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Examples of the Bible’s Predictive Power

by Hugh RossJuly 17, 2020

Question of the week: You have said that the Bible is unique in that it possesses predictive power. Can you give a couple of examples?

My answer: There are hundreds of examples in the Bible where it predicts either future events in human affairs/civilization or it predicts future scientific discoveries. Most of these predictions have since been fulfilled. The Bible has never been proven wrong in its predictions.

The Book of Daniel gives many specific predictions about the rise and fall of future empires. For example, Daniel 8 records a vision Daniel received while in Babylon during the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign. The recorded interpretation of the vision that Daniel receives states that an alliance of Media (base of the Medes) and Persia will establish an empire that will replace the Babylonian empire and become much larger. Later, a powerful king from the west, in Greece, will conquer the Median-Persian empire. However, at the height of his power his empire will be divided into four kingdoms. History reveals that these events were fulfilled exactly as predicted in the Book of Daniel. Skeptics of the Bible do not deny any of this but try to claim that Daniel was written in the fifth or sixth century AD and not during the sixth century BC reign of the Babylonian king, Belshazzar. However, the words and style of writing in Daniel 8 are the same as that of sixth century Babylonian literature and radically different from fifth or sixth century AD literature. Furthermore, portions of the Book of Daniel appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls and all of Daniel is present in the Septuagint, affirming that the Book of Daniel must predate the second century BC by several centuries.

An example of the Bible correctly predicting future scientific discoveries are its repeated statements about the fundamental features of big bang cosmology. Different Bible authors state that the universe has a beginning, that it expands from its cosmic beginning, that the physical laws governing the universe have not changed, and that one of those laws is a pervasive law of ongoing decay. I and Old Testament scholar John Rea cite the Bible passages and provide an exposition of them in the context of the word definitions and grammar of the original languages in this article.1

Another example of the Bible correctly predicting future scientific discoveries is the stated order and description of creation events in Genesis 1. I have written an entire book documenting the Bible’s predictive power in describing future scientific discoveries in the first few chapters of Genesis. That book is Navigating Genesis.2 Anyone can get a free chapter of the book at reasons.org/ross. I also have since written two blogs, here and here, describing new scientific discoveries that provide additional evidence for the Bible’s predictive success in describing future scientific discoveries.3

Years ago, I debated the religion editor for Skeptic magazine, Tim Callahan, on the subject, Does the Bible Have Predictive Powers? You can listen to an unabridged recording of the debate here: https://shop.reasons.org/product/566/does-the-bible-have-predictive-powers-downloadable-mp3.

Endnotes
  1. Hugh Ross and John Rea, “Big Bang—the Bible Taught It First!” Facts for Faith, quarter 3, 2000: 26–32, /explore/publications/facts-for-faith/read/facts-for-faith/2000/07/01/big-bang-the-bible-taught-it-first!
  2. Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2014), https://shop.reasons.org/product/279/navigating-genesis.
  3. Hugh Ross, “Rapid Landmass Emergence Affirms Creation Day 3,” Today’s New Reason To Believe (blog), June 11, 2018, /todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2018/06/11/rapid-landmass-emergence-affirms-creation-day-3; Hugh Ross, “Hazy Early Earth: More Affirmation of Creation Day 4,” Today’s New Reason To Believe (blog), June 18, 2018, /todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2018/06/18/hazy-early-earth-more-affirmation-of-creation-day-4.

Bible

SOCIALICON
During Joshua’s Long Day Did Earth’s Rotation Stop?

Question of the week: Does the account of Joshua’s long day in Joshua 10 mean that God stopped Earth’s rotation or altered in some…Bible

Any Lost Books?
Any Lost Books?

Many bookstores carry titles in the religious section suggesting the discovery of lost books of the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas, unearthed in the…Bible

The Genesis Genealogies
The Genesis Genealogies

In 1650, James Ussher, the archbishop of Ireland came up with a detailed timeline for all the events in the Bible, going all the…Human Origins & Anthropology

Support Our Mission

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.Donate Now


facebooktwitter

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why Would God Create a World with Parasites?

by Fazale RanaJune 5, 2019

A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.1

—Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin

If God exists and if he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, why is there so much pain and suffering in the world? This conundrum keeps many skeptics and seekers from the Christian faith and even troubles some Christians.

Perhaps nothing epitomizes the problem of pain and suffering more than the cruelty observed in nature. Indeed, what advantage can there be in the suffering of millions of animals?

Often, the pain and suffering animals experience is accompanied by unimaginable and seemingly unnecessary cruelty.

Take nematodes (roundworms) as an example. There are over 10,000 species of nematodes. Some are free-living. Others are parasitic. Nematode parasites infect humans, animals, plants, and insects, causing untold pain and suffering. But their typical life cycle in insects seems especially cruel.

Nematodes that parasitize insects usually are free-living in their adult form but infest their host in the juvenile stage. The infection begins when the juvenile form of the parasite enters into the insect host, usually through a body opening, such as the mouth or anus. Sometimes the juveniles drill through the insect’s cuticle.

Once inside the host, the juveniles release bacteria that infect and kill the host, liquefying its internal tissues. As long as the supply of host tissue holds out, the juveniles will live within the insect’s body, even reproducing. When the food supply runs out, the nematodes exit the insect and seek out another host.

Figure 1: An Entomopathogenic Nematode Juvenile. Image credit: Shutterstock

Why would God create a world with parasitism? Could God really be responsible for a world like the one we inhabit? Many skeptics would answer “no” and conclude that God must not exist.

A Christian Response to the Problem of Evil

One way to defend God’s existence and goodness in the face of animal pain and suffering is to posit that there just might be good reasons for God to create the world the way it is. Perhaps what we are quick to label as evil may actually serve a necessary function.

This perspective gains support based on some recent insights into the benefits that insect parasites impart to ecosystems. A research team from the University of Georgia (UGA) recently unearthed one example of the important role played by these parasites.2 These researchers demonstrated that nematode-infected horned passalus beetles (bess beetles) are more effective at breaking down dead logs in the forest than their parasite-free counterparts—and this difference benefits the ecosystem. Here’s how.

The Benefit Parasites Provide to the Ecosystem

The horned passalus lives in decaying logs. The beetles consume wood through a multistep process. After ingesting the wood, these insects excrete it in a partially digested form. The wood excrement becomes colonized by bacteria and fungi and then is later re-consumed by the beetle.

These insects can become infected by a nematode parasite (Chondronema passali). The parasite inhabits the abdominal cavity of the beetle (though not its gastrointestinal tract). When infected, the horned passalus can harbor thousands of individual nematodes.

To study the effect of this parasite on the horned passalus and the forest ecosystem inhabited by the insect, researchers collected 113 individuals from the woods near the UGA campus. They also collected pieces of wood from the logs bearing the beetles.

In the laboratory, they placed each of the beetles in separate containers that also contained pieces of wood. After three months, they discovered that the beetles infected with the nematode parasite processed 15 percent more wood than beetles that were parasite-free. Apparently, the beetles compensate for the nematode infection by consuming more food. One possible reason for the increased wood consumption may be due to the fact that the parasites draw away essential nutrients from the beetle host, requiring the insect to consume more food.

While it isn’t clear if the parasite infestation harms the beetle (infected beetles have reduced mobility and loss of motor function), it is clear that the infestation benefits the ecosystem. These beetles play a key role in breaking down dead logs and returning nutrients to the forest soil. By increasing the beetles’ wood consumption, the nematodes accelerate this process, benefiting the ecosystem’s overall health.

Cody Prouty, one of the project’s researchers, points out “that although the beetle and the nematode have a parasitic relationship, the ecosystem benefits from not only the beetle performing its function, but the parasite increasing the efficiency of the beetle. Over the course of a few years, the parasitized beetles could process many more logs than unparasitized beetles, and lead to an increase of organic matter in soils.”3

This study is not the first to discover benefits parasites impart to ecosystems. Parasites play a role in shaping ecosystem biodiversity and they intertwine with the food web. The researchers close their article this way: “Countering long-standing unpopular views of parasites is certainly challenging, but perhaps evidence like that presented here will be of use in this effort.”4

Such evidence does not “revolt our understanding,” as Darwin might suggest, but instead enhances our insights into the creation and helps counter the challenge of the problem of evil. Even creatures as gruesome as parasites can serve a beneficial purpose in creation and maybe could rightfully be understood as good.

Resources

Endnotes
  1. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin: 1809–1882 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969), 90.
  2. Andrew K. Davis and Cody Prouty, “The Sicker the Better: Nematode-Infected Passalus Beetles Provide Enhanced Ecosystem Services,” Biology Letters 15, no. 5 (2019): 20180842, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2018.0842.
  3. University of Georgia, “Parasites Help Beetle Hosts Function More Effectively,” ScienceDaily (May 1, 2019), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190501131435.htm.
  4. Davis and Prouty,“The Sicker the Better,” 3.

DesignPhilosophy & EthicsCreation Views

SOCIALICON
Default publications post thumbnail
Wisdom Teeth Reflect the Creator’s Foresight

Skeptics often point to human wisdom teeth as an example of a useless human body part. But a new study challenges this evolutionary account.Design

Donkeys and Horses: Desert Ecosystem Engineers

Donkeys and horses were the most highly valued animals of the ancient world. These equines were the automobiles, trucks, and trains of preindustrial times….Design

The Human Genome: Copied by Design

The time my wife Amy and I spent in graduate school studying biochemistry were some of the best days of our lives. But it…Design

Support Our Mission

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.Donate Now


facebooktwitter

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Viruses and God’s Providence Revisited

by Fazale RanaNovember 26, 2009

New Research Suggests More Reasons Why God Created Viruses

Thanksgiving is the time of year that most people pause to celebrate their blessings. Christians understand that many of the good things they enjoy stem from God’s providence.

In Christian theology, providence refers to God’s continual role in: (1) preserving His creation; (2) ensuring that everything happens; and (3) guiding the universe. The concept of divine providence also posits that when God created the world He built into nature everything humans (and other living organisms) would need. Accordingly, every good thing that people possess has been provided and preserved by God, either directly or indirectly. (Scriptural support for this last point can be found in passages like Psalm 104.)

Sometimes God works in mysterious ways and sometimes His providence can be found in unusual places. A recent study suggests that maybe even viruses are part of God’s provision for humanity. This notion may seem counterintuitive, because these nasty “bugs” are responsible for so much sickness and disease. Many people view viruses as an “evil” component of nature. But viruses are turning out to be quite practical for biomedical applications. A few months ago I wrote about proof-of-principle experiments performed by scientists from Harvard University and Howard Hughes Medical Center that describes the use of viruses to combat antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

New work by a team of biomedical scientists from France adds further support for this idea. These researchers used the HIV-1 virus to successfully treat two boys with a rare brain disorder called adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD).

ALD is an x-linked genetic disorder that first appears in afflicted boys around six to eight years in age. This rapidly progressing disease almost always leads to death by adolescence. ALD results from a defect in the ABCD1 gene. This region of DNA encodes a protein that transports very long chain fatty acids into here to listen to an episode of Science News Flash that describes this work and its implications.)

It is provocative to think that researchers could use something as insidious as the HIV-1 virus to treat a horrible disease like ALD. Ironically, the same characteristics that make this virus harmful to life also turn out to be the ideal properties for gene therapy. In this way, viruses could be thought of as part of God’s providence.

Does that mean God created pathogenic viruses? I suggest that the answer is yes. Pathogens control plant and animal populations and consequently play an important ecological role. What about viral pathogens that infect humans? In this case, I argue no. Rather, I propose that human viruses evolved from animal viruses, jumping hosts.

This cutting-edge work demonstrates that whether or not one sees a feature of nature as “evil” or “good” often depends on how comprehensively he or she views that particular aspect of creation. God does indeed work in mysterious ways. As researchers continue to develop new ways to use viruses, I foresee a day in which we view them as an indispensible part of our existence, part of God’s provision, something that we thank Him for.

Other related resources of interest:

10 Breakthroughs of 2010 booklet

Viruses and God’s Providence” web article

Why Did God Create Flesh-Eating Bacteria?” e-Zine articleDesign

SOCIALICON
Fine-Tuning: Responding to a Common Objection
Fine-Tuning: Responding to a Common Objection

I have heard another rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument . . . that maybe you can address. The rebuttal goes like this:Design

Thinking Rightly about God: Ham vs. Zweerink Follow-Up, Part 2
Thinking Rightly about God: Ham vs. Zweerink Follow-Up, Part 2

The recent old-earth/young-earth discussion on Justin Brierley’s Unbelievable? podcast revealed a number of differences and similarities between Ken Ham and me. Two important areas…Biology

A Post-Genomic Era? Ludicrous with an Incomplete Human Genome
A Post-Genomic Era? Ludicrous with an Incomplete Human Genome

I periodically draw attention on social media to the fact that the human genome sequence is not complete. I thoroughly enjoy the reaction of…Biochemistry

Support Our Mission

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.Donate Now


facebooktwitter

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cool Discoveries 3

by Jeff ZweerinkMay 5, 2010

Electronics companies continually pursue better ways to power the myriad portable electronic devices on the market such as iPods, cell phones, and PDAs. Longer lasting, more efficient batteries certainly help, but they also require regular recharging.

Every now and again, a cool scientific discovery comes along that doesn’t have an obvious apologetic connection but warrants mention simply because it’s interesting. Here’s a selection of three recent scientific discoveries that caught my attention.

Cool Discovery #1: Energizing batteries

Electronics companies continually pursue better ways to power the myriad portable electronic devices on the market such as iPods, cell phones, and PDAs. Longer lasting, more efficient batteries certainly help, but they also require regular recharging. Recharging a device is typically nothing more than an inconvenience. But during prolonged power outages (due to storms, earthquakes, etc.), an uncharged electronic device becomes useless—imagine being without your cell phone in an emergency situation. Energy-harvesting rubber electronic chips could provide just the answer. These chips are composed of piezoelectric ceramic nanoribbons embedded into silicone rubber sheets. Mechanical energy such as walking and even breathing causes the chips to flex. These chips then convert that energy into electrical power—and they do so with great efficiency. The energy harnessed by this cutting-edge technology could possibly power a plethora of small electronics devices, from cell phones to pacemakers.

Cool Discovery #2: Nuclear reactor upgrade

On a safety-related front, research at Los Alamos National Lab (LANL) could lead to safer nuclear reactors. The extreme temperatures, corrosive conditions, and radiation environment surrounding nuclear reactors cause damage to the construction materials used to build the reactors. This damage starts at very small scales (on the order of tens of nanometers) but grows with continued exposure. Unless repaired periodically, the damage can lead to reactor failure and radiation leaks. On the other hand, periodic repairs cost money and cause downtime for the reactor. To solve this problem, LANL scientists generated a computer simulation of certain self-healing  nanocrystalline materials  made from particles, in this case copper, which have diemsions less than 100 nanometers or 10-7 meters. . The simulations demonstrated that the  nanocrystalline materials move the damage from the material surface into the bulk of the material and then repair the damage. Now the question is how to make such self-healing materials.

Cool Discovery #3: Now you see me, now you don’t!

H. G. Wells’ Invisible Man and Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak both display humanity’s long-standing fascination with making things disappear. Real-life scientists move ever-closer to realizing that fantasy. In particular, a team of German scientists has developed a material that cloaked a bump on a gold reflector. Previous work by other researchers demonstrated invisibility in a two dimensional plane or at wavelengths much longer than optical. In the German experiment, the gold bump was invisible at viewing angles up to 60 degrees and using infrared wavelengths near the visible spectrum.

A separate discovery utilizes a different kind of “invisibility cloak”: one that protects structures from the destructive capacity of natural disasters. Objects in the ocean are susceptible to damage from tsunamis. Research shows how a dike structure built in a specific pattern diverts the energy of tsunami waves around the object in the center of the dike—effectively making it “invisible” to the oncoming wave. This technology could protect off-shore platforms, coastlines, and even small islands! Similar studies reveal that concentric rings of plastic could shield land-based structures from earthquake damage.

For more cool scientific discoveries, see part 1 and part 2 of this series.


Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Physics & Mathematics

SOCIALICON
Quantum Mechanics and the Laws of Logic, Part 1
Quantum Mechanics and the Laws of Logic, Part 1

Having worked at science-faith apologetics organization Reasons to Believe for more than 20 years, I’ve observed that scientists and philosophers often think differently about…Logic & Reason

Missing Solar Neutrinos Found
Missing Solar Neutrinos Found

What makes the Sun shine? Where does Earth’s life-sustaining radiation originate? Astronomers answered these questions in part with the discovery of nuclear fusion, the…Design

Default publications post thumbnail
Carbon-14 and the Christian Worldview

Young-earth creationists generally affirm the reliability of carbon-14 methods for biblical artifacts dating back to the time of Noah’s flood. At that point, however,…Physics & Mathematics

Support Our Mission

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.Donate Now


facebooktwitter

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Resolving the Super-Earth Paradox

 

BY HUGH ROSS – JANUARY 8, 2018

Researchers looking to solve the super-Earth paradox finally have found what very likely is the resolution. Their resolution also has revealed more evidence for the fine-tuning of the solar system to support advanced life.

Super-Earths are planets possessing a mass between 1.2 and 13 times the mass of Earth. For comparison, Uranus and Neptune weigh in at 14.54 and 17.15 Earth masses, respectively. Another term for a super-Earth is a mini-Neptune. The diameters of known super-Earth planets range from about 120 to 220 percent of Earth’s diameter (about 30 to 54 percent of Neptune’s diameter). The featured image shows a comparison of the sizes of super-Earths (middle of the image) relative to Earth (left of the image) and relative to Uranus (lower left) and Neptune (upper right).

So far, astronomers have discovered 3,721 planets orbiting nuclear burning stars.1 Of these 3,721 planets with known masses, 16.2 percent are in the super-Earth category, making it the second most populous of all planet categories. The most populous category are hot Jupiters at 20.9 percent, which are planets greater or equal to Jupiter’s mass that orbit their host stars closer than Earth orbits the Sun.

The super-Earth paradox is that, according to our best understanding of how planets form, there should not be any super-Earth planets at all. Observed super-Earths are all in the critical mass range—that is, they possess enough mass to accrete gas very efficiently. Nothing should stop them from becoming planets dominated by massive gaseous atmospheres like Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

The Kepler spacecraft clearly has proven that super-Earths do exist and that they exist in large numbers. In an effort to resolve the super-Earth paradox, in 2014, UC Berkeley astronomers Eve Lee, Eugene Chiang, and Chris Ormel proposed a metallicity gradient in the proto-planetary disks of planet-forming stars.2 That is, they suggested that for proto-planetary disks, the ratio of heavy elements to light elements declines in proportion to the distance from the host star. Therefore, planets forming in close proximity to their host stars will lack the abundance of gas to accrete that exists farther out from the host stars.

There are two problems for this metallicity gradient scenario. One is that most models for the formation of super-Earths have the super-Earth planets forming far from their host stars and subsequently migrating inward toward the host stars. A second problem is that it is very difficult in proto-planetary disk models to get the necessary steep metallicity gradient.

In 2016, Lee and Chiang proposed another way to resolve the super-Earth paradox. They speculated that, while gas giant planets form early, super-Earth planets form late.3 They pointed out that, as proto-planetary disks age, the abundance of gas in the disk falls and that the gas abundance can drop by several orders of magnitude. Therefore, if super-Earth planets form late enough, they will be gas-poor compared to gas giant planets.

The gas abundance in old proto-planetary disks indeed drops precipitously. However, the abundance of dust and rocks in such disks also drops precipitously. Thus, planet formation is much less productive and efficient in older proto-planetary disks. Such low productivity and efficiency are contradicted by the very large population of super-Earth planets.

In an open access paper (yes, you can read the entire paper for free) published in the December 1, 2017 issue of the Astrophysical Journal, astronomer Cong Yu of Sun Yet-Sen University in Guangzhou, China, proposed4 a solution to the super-Earth paradox that avoids the problems in the scenarios developed by Lee, Chiang, and Ormel. In Yu’s model, super-Earth planets form as a result of tidally forced turbulent diffusion.

Yu notes that if a planet forms close enough to its host star, tidal interactions between the host star and the planet can periodically perturb the planet. Heating by tidal dissipation can so inhibit gas cooling in primordial super-Earth atmospheres as to dramatically limit the amount of gas that the planet can accrete. Specifically, Yu’s calculations established that “the thermal feedback associated with the externally forced turbulent stirring may greatly alter the accretion history of super-Earths.”5 Thus, he demonstrated that “tidally forced turbulent diffusion effectively helps super-Earths evade growing into gas giants.”6

Yu’s model also explains planetary systems that possess both super-Earth and gas giant planets. His calculations show that “the condition for turbulence-induced formation of super-Earths is more readily satisfied in the inner disk region but is harder to satisfy in the outer disk region.”7 The deductions from Yu’s calculations are consistent with observations. In planetary systems with both super-Earth and gas giant planets, the super-Earths orbit nearby their host stars while the gas giants orbit much farther away.

Yu ends his paper by admitting that not all the details are worked out. How and when the turbulence is initiated during planet formation remains to be modeled in detail. Yu used a simple opacity model for his planet atmospheres. More realistic opacities need to be invoked. Nevertheless, Yu’s model already goes a long way toward resolving the super-Earth paradox.

While the super-Earth paradox apparently is very close to being fully resolved, the solar system paradox remains. Our solar system is like no other known planetary system. It contains none of the most common planets. Neither super-Earths nor hot Jupiters exist in the solar system. Furthermore, the sizes and the orbital locations of the Sun’s four gas giant planets are unique.

As I explain in my book, Improbable Planet,8 there are excellent reasons for the unique features of the solar system. All eight of the Sun’s planets must possess exquisitely fine-tuned physical and orbital characteristics for advanced life to be possible on Earth. The reason why the solar system is so different compared to the other 2,792 planetary systems that have been discovered so far, is that apparently, it alone has been fashioned by the Creator of the universe to be a fit home for humans and human civilization.

Endnotes
  1. Exoplanet TEAM, The Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia, The Catalog (December 27, 2017), http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/.
  2. Eve J. Lee, Eugene Chiang, and Chris W. Ormel, “Make Super-Earths, Not Jupiters: Accreting Nebular Gas onto Solid Cores at 0.1 AU and Beyond,” Astrophysical Journal 797 (December 20, 2014): id. 95, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/95.
  3. Eve J. Lee and Eugene Chiang, “Breeding Super-Earths and Birthing Super-Puffs in Transitional Disks,” Astrophysical Journal 817 (January 22, 2016): id. 90, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/90.
  4. Cong Yu, “The Formation of Super-Earths by Tidally Forced Turbulence,” Astrophysical Journal 850 (December 4, 2017), id. 198, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9849.
  5. Yu, “Formation of Super-Earths,” id. 198, p. 2.
  6. Yu, “Formation of Super-Earths,” id. 198, p. 2.
  7. Yu, “Formation of Super-Earths,” id. 198, p. 10.
  8. Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016): 43–93.

About Reasons to Believe

RTB’s mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature. Learn More »

Support Reasons to Believe

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.

DONATE NOW


U.S. Mailing Address
818 S. Oak Park Rd.
Covina, CA 91724
  • P (855) 732-7667
  • P (626) 335-1480
  • Fax (626) 852-0178

Reasons to Believe logo

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Take Up and Read: Institutes of the Christian Religion

BY KENNETH R. SAMPLES – MAY 1, 2018

MORE

This current blog series on Reflections is intended to encourage Christians to read more vigorously by providing a beginner’s guide to some of the Christian classics in such fields as theology, philosophy, and apologetics. Hopefully, a brief introduction to these important Christian texts will motivate today’s believers—as St. Augustine was called to in his dramatic conversion to Christianity—to “take up and read” (Latin: Tolle lege) these classic books.

blog__inline--take-up-and-read-institutes-of-christian-religion

This week’s book, Institutes of the Christian Religion, is by Protestant Reformer John Calvin and is considered one of the masterpieces of Protestant theology as well as one of the most influential works of Western civilization. According to distinguished church historian Philip Schaff, Calvin’s classic theological work is on the level of such masterworks as Augustine’s City of God and Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica.1

Why Is This Author Notable?

French theologian John Calvin (1509–1564) is, after Martin Luther, the second most recognizable person of the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Calvin is not only the most influential scholar within the broad Reformed theological tradition, but many historians consider him one of the most influential persons in the history of Western civilization itself. Because he affirmed that man’s ultimate allegiance lies only with the sovereign God and not with kings or bishops, some have argued that Calvin successfully laid the theological groundwork for democracy to flourish in the Western world.

What Is This Book About?

The first edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion was published in 1536 when Calvin was only 27 years old. Originally written in Latin, it was later translated into French and then into other European languages. The book represents a full systematic theology of the Reformed tradition within Protestantism. Calvin revised and expanded the work multiple times over the course of his career, with the full-scale work being completed in 1559 (Latin) and 1560 (French).

Intended as a basic introduction or catechism to Christian theology, the starting point of Institutes of the Christian Religion is the Apostles’ Creed. Calvin surveys the work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in creation, revelation, and redemption.

The four divisions within the book reflect the following broad creedal order:

  • Part 1 explores the knowledge of God the Father, who is the sovereign creator, sustainer, and director of all things.
  • Part 2 addresses the work of the Son through redemption coming in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
  • Part 3 focuses on the Holy Spirit as the one who brings about regeneration and sanctification in the life of the believer.
  • Part 4 examines the critical role that the holy catholic church plays in administering Word (Scripture) and sacrament to God’s people.

John Calvin was not a philosopher but rather a literary scholar and biblical exegete. Therefore, his contemplation of the triune God is not speculative or theoretical but instead deeply personal.

Below, Calvin describes what has been called in Latin the sensus divinitatis—humankind’s inner sense of the divine (reflecting the apostle Paul’s statements in Romans 1):

There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty.2

Why Is This Book Worth Reading?

Institutes of the Christian Religion is arguably not only the most influential theological text of the Protestant Reformation but possibly of all Western Christendom. Whether adored or abhorred, John Calvin and his interpretation of historic Christianity have deeply influenced Western civilization. Every Christian and student of history should have a familiarity with this amazing work of theology.

Therefore, take up and read Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion!

Resources

For more about the life and accomplishments of John Calvin, see “Christian Thinkers 101: A Crash Course on John Calvin.”

Endnotes
  1. See “Calvin’s Place in History” (Philip Schaff, “John Calvin and His Work,” chap. 8 in History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity. The Swiss Reformation).
  2. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Vol. 1, Library of Christian Classics, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1:43.

About Reasons to Believe

RTB’s mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature. Learn More »

Support Reasons to Believe

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.

DONATE NOW


U.S. Mailing Address
818 S. Oak Park Rd.
Covina, CA 91724
  • P (855) 732-7667
  • P (626) 335-1480
  • Fax (626) 852-0178

Reasons to Believe logo

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How Whales Increase Fish Stocks and Help Control Global Warming

BY HUGH ROSS – FEBRUARY 25, 2019

One of the most popular blogs I wrote in 2010 discussed how the recovery of the sperm whale population from near extinction to 12,000 individuals in the Southern Ocean had greatly increased that ocean’s biomass and had helped to mitigate global warming.1 Now, studies on blue whales, fin whales, and humpback whales establish that they, too, are making an enormous contribution to increasing the marine biomass and in helping to mitigate global warming.

Environmental Benefits of Sperm Whales 
In the June 2010 issue of Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a team of eight marine biologists (seven Australian, one German) published their results of a multiyear study of sperm whales.2Sperm whales dive thousands of feet below the ocean surface to feed on giant squid. Their squid diet is very rich in iron. The eight marine biologists determined that sperm whales defecate only on the ocean surface, and noted that the whales’ feces are rich in soluble iron compounds.

Sperm whale feces fertilize the oceans’ phytoplankton with the nutrients they most need—soluble iron compounds. Thanks to sperm whales, the Southern Ocean sustains a much higher biomass (amount of living matter) of phytoplankton. This higher phytoplankton biomass permits a higher biomass of zooplankton, which in turn, makes possible a higher biomass of fish. The cascade of increased living matter explains why the return of the only predator species of giant squid has actually increased the population and body sizes of giant squid as a whole.

As a byproduct, the eight marine biologists calculated that the higher biomass of phytoplankton removes an extra 440,000 tons per year of carbon from the atmosphere through their photosynthesis. Since the 12,000 sperm whales respire 176,000 tons of carbon per year into the atmosphere, that means sperm whales are responsible for removing a net of 264,000 tons per year of carbon from the atmosphere. Thus, sperm whales are certainly doing their bit to remove carbon dioxide, a powerful greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere and, therefore, they play a significant role in mitigating global warming.

Environmental Benefits of Other Whales
New research achieved by seven marine biologists at the University of Tasmania led by Lavenia Ratnarajah extends the findings of the team of eight.3 Ratnarajah’s team focused on baleen whales and three species in particular: blue whales, fin whales, and humpback whales. Baleen whales differ from sperm whales in that they feed on krill instead of giant squid.

Krill are small marine crustaceans. They feed on phytoplankton and, to a lesser extent, on zooplankton. The diet of the whales studied by Ratnarajah’s team consists of Antarctic krill (see figure 1). Antarctic krill, in terms of total biomass, rank as Earth’s most abundant animal species. Their total biomass is approximately 500 million tonnes (550 million tons), comprised of 300–400 trillion individuals.4

blog__inline--how-whales-increase-fish-stocks-1

Figure 1: Antarctic Krill. Body length = 1–6 centimeters. Image credit: Uwe Kils, Creative Commons Attribution

Ratnarajah’s team determined that the iron concentrations in Antarctic krill are a million times higher than typical Southern Ocean seawater concentrations. For the fecal matter of Southern Ocean baleen whales, the iron concentration is almost 10 million times higher. Thus, like the sperm whales, baleen whales enhance the marine biomass of phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, marine mammals, and the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere by fertilizing marine phytoplankton.

Blue whales (see figure 2) were even more impacted by the whaling industry than sperm whales. I was taught in my public school education that blue whales were extinct since a decade had gone by where not a single blue whale had been sighted. Since that time, I have had the pleasure of seeing blue whales. It is estimated that 10,000–12,000 blue whales exist in the world’s oceans today.

blog__inline--how-whales-increase-fish-stocks-2

Figure 2: Blue Whale. The largest animal known to have ever existed, blue whales can attain a length of 98 feet and a weight of 190 tons. Image credit: NOAA

Before the proliferation of the whaling industry in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the population of blue whales in the Antarctic Ocean alone was between 202,000 and 311,000.5 Blues whales were just as abundant in the rest of the world’s oceans.

Fin whales and humpback whales did not suffer the same impact from the whaling industry as did the blue whales. Nevertheless, the 2018 world population of fin whales, at an estimated100,000 individuals6, is less than half what it was before the eighteenth century. The pre-whaling industry population of humpback whales was an estimated 125,000 individuals and is less than half that number today.

Ratnarajah’s team calculated to what degree the pre-whaling industry populations of blue, fin, and humpback whales enhanced phytoplankton productivity compared to present-day levels. The enhanced phytoplankton productivity was up to 26 percent for blue whales, 16 percent for fin whales, and 3 percent for humpback whales, respectively (a total of 45 percent). However, uncertainties in the iron concentrations in krill are large. Based on the reported uncertainties,7 the enhanced phytoplankton productivity, if the whale populations were restored to pre-eighteenth-century levels, could be as low as 1.4 percent for blue whales, 0.8 percent for fin whales, and 0.2 percent for humpback whales, respectively (a total of 2.4 percent).

Population Restoration Produces Benefits
That is, the enhanced phytoplankton productivity for blue, fin, and humpback whales combined would range from 2.4 to 45 percent, if whale populations were restored to pre-eighteenth-century levels. The contribution from sperm whales and other species of whales would likely double (to 4.8 percent) these percentages.

Even the lower range percentage of 4.8 percent should give us humans a powerful incentive to restore the whale populations as quickly as possible. That 4.8 percent means the marine fish stocks would be increased by about 4.8 percent. It would also mean that the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by phytoplankton would increase by 4.8 percent. Since phytoplankton comprise about two-thirds of all the photosynthetic activity occurring on Earth, that 4.8 percent would count as a substantial step in mitigating global warming. It is also a substantial step that would augment, rather than subtract, from the global economy. The minimum benefit levels from restoring the whale populations alone give humans several more reasons to be grateful for these majestic creatures that bring us joy and appreciation for their pivotal ecological role.

Endnotes
  1. Hugh Ross, “Thank God for Whales,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, August 23, 2010, https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2010/08/23/thank-god-for-whales.
  2. Trish J. Lavery et al., “Iron Defecation by Sperm Whales Stimulates Carbon Export in the Southern Ocean,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences 277, no. 1699 (June, 2010): 3527–31, doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0863.
  3. Lavenia Ratnarajah, “The Biogeochemical Role of Antarctic Krill and Baleen Whales in Southern Ocean Nutrient Cycling.” Abstract. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2015 (December 2015): abstract id:OS13A-2019; Lavenia Ratnarajah et al., “Understanding the Variability in the Iron Concentration of Antarctic Krill,” Limnology and Oceanography 61, no. 5 (September 2016): 1651–60, doi:10.1002/lno.10322.
  4. Robin M. Ross and Langdon B. Quetin, “Euphausia superba: A Critical Review of Estimates of Annual Production,” Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Comparative Biochemistry 90, no. 3 (July 1988): 499–505, doi:10.1016/0305-0491(88)90288-X.
  5. Trevor A. Branch, Koji Matsuoka, and Tomia Miyashita, “Evidence for Increases in Antarctic Blue Whales Based on Bayesian Modelling,” Marine Mammal Science 20, no. 4 (October 2004): 726–54, doi:10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01190.x.
  6. “Fin Whale,” NOAA Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accessed 02/22/19, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/fin-whale.
  7. Ratnarajah et al., “Understanding the Variability.”

About Reasons to Believe

RTB’s mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature. Learn More »

Support Reasons to Believe

Your support helps more people find Christ through sharing how the latest scientific discoveries affirm our faith in the God of the Bible.

DONATE NOW


U.S. Mailing Address
818 S. Oak Park Rd.
Covina, CA 91724
  • P (855) 732-7667
  • P (626) 335-1480
  • Fax (626) 852-0178

Reasons to Believe logo

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New Discovery Hands Human Evolution a Challenge

The human hand is remarkable. It permits humans to manufacture and use a wide range of tools, distinguishing us from animals and undoubtedly contributing to our success as a species.

One of the unique features of the human hand is our lengthy thumbs. In contrast, chimpanzees have much shorter thumbs, strikingly disproportionate to their long fingers.

In spite of the human hand’s elegant design, many evolutionary biologists believe that it was shaped by an evolutionary history. They believe a knuckle-walking ape-like creature evolved the capacity for bipedalism, freeing the hands, which in turn evolved to become more dexterous. While long fingers and a short thumb are ideal for knuckle walking, they have limited utility for tool making. Presumably, strong selective pressure influenced the thumb and finger proportions (along with it the dexterity of the hand) as hominids began to use tools.

New work, however, undermines this standard evolutionary story.1 Researchers from George Washington and Stony Brook universities recently presented data that suggests that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps possessed a human-like hand, not a chimp-like hand. In other words, the human hand is primitive and the chimpanzee hand represents an evolutionarily advanced state.

These researchers reached this conclusion after doing a careful comparison of human hand proportions with those of monkeys, apes, and the fossil remains of early hominid species and by using this hand data to build an evolutionary tree. They discovered that the hand proportions of monkeys and apes are quite diverse, and the human hand isn’t necessarily that unique. The evolutionary tree they built indicated that human and gorilla hands are very similar, suggesting an ancestral state. On the other hand (no pun intended), chimps and orangutans display similar hand proportions, reflecting convergent evolution.

This work has far-reaching implications when humanity’s origin is viewed from an evolutionary vantage point. Even though the standard evolutionary model regards the last common ancestor of humans and chimps as chimp-like, this latest study indicates that this view is incorrect. That is, the evolutionary ancestor of humans wasn’t a knuckle-walking ape-like creature at all. In fact, it’s not clear what this creature looked like.

Perhaps even more significant is the recognition that the human hand didn’t evolve over time to be better adapted for tool use. It seemingly was capable of doing so all along. With this latest insight, evolutionary biologists are left without an explanation for the origin of the remarkable manual dexterity of humans and the genesis of tool usage.

Time and time again the standard account of human evolution turns out to be incorrect. In this particular instance, the idea that the human hand evolved under selective pressure associated with development and use of increasingly sophisticated tools has been a mainstay of human evolution for nearly four decades. And yet, a single study overturns this idea. This latest work begs the question: How secure is any idea associated with human evolution?

If you want to read about another mainstay idea in human evolution that has been cast aside, check out this article: “The Leap to Two Feet: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism.”

Subjects: Humans vs. Chimps

Dr. Fazale Rana

In 1999, I left my position in R&D at a Fortune 500 company to join Reasons to Believe because I felt the most important thing I could do as a scientist is to communicate to skeptics and believers alike the powerful scientific evidence—evidence that is being uncovered day after day—for God’s existence and the reliability of Scripture. Read more about Dr. Fazale Rana

Notes

  1. Sergio Almécija, Jeroen B. Smaers, and William L. Jungers, “The Evolution of Human and Ape Hand Proportions,” Nature Communications 6 (July 2015): id. 7717, doi:10.1038/ncomms8717.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CHEMICAL IMBALANCES IN THE BRAIN: A MODERN MYTH?

Written by Dr. Caroline Leaf

Part 1

Today, it has become commonplace to say that people have chemical imbalances in their brain, most notably a disruption in the proper production of dopamine (for “diseases” like ADHD) and serotonin (for “diseases” like depression) [1]. These people, it is supposed, need drugs to “cure” these chemical imbalances, hence the terms “antipsychotics” or “antidepressants” [2].

However, in the first part of the 20th century drugs dealing with issues of the mind (as opposed to the rest of the body) were predominantly viewed as “mind-altering substances” like alcohol, and classified as sedatives or stimulants that tranquilized symptoms or the manifestations of psychosis [3]. When the first modern neuroleptic, Thorazine (Chlorpromazine), was introduced in the 1950s, the French researchers Pierre Deniker and Jean Delay noted that the drug created a state of mind similar to Parkinson’s disease, introducing a “new neurological syndrome” in the patient [4]. Essentially, these drugs created, not treated, chemical imbalances [5].

During the 1950s and 1960s a new view of these mind-altering drugs began to shape the world of mental health [6]. Despite the lack of a conclusive body of scientific evidence these drugs came to be seen as “cures”, targeting the underlying biological mechanism of the “disease” of depression or psychosis [7]. It was just assumed that since these drugs affected brain chemistry in a certain way, the opposite reaction must be the result of the disease, notwithstanding the fact that this has never been adequately proven [8]. People no longer spoke of the mind-altering effects of these psychoactive drugs, and, as psychiatrist and professor at University College London Joanna Moncrieff notes, today it is incredibly difficult to find or publish journal articles on these effects, compelling professionals and researchers to look at patient websites such as askapatient.com (which currently number close to a million) [9].

If the overly simplistic explanation of chemical imbalances in the brain is an insufficient explanation for mental illness, why did many people come to see these drugs as “cures”? And why do people still see these dugs as correcting an underlying chemical imbalance? There are a number of social and political factors involved in the rise of this infamous theory (remember: medicine does not occur in a historical vacuum). First, in the second part of the 20th century psychiatry was under heavy criticism [10]. To justify and defend the profession, psychiatrists promoted a medical/disease model of mental health, which is most notably seen at the time in the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual III, which marked a definitive shift away from psychoanalysis and talk therapy [11]. By creating lists of disorders (again, based off no conclusive scientific evidence on the possible biological mechanisms underlying these so-called disorders), which appeared to be simple, objective ways of recognizing mental illness (somewhat like identifying a tumor), psychiatry created a self-made marketing weapon against its attackers [12]. From now on, institutions like the American Psychiatric Association and the DSM would define what is normal, in turn telling us what it means to suffer and, essentially, what it means to be human [13]. They medicalized misery, and today millions are suffering because of their actions, creating a public health disaster [14].

In fact, since it was now widely, yet incorrectly, assumed that these drugs were “curing” the supposed “disease” and not just tranquilizing the disturbed individual, forced drug treatments, institutionalization and lack of consent merely became “cures” [15]. The responsibility and guilt of the medical processionals behind these so-called treatments was essentially sidelined [16]. Today a psychiatrist can be praised for drugging a depressed person with mind-altering substances and, if these do not work, institutionalizing them and shocking their brain with ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) [17]. It is even an acceptable and commonplace practice to imprison mentally ill persons, drug them and lock them in solitary confinement, compelling them to live their days marinating in their own excrement [18]. It is therefore no surprise that mental health advocate, psychiatrist, former director of the DSM and professor at Duke University Allen Frances declares that “there has never been a worse time or a worse place to have a mental illness than in the US today” [19].

Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical companies, like the psychiatrists, also realized just how effective a marketing tool the chemical imbalance theory could be [20]. Despite the recognition amongst many psychiatrists and medical health professionals that the chemical imbalance theory is not valid [21], drug companies like Eli Lilly still claim that “antipsychotic medicines are believed to work by balancing the chemical found naturally in the brain” [22]. In fact, their marketing efforts, predominantly to doctors through prescription privileges, have been so successful that it is estimated that 80% of the American public alone believe in chemical imbalances in the brain [23]. These companies would not spend billions of dollars on marketing campaigns if they did not think they would work. Additionally, a number of materialistic and reductionistic cultural assumptions have supported these developments. First, we tend to see science and allopathic medicine as the source of all truth [24]. The doctor in his white coat is the priest of a secular age, and evidence-based clinical medicine is the bible [25]. So, if the doctor says that these drugs are safe and will cure chemical imbalances in the brain, even though they get most of their information from the drug company representatives who offer them multiple benefits for prescribing particular medications, we believe wholeheartedly in what he or she may say and are more inclined to believe the medication will work for us [26]. These beliefs, which ignore actual scientific results, are buttressed by a flood of distorted and biased news reports, press releases and scientific journal articles on supposed chemical imbalances, and have transformed the theory into cultural dogma [27]. So, obviously, if we experience negative side effects and do not feel the drug is working, it must be something wrong with us, not the drug [28].

The situation is critical. Since primary care doctors/family physicians, not qualified psychiatric professionals, prescribe most of these mind-altering drugs, we do not ask ourselves if these doctors really understand all the implications of using these substances [29]. Not even the psychiatrists understand these drugs [30]! But for many of us a doctor is a doctor: we don’t ask ourselves if the allure of money, based off biased information, may blind the him/her to the reality of the pill [31]. It is perhaps the lure of a quick fix, a magic bullet solution to our problems, that obscures our judgment. And, sometimes, it is far easier to take a pill than to take responsibility [32]. True change is a difficult and lengthy process. Anyway, the doctor is the professional right? He studied for years correct? Who am I, but an ordinary person? You may have not studied for years, but you still have the right to ask these questions, as you will be the one taking the drug and dealing with its side effects. You have every right to determine the potential biases and interests of your doctor, asking them if their use of the psychoactive substance in question is based on the free lunches and monetary gifts of a drug company representative [33]. It is your brain, your body, your life. These drugs can directly affect your health, with side effects such as an increased risk of suicide [34], loss of sexual ability [35], potential brain shrinkage [36], agitation [37], insomnia [38], weight gain and obesity-related diseases like diabetes [39], lethargy [40], mental fog [41], emotional apathy [42], homicide [43], to name just a few, and taking them can turn into a matter of life and death, particularly for the elderly and children [44].

Of course, you may argue that these substances have helped you stabilize your life, thereby allowing you to sort out your problems. Yet there are several considerations to take into account. Most people will feel better after seeing a doctor, whether or not they are given medication at all—doctor visits can have a powerful placebo effect, particularly if the doctor is very friendly and compassionate [45]. Moreover, we tend to visit medical professionals when we feel we just cannot cope any longer—when we are at a breaking point [46]. Due to spontaneous healing, many people will begin feel better after this peak in their illness/issue, whether they do or do not do anything to alleviate it, and the same is true for depression and anxiety [47]. In fact, most people recover from depression without drug treatments [48]. And, as Irving Kirsh, professor at a number of universities and lecturer at Harvard Medical School, has shown, antidepressants are no better than placebos in terms of clinical significance, but, unlike placebos, come with a host of negative side effects in the short and long term [49]. Lastly, we have to take into account that many things can make us feel better, including alcohol, yet we do not say that alcohol fixed “a previous brain deficiency of alcohol” [50]. So why do we think of anti-depressants and other psychiatric drugs in this way? Even if you feel that these psychoactive substances do help you, they are not correcting an underlying chemical imbalance in your brain, and potentially creating neurological imbalances that were not there to begin with [51]. These drugs start changing your neurochemistry within the first dose [52]. We then have to take into consideration some very hard questions. Substances like marijuana and speed also make people feel better, but do not fix the root of the issue: why someone felt the way he/she did in the first place. Indeed, more people die from overdoses of psychiatric drugs than illicit drugs like cocaine and heroin [53]. So, if it is okay to take psychoactive substances like antipsychotics and antidepressants because they make us feel better even though they can be dangerous, is it okay to take other, non-legal drugs because they make us feel better as well, even though they can be dangerous? It is in fact easier to withdraw from heroin than antidepressants (SSRIs, that is selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) [55]. And what about the hundreds of thousands of people suffering under the burden of our pseudoscientific bio-centric model of psychiatry [56], people like those prisoners locked in solitary confinement or those individuals forced to take these drugs and institutionalized [57], who have no voice? They too deserve to be heard.

Indeed, we have every right to question not only our doctors but also the cultural power of neo-liberal capitalism [58]. As the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, these drugs play a particularly important role in social control, as the philosopher Michel Foucault pointed out [59]. By emphasizing that the problem lies within an individual’s biology, we are less inclined to look at their experiences and the social context of why they are feeling the way they feel [60]. We look at the mythical chemical imbalance instead of economic exploitation, violence and inept political structures [61]. Children in foster care are told that they have malfunctioning brains and given these mind-altering substances, and the terrible, abusive and shocking circumstances that they have experienced are put in a mental corner [62]. The child who moves a lot in class is forced to take mind-altering medication that is as addictive as cocaine in the long run, and we do not question whether the school systems we have in place are adequate for the diverse expression of humanity [63]. Once again, the quick fix mentality comes into play: it is far easier to give people a drug that makes them indifferent to their socio-economic circumstances rather than fighting for social justice and changing those circumstances. Certainly, these drugs are also useful tools for neutralizing anyone who does not fit neatly into the neo-liberal capitalist framework–those people that make us uncomfortable and fearful—within and without the Church [64].

When we are faced with such a harsh reality, we must always remember that God has given us powerful minds, which can change the structure of our brains [65]. Our souls are not locked in a cage by our biology [66]. We have, after all, the mind of Christ; we are dignified beings; we are more than conquerors through Him (1 Corinthians 2:16; Romans 8:37). Although Jesus never said we wouldn’t suffer, that we wouldn’t feel pain and anguish, His death and resurrection enables us to have joy despite our circumstances (Philippians 4:11-13). Indeed, not only are pain and human suffering are a part of the world today, but also a clarion call for us as the children of God to go out and be the light in dark places (Romans 8) [67]. If we stop sharing in the pain, as God shares our pain, how can we ever challenge injustice? We, with our sound minds, together as the Church, can choose to overcome with the help of the Holy Spirit, and in turn impact our communities, our cities, our countries and our world.

In the end, we will all be compelled to choose between the worldview presented by the modern psychiatry, a corrupted institution which claims that suffering is not normal and that those that cannot cope without medication have broken, defective brains, or the promises made in God’s word that He never gives us more than we can handle, that He has given us sound minds, that He is always with us, and that nothing can separate us from His love (1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Timothy 1:7; Joshua 1:9; Romans 8:35-39). I will discuss these worldviews more in part 2 of this blog.

Blessings, Caroline

**This E-mail communication is informative and NOT individual medical advice. **DRUG WITHDRAWAL should ALWAYS be done under the supervision of a qualified professional. These drugs alter your brain chemistry, and withdrawal can be a difficult process. There are thousands of patient-run sites on withdrawal from psychoactive substances on the Internet, and many books available in stores and online. We suggest you begin looking at the resources page on Mad in America: http://www.madinamerica.com/resources/#drug_tapering.

Dr. Peter Breggin also has a brilliant book on withdrawal: Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients, and Their Families. New York: Springer Pub. Co., 2013.

**For renewing your mind and finding out who you are in Christ please visit http://21daybraindetox.com (see also this VIDEO) andhttp://perfectlyyou.com (see also this VIDEO).

For my other products visit our online store: http://drleaf.com/store/

**For general information on the current state of psychiatry please visithttp://www.madinamerica.com

**If you or someone you know is being threatened with drug treatment please visit http://psychrights.org

**To report any adverse psychotropic drug effects you have experienced, and for more detailed individual drug information, please visit https://www.rxisk.org

Sources/REFERENCES

AdvertisementAdvertisementQuick LinksSwitch on Your Brain®
2140 E Southlake Blvd
Suite L #809
Southlake, TX, 76092

This email was sent to wilmiers77@att.net.
If you prefer not to receive email from us, please click here.

© 2015 Switch on Your Brain®. All rights reserved. Powered by ChurchMedia
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment