Birds Are Wonderful: Wrap-up

Chaplain Bob Webel & JJSJ at Webel backyard, birdwatching [photograph by Marcia Webel]


Dr. James J. S. Johnson

 1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens; praise Him in the heights.   Praise ye Him, all his angels: praise ye Him, all His hosts.  Praise ye Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all ye stars of light.  Praise Him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.  Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded, and they were created.  He hath also established them forever and ever: He hath made a decree which shall not pass.  Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps;  8 fire, and hail; snow, and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling His word;  9 mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars;  10 beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl. . . . (Psalm 148:1-10)


In this alphabetic mini-series (“BIRDS ARE WONDERFUL…”) we have seen just a tiny introduction into the world of birds, which our great Creator-God designed and made on Day 5 of Creation Week.  (Although some might argue that “flightless birds”, like ratites, were made on Day 6, since they don’t fly through the air — but that argument assumes that these birds could not fly before the global Genesis Flood, and we knew that the global climate was quite different then . . .  Or, maybe God made some flightless birds just to demonstrate that birds can use wings to their advantage for purposes other than flight., such as for turning while running at high speeds on land.)  No matter what birds you look at, it’s always true — that BIRDS ARE WONDERFUL!




Kraken is Trackin’ — It Feels Like It’s a Matter of Taste

Kraken is Trackin’ — It Feels Like It’s a Matter of Taste:

Chemotactile Cephalopods in Action: ‘Release the Kraken!’

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

The Remarkable Intelligence Octopus Tentacles | EWC
OCTOPUS (photo by

They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; these see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep.

[ Psalm 107:23-24 ]

Although some deem it insulting to be described as being “out of touch”, being out-of-touch can be a good thing—especially if the one touching is a hungry octopus! 

OCTOPUS (Smithsonian Magazine photo credit)

That is what recent research, by a team of Harvard bioscientists, shows about octopus tentacles.(1)  In fact, octopus suckers actually taste what they touch!

Scientists identified a novel family of sensors in the first layer of cells inside the suction cups that have adapted to react and detect molecules that don’t dissolve well in water. The research suggests these sensors, called chemotactile receptors, use these molecules to help the animal figure out what it’s touching and whether that object is prey. …  “So, when the octopus touches a rock versus a crab, now its arm knows, ‘OK, I’m touching a crab [because] I know there’s not only touch but there’s also this sort of [chemical] taste.’ [said Nicholas Bellono, the project’s senior co-author]. In addition, scientists found diversity in what the receptors responded to and the signals they then transmitted to the cell and nervous systems. “We think that this is important because it could facilitate complexity in what the octopus senses and also how it can process a range of signals using its semi-autonomous arm nervous system to produce complex behaviors,” Bellono said.(1)

[ see Siliezar / ScienceDaily cite below ]

These bioscientists, despite being evolutionists, report details of how amazingly well-suited octopus tentacles are, for continuously tracking their habitat.(2),(3)

The tight organism-environment relationship does not happen by chance. Not only can engineering principles explain this relationship, there is evidence they are the only non-mystical principles capable of explaining it. Why? … Obviously, sensors play a key role in a design-based, organism-focused framework of adaptability like continuous environmental tracking [CET]—even if many researchers do not bother to look for them. The CET framework predicts that sensors are crucial for adaptable systems, and therefore exploration efforts should be made to identify them. Sensors are the triggers for the [animals’] internal systems that empower organisms to be active, problem-solving entities. Instead of being passive objects molded by the environment, living creatures actively detect changed conditions, solve challenges, and fill new [ecosystem] niches within their lifetime … And it all begins with sensors.(3)

[ see Guliuzza cite below ]

But why do the Harvard researchers insist on accrediting the imagined magic of “evolution” as the inventive cause of such well-suited cephalopod traits, that fit these tentacled creatures for successful life as denizens of the deep?(1),(2)

Aquarium of the Pacific | Aquarium News | New Octopus on View
OCTOPUS (Aquarium of the Pacific photo credit)

It’s all about (as Paul said in Romans 1:28) suppressing the evidence—willfully ignoring the clearly seen truth—that God has invented these marine monsters, with integrated systems of interactive software and complicated hardware that purposefully and successfully works all over the world’s oceans.

The amazing octopus continues to astonish scientists and the public. Every facet of this invertebrate has surprised researchers, from its extremely rapid ability to change color and disappear into the background, to its amazing intelligence. … Where did these eight-armed creatures come from? Evolutionists don’t know. … But when a rare octopus fossil is found, it’s always 100% octopus as predicted by creation scientists. Octopi have always been octopi. For the first time, biologists recently sequenced the octopus genome, meaning they determined the precise order of nucleotides that comprise the DNA molecule. They discovered the octopus has an enormous genome—the complete set of genes—comparable in size to the human genome. The zoologists thought this genome was simply duplicated, or copied within itself, to achieve such a large size. But with more investigation they found that duplication was not the case. Instead they discovered a large family of genes involved with octopus brain development. Up until this time, such elaborate brain circuits were erroneously thought to be possessed almost exclusively by vertebrates. These approximately 150 brain-development circuits are not found in other well-studied lab invertebrates such as the roundworm (C. elegans) or the fruit fly. They are unique to the created octopus.(4)

[ see Sherwin February AD2016 cite below ]

If you seek insights about how cephalopods—like octopi, squids, or cuttlefish—live and thrive, as God’s well-designed creatures, you need creation science reports from scientists unafraid to give our Creator-God credit, where credit is due.(5)

How much more does the construction of octopus skin with its superior, higher-resolution, full-color fabric—that even heals itself—illustrate the focus and intent of a sophisticated genius Maker?(6)

[ see Thomas cite below ]

Amazing! And the ability of these cephalopods to survive at such incredible depths—with their unimaginable pressures—cannot be adequately explained apart from God’s providential bioengineering. … This seemingly impossible ability of octopi to survive 21,000 feet below the ocean’s surface should prompt us to praise the Lord for these “wonders in the deep.”  However, secular-thinking evolutionists try to dodge the obvious truth. They speak in vague terms of such creatures somehow “evolving” necessary “adaptations”—as if merely using those words was an excuse to ignore evidence of God’s Creatorship! (7)

[ see JJSJ cite below ]

Many zoologists consider cuttlefish to be the most intelligent invertebrate species, which is quite a problem from an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionists view intelligence evolving through social interactions and long life spans. But cuttlefish are cephalopods [like octopi and squids]. They don’t have a complex social structure and live only about a year—the lifespan of a butterfly. How did cuttlefish become so bright? In addition, these animals have a kind of visual “superpower,” in that they can “see” information in light waves we humans cannot. Sometimes electric fields, of which light is composed, can become preferentially aligned in a certain direction, a phenomenon called polarization. Cuttlefish have been designed to sense when the direction of polarized light changes. Other animals have polarized vision, but the cuttlefish’s appears to be the best: It’s in high definition.(8)

[ see Sherwin January AD2016 cite below ]

Thus, the octopus, using the intelligence that God gave to octopi (as oceanic animals created on Day 5 of Creation Week—see Genesis 1:21), analytically processes the acquired information, speedily, and consequently decides what actions should be taken (by the information-gathering octopus), in order to benefit from whatever is reachable, within the watery world of the octopus.(2)

Octopuses explore the seafloor with their flexible arms using a specialized “taste by touch” system to locally sense and respond to prey-derived chemicals and movement. How the peripherally distributed octopus nervous system mediates relatively autonomous arm behavior is unknown. Here, we report [experimental evidence to show] that octopus arms use a family of cephalopod-specific chemotactile receptors (CRs) to detect poorly soluble natural products, thereby defining a form of contact-dependent, aquatic chemosensation. CRs form discrete ion channel complexes that mediate the detection of diverse stimuli and transduction of specific ionic signals. Furthermore, distinct chemo- and mechanosensory cells exhibit specific receptor expression and electrical activities to support peripheral information coding and complex chemotactile behaviors. These findings demonstrate that the peripherally distributed octopus nervous system is a key site for signal processing and highlight how molecular and anatomical features synergistically evolve [sic — error theirs] to suit an animal’s environmental context.(2)

[ see Van Giesen / CELL cite below ]

Let’s rephrase this topic with less technical language, keeping in mind how these monsters of the deep are both magnificent and terrifying at the same time, depending upon how close their tentacles are to the observer.

Octopuses have captured the human imagination for centuries, inspiring sagas of sea monsters from Scandinavian kraken legends to TV’s “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea” and, most recently, Netflix’s less-threatening “My Octopus Teacher.” With their eight suction-cup covered tentacles, their very appearance is unique, and their ability to use those appendages to touch and taste while foraging further sets them apart.  In fact, scientists have wondered for decades how those arms, or more specifically the suction cups on them, do their work, prompting a number of experiments into the biomechanics. But very few have studied what is happening on a molecular level. In a new report, Harvard researchers got a glimpse into how the nervous system in the octopus’ arms (which operate largely independently from its centralized brain) manage this feat.(1)

[ see Siliezar / ScienceDaily cite below ]

Octopi are highly intelligent, being well-informed about their interactive oceanic ecosystem.  As octopi surveil coral reefs for prey, or seek to avoid becoming the prey of huge cetaceans, octopi are constantly gaining and processing information, for real-time decision-making.  

And now we learn that these tentacled cephalopods are touching their suckers to objects they contact, “tasting” the chemicals of those objects, and making almost instantaneous informed decisions about what to do next.

In other words, octopi make informed choices as they decide what to grab.

The team set out to uncover how the receptors are able to sense chemicals and detect signals in what they touch, like a tentacle around a snail, to help them make choices. Octopus arms are distinct and complex. About two-thirds of an octopus’s neurons are located in their arms.(1)

[ see Siliezar / ScienceDaily cite below ]

The octopus tentacle sucker cells were experimentally tested, using different experiments.

The team started by identifying which cells in the suckers actually do the detecting. After isolating and cloning the touch and chemical receptors, … [the research team] exposed those cells to molecules such as extracts from octopus prey and others items to which these receptors are known to react. Some test subjects were water-soluble, like salts, sugars, amino acids; others do not dissolve well and are not typically considered of interest by aquatic animals. Surprisingly, only the poorly soluble molecules activated the receptors. Researchers then went back to the octopuses in their lab to see whether they too responded to those molecules by putting those same extracts on the floors of their tanks. They found the only odorants the octopuses’ receptors responded to were a non-dissolving class of naturally occurring chemicals known as terpenoid molecules.(1)

[ see Siliezar / ScienceDaily cite below ]

So, it’s all a matter of taste, so to speak. How touching.

OCTOPUS ( photo credit)


(1)Siliezar, Juan, & Harvard University. 2020.  “Touch and taste? It’s all in the tentacles: Researchers uncover how the sensors in octopus suction cups work.” ScienceDaily (29 October 2020), posted at .

(2)Van Giesen, Lena, Peter B. Kilian, Corey A. H. Allard, & Nicholas W. Bellono. 2020. Molecular Basis of Chemotactile Sensation in Octopus. Cell. (22 October 2020) 2020 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.008 .

(3)  Guliuzza, Randy J. 2018. Creatures’ Adaptability Begins with Their Sensors. Acts & Facts. 47(3):17-19, posted at . For more, see Guliuzza, R. J. and P. B. Gaskill. 2018. Continuous Environmental Tracking: An Engineering Framework to Understand Adaptation and Diversification. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism. John H. Whitmore, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 158–184. See also Guliuzza, Randy J. 2019. Engineered Adaptability: Continuous Environmental Tracking Wrap-Up. Acts & Facts. 48(8):17-19, posted at .

(4)Sherwin, Frank J. 2016. Octopus Genome as Large as Human Genome. Creation Science Update (February 22, 2016), at .

(5)Psalm 107:24. God’s wonders in nature are “clearly seen” by humans—whether people want to admit it or not. (See also Romans 1:20-21.)

 (6)Thomas, Brian. 2014. Octopus Skin Inspires High-Tech Camouflage Fabric. Creation Science Update (August 27, 2014), posted at .

(7)Johnson, James J. S. 2020. Dumbo Octopus, God’s Wonder in the Deepest Deep. Creation Science Update (June 2, 2020), posted at . Octopi are truly amazing creatures, but not all of us like to eat them.

(8)Sherwin, Frank J. 2016. Smart and Stealthy Cuttlefish. Creation Science Update (January 11, 2016), posted at .

Lizards are coming !

The  lizards  are  coming !

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.  (Genesis 8:19)

Earlier this week some co-workers spotted a Spiny Lizard creeping around, inside a building that I work in  —  so I wrote this limerick, about how the lizards are coming! 

Should we panic, trembling as we await invading lizards?   This is a semi-sarcastic attempt  to mock recent trends of panic-in-the-news  (“the-sky-is-falling!”)  hysteria.


Desert Spiny Lizard (female) / Tucson Herpetological Society


Phrynosomatids  are such fun;

Now here, their visits, have begun;

     As Eastland knows well,

      These can heartily dwell *

If  overbred,  we’ll  be  overrun!

(Regarding Texas’ most famous phrynosomatid lizard, “Ol’ Rip” of Eastland, see this Wikipedia entry:  .)

Usually  Texans are more concerned  about hailstorms  than lizards.

But, it’s not a bad idea to keep an eye out for phrynosomatid  lizards  —  such as spiny lizards, horny lizards (a/k/a horny toads), California rock lizards, fringe-toed lizards, earless lizards, zebra-tailed lizards, and other creepy reptiles.   (But don’t be fearful.)


Romans chapter 5: God’s Christmas Gift!

God’s  Christmas  Gift:  JESUS !


Dr. James J. S. Johnson

As sinning humans, we need the gift of redemption in Christ — that’s what Christmas was, historically, all about — and that is why it is just as relevant and vital, today, for us all.


Good news!

In Christ, as a free gift, we (human sinners) can be made right with God, by Him imputing to us the righteousness of Christ, if we believe His promise that Jesus is the Scripture-prophesied Messiah!  That is the theme and doctrine of Paul’s epistle to the Romans.  This good news, at least in a foreshadowed form, was “promised afore by [God’s] prophets in the holy Scriptures” (Romans 1:2), but now it is clearly presented to all the world (Galatians 1:6-12; Romans 1:16-17).

Romans chapter 5 describes how God has accomplished, in the completed redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21-25; Romans 5:8 & 5:12-21; 2nd Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews chapter 10), what was needed in order for God to be able to justly justify the (otherwise) unjust children of Adam:  we are now “made the righteousness of God” in Christ, because of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice of Himself at Calvary!


In a sense, the 5th chapter of Romans is summed up in this one verse:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift [charisma] of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.  (Romans 6:23)

What wonderful news for Adam’s children! What good news for forgiven sinners!  Eternal life is a gift – it is free!  This fits the teaching of Romans chapter 4, that God imputes righteousness to believers.  Righteousness is not earned by good behavior; rather, it is imputed graciously by God.  And the basis of that imputation of God’s righteousness is Christ’s role and finished work as our Kinsman-Redeemer.  That righteousness-imputing redemption was motivated by God’s love and it was accomplished by Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice of Himself for us, followed by His resurrection (Romans 5:8-11).

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.   For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.  And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.   (Romans 5:8-11)


However, for this good news to be truly reliable, theologically (and logically), Paul’s explanation of Genesis chapter 3 must be reliable. That means that Genesis must be accepted as trustworthy information, because Paul trusted its history literally (as did Christ Himself – see John 5:45-47!).

Thus, the historicity of Adam (and of the Genesis account of his failure in Eden) is used, by Paul, to argue the efficaciousness of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice of Himself for us, in order to provide us with redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation. This requires an analysis of how Adam’s first sin has impacted humanity (and the rest of creation), followed by an analysis of how Christ’s substitutionary death and resurrection has overruled that those impacts.


Death was alien to God’s “very good” creation, until Adam sinned. The trustworthiness of the holy Bible hangs upon the accuracy of this fact: There was no death before Adam sinned. To err about when and why death came to Earth is to err about the theological and historical foundation of the Gospel. The death of Christ, and therefore the Gospel of Christ, won’t make sense if death came to Earth any other way than by Adam’s sin in Eden. If death came first, the New Testament would be worse than unreliable—it would be irreparably wrong about salvation.

Although more could (and should) be said about how and why Adam’s sin triggered death, two major points will be reviewed here: (1) The Gospel of Christ depends on the truth of Adam’s sin triggering death on Earth; and (2) the reliability of the Bible depends upon the truth of Adam’s sin triggering death on Earth. Put bluntly, if death somehow came to earth apart from Adam’s sin, we cannot be confident that Hell is escapable. Those reasons guarantee that this topic is anything but trivial. The stakes are as high as can be.

“Very good” creations don’t “groan”. The original condition of God’s creation at the end of Day Six was “very good” (Genesis 1:31), displaying the perfection of providence. However, the earth is now fallen—the current condition of God’s creation is good (Acts 14:17) yet “groaning” (Romans 8:20-22).  That groaning now includes the reign of sin and death over both humans and animals, a terrible situation that will one day be overcome (1st Corinthians 15:26 & 15:54-56; Revelation 21:4 & 22:3).

What caused this change? God did not leave us to guess the answer: Genesis 3 provides the history of that change; the New Testament (especially in Romans 5 and 8) provides the theology of that change. If we ignore God’s authoritative explanation in Genesis and Romans by relying on theistic evolutionist lies, we inexcusably err.  Why?  Because only the Bible’s teaching of the history and theology of human sin reveals the true etiology of death (Romans 5:12).

Death had a beginning; death is not eternal. In order to have the possibility of death, there must first be mortal life. Accordingly, death could never occur unless and until God created living creatures that were capable of dying. Genesis 1 and 2 describe and report how God created such creatures. At the end of Day 6, all was “very good” (Genesis 1:31)—which means that there could not be any death on earth at that time because death is not morally good (Romans 8:20-22; 1st Corinthians chapter 15). The Bible reports no animals dying before Adam sinned. (Notice that no nephesh-bearing animals were to be eaten by humans until after the Flood, according to Genesis 1:29-30 & 9:1-4.) In short, the Bible clearly reports that it was Adam’s sin that triggered the curse of death, in fulfillment of God’s warning:

Therefore, just as through one man [i.e., Adam] sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.…For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin hath reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12-14, 17-21, emphasis added)

Death was unknown to Adam and Eve before Adam sinned. Adam had never seen death before. People on Earth today do not personally see Heaven and Hell, yet God teaches us – through His written Word — vital truths about the conditions and importance of eternity. When we are taught what we should believe about such things, our own faith in God’s Word is tested: Either we believe what God reveals to us about the unseen (e.g., heaven and hell), or we don’t. God is pleased to test our faith about such unseen things, just as God was pleased (6,000+ years ago) to use information about unseen realities to test Adam’s faith and loyalty. That kind of testing is the essence of faith (Hebrews 11:1-3).

Notice that, like Adam’s testing by God, God’s testing of our faith and our loyalty to Him (as our Creator) is always coupled with consequences—good consequences for good choices, bad consequences for bad choices.

Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:15-17)

Adam, the first human to sin, quickly learned a lot about consequences—the consequences of his sin included a new thing, death (Romans 5:12; 6:23). The Bible teaches, quite clearly, that the paycheck that sin earns is called DEATH.   (Of course, God had already foreseen and fore-planned a redemptive solution to that sin-and-death problem  —  see Genesis 3:15.)

Genesis3.15-Hebrew-text-in-colorConsider how God chose to test Adam’s faith and loyalty. The test was simple: Don’t eat from one specific tree in the Garden of Eden. God designed Adam’s test to have built-in consequences. Adam could make the choice, but Adam could not control the consequences that would flow from that choice. Why not? Because the consequences were built in to the alternative choice options: The good choice would produce a good result (life eternal); the bad choice would produce a bad result (death).

In effect, God designed the gun, including the trigger—but it was Adam who aimed the gun and pulled the trigger, thus starting the dying process (“you shall surely die”, in Genesis 2:17, could be rendered “dying, you will die”) that leads ultimately to death itself. The test was all part of God’s glorious plan for human history, and God foreknew what would happen.  However, Adam’s choice was nonetheless a true test of Adam’s faith and loyalty, because Adam did not experientially know the outcome in advance.

Adam could have believed God to avoid the “death” that God warned of, but he chose otherwise. Only then did Adam experience the “dying” condition that God had warned him about. Dying began, as did thorns, pain in childbirth, and, in time, death itself.

But the dying was not limited to Adam! Because God had placed all of the life forms of the world under Adam’s authority (Genesis 1:26-31; Psalm 8), the world fell with Adam and was “cursed” with death (Genesis 3:17-19).

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. (Romans 8:20-22)

Consequently, all of the world’s living creatures—both humans and animals—have been “groaning” under the curse of sin and death ever since, although eventually the time will come when Christ’s completely applied redemption will be applied to His believers (1st Corinthians chapter 15), and even to the earth itself to overcome the Edenic curse of death (Revelation 20:11; 21:1-5; 22:3).

Why does it matter?

The New Testament directly links sin’s cause and sin’s cure by tying the Gospel of salvation to Adam’s sin (compare Romans chapter 5 with 1st Corinthians chapter 15).


And, Christ’s vicarious payment of humanity’s total sin-debt is the redemptive solution to the otherwise-hopeless problem of sin and death — and is available to everyone, as John 3:16 teaches, who chooses to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior! 

Paul’s definition of the Gospel of Christ contextualizes the Gospel as being “according to the [Old Testament] scriptures” (1st Corinthians 15:3-4).  The New Testament Gospel of Christ depends upon the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 53; Psalm 16; etc.) being true.


Indeed, the Old Testament is authoritatively relevant, true, and perfect—every “jot and tittle” (Matthew 5:18) of it. Christ Himself said that Moses would judge people after they die according to whether they believed the words of Moses (John 5:45-47).  If the books of Moses, which include Genesis, were authoritatively good enough for the Lord Jesus (Matthew 24:35; John 17:17)—and they were—they are authoritatively good enough for us. And what we believe about death being the consequence of Adam’s sin in Eden is a test of our own love and loyalty to God Himself.

[ ><> JJSJ  March 7th AD2015 ]



Celebrating her 105th Birthday!

Celebrating her 105th Birthday!

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.  …  The days of our years are 70 years, and if by reason of strength they be 80 years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.  …  So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.   (Psalm 90:1, 10, 12)

Yesterday my mother-in-law celebrated her 105th birthday — WOW!  God has blessed her with years well beyond the foreseeable expectancies mentioned within Psalm 90.


Here (with edits to cure typos) is the poem that I wrote and presented for the occasion:



Life was never a bowl of roses, Mom has seen her share of ills;

But life has balanced out for her, with family joys and thrills;

She’s lived a long, long time, and she’s experienced lots;

Eaten squirrel and catfish —  at church she taught the tots;

The sick she’s often fed with meals, she knows her pans and pots;

“Never quit” she role-models  —  she’s from the sturdy Scots.

Mom’s lived through many decades, sometimes tough and sometimes nice;

She raised 2 children years ago, in time she married twice.

Many folks are blessed by her – boys, girls, ladies, men;

Her grandkids number 5, now her great-grands number 10.

A busy-bee, she sold for Stanley, winning many trips,

Traveling by car and airplanes, twice inside cruise ships.*

God has blessed her many times, the Spanish Flu she did survive;

And when she reached the century mark – she was still alive . . . !

Today we celebrate Evelyn’s birth, . . . she’s now 105 ! ! !

[*NOTE Besides most of the USA’s “Lower 48” states, Alaska and Hawaii, Mom visited Austria, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Iceland (!), Ireland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Mexico, Norway (land of some of her ancestors), Sweden, Scotland (land of many of her ancestors), Switzerland (land of other ancestors), etc.]   Some say Mom looks like the Queen of England in the picture below!


As long as I have known her (>40 years), Mom has been proud of being a Baptist and a Texan.  Q:  “Mom, if you weren’t a Texan, what would you be?” A: “Ashamed.”  [Maybe I made that last part up, but she really is patriotic about being a lifelong Texan].  As a lifelong Baptist she has eaten a lot of fried chicken and also has abstained from drinking alcoholic beverages.  However, she recalls, sicknesses (when she was young) were often treated with blackberry wine that her mother made — and “it was good wine!”  Born one of 12 children, Mom was routinely the sickliest of the surviving children, yet she has outlived all of her siblings.  (The Piney Woods of East Texas are a good place for growing timber, farming, ranching, producing steel, and even for growing blackberries.)

For more on Mom’s family history (especially about God’s providence in how the Swiss Glattfelder lineage married into the Scottish Abernethy/Abernathy lineage), see my article “From Germany’s Rhine to the East Texas Pine:  How an Immigrating Line of High German-speaking Glattfelders Stretched to East Texas’ Piney Woods”, JOURNAL OF THE GERMAN-TEXAN HERITAGE SOCIETY, 28(3):246-254 (fall 2005).

POSTSCRIPT  (December AD2019, Mom Coulter celebrated her 106th in Heaven).

Mom went Home to her Lord Jesus Christ, earlier this month, 3 days before her 106th birthday.  Following is the poem that I composed and read at her memorial service, which memorial service was held on her 106th birthday.

Evelyn Abernathy Hall Coulter, Looking Back on a Long Journey

James J. S. Johnson   (son-in-law)   12-9-AD2019   memorial

Life was never a bowl of roses, Evelyn had her share of ills;

But Evelyn’s life balanced out, with ups and downs like hills;

Now she’s home in Heaven – with forever joys and thrills.

As a girl, she learned work, often she’d cook and clean;

Better yet, for her soul, she claimed John 3:16.

Abernathy’s her maiden name — she’s from the sturdy Scots;

Down here she lived a long-long time, and she experienced lots;

The sick she often fed with meals, she worked her pans and pots.

Active in church, growing flowers, making quilts so nice;

Country living, gardening much, killing snakes and mice;

Raising 2 children, years ago, in time she married twice.

Many lives were blessed by her – such as yours and mine;

Her grandkids number 5, her great-grands now are 9.

A busy-bee for Stanley, Evelyn won many trips,

Traveling places far and wide, twice at sea inside cruise ships.*

Adventures, yes!  — she survived a lightning bolt strike!

At 88, in Iceland, she took a mile-long hike.

God sustained her many times, the Spanish Flu she survived;

When she reached her century mark – she was still alive . . .

In fact, this day, last year, she turned age 105 !

106 years, it’s now been, since Evelyn’s Texas birth;

Today we miss her, since she’s gone – Friday she left this Earth;

But she’s quite alive, in glory – glad in Heaven’s mirth:   so, happy birthday, Mom!


*Besides most of the USA (including Alaska and Hawaii), Austria, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Iceland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Mexico, Norway, Sweden, Scotland, Switzerland, etc.


Memoirs of Mountains, in Light of Psalm 148

SANGRE DE CRISTO RANGE in Colorado, near Westcliffe (photo credit: Steven Garufi)


satellite image showing Sangre de Cristo Range (and Westcliffe) in Colorado

Memoirs of Mountains, in Light of Psalm 148

Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps; fire, and hail; snow, and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling His word; mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars; beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl; kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth; both young men, and maidens; old men, and children.  Let them praise the name of the Lord, for His name alone is excellent; His glory is above the earth and heaven. (Psalm 148:7-13)


SANGRE DE CRISTO RANGE in Colorado, near Westcliffe (photo credit: Steven Garufi)

All of creation honors the Lord, one way or another, yet we humans can honor Him consciously and voluntarily and gladly. And we can appreciate His glorious Creatorship – including the majesty and splendor of mountain ranges (such as the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in Colorado) as we honor Him!  For many summers, throughout the past couple decades, my family has gone to the Sangre de Cristo range, outside of Westcliffe, for a mix of recreation and revival.  Even now I can remember those good times as I reflect on how wonderful God is.



The Rocky Mountains are fun to hike,

Or ride a horse, or maybe bike;

What a landscape! Oh, what views!

To hike’s a joy – like good news!

The Rocky Mountains, I surely like.

(See also my poetic record of adventures hiking in the White Mountains of New Hampshire  —  posted at —  summarizing a weekend along the Appalachian Trail.)

When Will this Airplane ever Take Off?



Our work’s done  —  time to head back,

But, our flight plan’s gotten off-track;

Does the airline care?

We’re going nowhere!

Belted in, we just wait, on the tarmac!

Scheduled departure time was 2:43 p.m., Monday, from Eppley Airport (code: OMA), in Omaha, Nebraska.  This limerick was written at about 4:15 p.m., Monday, while seated (and buckled in) in Seat 15F aboard Flight AA 1286, in a cramped-more-than-justifiable S80 American Eagle “tin can” (full flight, of course):   supposedly bound for Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (in Texas), that is if, as, and when it ever departs from Omaha, Nebraska!

UPDATE:  the airplane finally lifted off at 4:19 p.m.  —  so we would get to D/FW, as they say “when we get there”, and not before!

Intentions and plans and schedules are one thing; if, as, and when they occur is quite another thing.  The New Testament epistle author James (half-brother of the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the flesh) wrote of this fact of life, almost 2000 years ago, when he said:

Go to now, ye that say, Today or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain; whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.  For that ye ought to say, ‘If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that’.  (James 4:13-15)

In the meantime, we need to practice patience (James 5:11).



Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!


See .

This confirms that the Lord Jesus is the Scripture-prophesied Messiah (1st Corinthians 15, especially 15:3-4), Who was promised since the prophecy of “the Seed of Woman” (Genesis 3:15).  Hallelujah!



James J. S. Johnson, JD, ThD, CNHG

A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. (PROVERBS 15:1)

King Magnus was Harald’s nephew,
But Harald claimed royal right, too;
Harald’s might was well-known,
So he soon shared the throne —
Thus, the co-kings of Norway were two.

Of the other, each king was jealous,
They both, for glory, were zealous;
Once, for a dock spot…
King Magnus got hot!
(At least, that’s what Snorri would tell us.)

“Weapons!” – Magnus’ men went to arm!
But Harald foresaw needless harm;
Harald yielded his space,
Found a new “parking” place,
And withdrew – with a diplomat’s charm.

‘Twas not that Harald feared, to fight,
Nor was timid, to cast a sound-bite;
Though Harald was strong,
The showdown was wrong —
So (for now) he backed down, from the slight.

“Harald parked first!” — someone prattles,
“Ja, let’s fight!” — a sword soon rattles;
But ignoring the nuisance,
King Harald used prudence;
Said Harald:  “you must pick your battles.”
><>  JJSJ

He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city. (PROVERBS 16:32)

COMMENTARY: One of the tense moments, during the unesay co-kingship of Magnus and Harald Hardrada, occurred when Hardrada “parked” his boat in the best docking spot. Oalf insited that Hardrarad move his boat to allow Olaf to “park” there. Before a fight broke out Hardrada conceded to Olaf’s haughty demand – although, interestingly, Olaf died (maybe accidently) soon afterwards, leaving Harald Hardrada as sole king of Norway.

How did this situation arise? Norway’s King Magnus (“the Good”) Olafsson was the illegitimate son of Norway’s King Olaf II (“the Holy”), but he did not promptly ascend to the throne at his father’s death. Rather, Magnus then fled Norway — and the Norwegian kingdom was ruled by the powerful Knut the Great (a/k/a “Canute”, who ruled Norway, Denmark, and England, till he died in AD1035); Knut was himself son of Denmark’s King Sveyn Forkbeard, who was son of the famous Viking Harald Bluetooth, king of Denmark and Norway. After Knut died in AD1035, Magnus immediately became king of Norway – and in AD1042 added the kingdom of Denmark to his realm. However, during AD1046, the wealthy Norwegian Viking Harald Hardrada returned from his exploits in Russia (and in the Byzantine Empire, where he had also been adventuring, for years), and Hardrada demanded a rulership interest in Norway, considering his own claim to the Norwegian throne to be superior to that of King Magnus (Hardrada’s nephew). A co-kingship arrangement was negotiated, so that Norway was jointly ruled by King Magnus and (co-king) Harald Hardrada, with Olaf having first rank of the pair. Friction and jealousy routinely infected the relationship, or course, and – ironically – Magnus died in late AD1047, with the cause of his death still being questioned. King Harald Hardrada himself died in battle, at Stamford Bridge, on 25 September, AD1066, while trying to invade England. Harald Hardrada’s linear descendants include England’s King James I, sponsor of the KING JAMES BIBLE.  (See JJSJ’s “Impact of Norway’s King Harald Hardrada on the British Isles”, posted at ), with further information on Hardrada’s family lineage (through King Somerled’s progeny) being reported within JJSJ’s “To Globally Sow His Word, Did God Use Vikings?”, posted at .)

For more on the Viking history of Norway’s co-kings Olaf and Harald Hardrada, see pages 67-77 of Snorri Sturluson’s KING HARALD’S SAGA: HARALD HARDRADI OF NORWAY (Penguin Classics, 1966, a translation by Magnus Magnusson & Hermann Pálsson, of part of Sturluson’s HEIMSKRINGLA: HISTORY OF THE KINGS OF NORWAY).   This episode form Viking history illustrates the timeless wisdom of PROVERBS 15:1 & 16:32, i.e.:  “Pick your battles” strategically;  don’t just fight over a parking spot!


A Secularized Counter-Reformation, “Hidden in Plain View”:
How Naturalistic Assumptions Oppose Scripture’s Authoritative Relevancy

James J. S. Johnson, JD, ThD, CNHG


The Protestant Reformation’s priority of the Holy Bible, as the ultimate authority for truth and morality, was opposed by at least two major sociopolitical forces, one quite easily recognized, and a parallel version “hidden in plain view”.
The more conspicuous opposition, obviously, was the “Counter-Reformation” reaction of Roman Catholicism. However, what is less often recognized, by Reformation history scholars (especially those who have never studied the scholarly history analysis of Francis Schaeffer ), is that the other major antagonistic force, that strove (and strives) against the Reformation’s recovery of Scriptural authority, was and is Deism’s “child”, secular humanism.
In short, the theistic-yet-Bible-rejecting epistemology of Deism (which ultimately bowed to human reason as its source and authority) morphed into secular humanism.
Consequently, it is a routinely ignored (hidden-in-plain-view) fact that the Protestant Reformation’s Scripture-affirming epistemology has been – and now is – embattled by secularized (human reason-based) epistemologies.
In particular, the origins-related information in Scripture is embattled by humanistic epistemologies that are rationalized as “plausible” using the blended assumptions of Hutton-Lyell uniformitarianism and Darwinian “natural selection” theories, so those “science falsely so-called” theories oppose Reformation epistemology.
By refusing to recognize the authority and relevance of Holy Scripture, secularized epistemologies (and secular etiology theories that disagree with Genesis) function as a secularized arm of the Counter-Reformation movement.
From its beginning, the Counter-Reformation movement was (and is) a religious and political backlash to the Reformation’s theology and its effects.
Accordingly, historic deeds and dynamics of Roman Catholicism’s Counter-Reformation, from the Spanish Inquisition to the Gunpowder Plot, have been repeatedly documented and analyzed (and, ironically, ignored) by many, for half a millennium.
With the religious Counter-Reformation (of Roman Catholicism), the Bible’s ultimate authoritativeness was (and is) magisterially replaced by Rome’s ruling clergy (and their ecclesiastical powers), who profess rights to collectively sit in judgment of (and thus sit “above”) the Holy Bible’s providentially preserved text.
However, in “secular” deistic ideologies, what magisterially replaces the authoritative role of the Bible? Human reason.
In particular, deistic thinking idolizes human reasoning that chooses to avoid Biblical revelation, as the epistemological authority for determining what is true, what is right, what is good, and what is relevant when investigating the past.
Deistic humanism (a/k/a secular humanism), like religious humanism, is a mankind-worshipping religion.
However – unlike religious humanism – secular humanism, in order to appear “secular” (i.e., rationalistic, “natural”, etc.), is a religion-by-another-name, that recruits secularized vocabulary (and employs secularized politics), in order to oppose the Holy Bible as the ultimate authority for truth and morality.
One example of a secularized (i.e., closed-Bible) approach to investigating about origins is the so-called “Intelligent Design Movement” (championed by the Discovery Institute), which is predominantly a modern revival/recycling of the “Enlightenment Era” deism.
How the Intelligent Design Movement Treats the Bible as Irrelevant
Is it possible to profess confidence in God’s Word, yet act like the Bible is not authoritatively relevant? Yes, according to the Lord Jesus Christ, who was confronted with that very situation when He called into question the public professions and practices of the Pharisees. He called their behavior “hypocrisy.” . . . .
Pre-Darwinian Deists and Secular Theories of Earth History
During the 1700s and early 1800s, following the secular influence of the Enlightenment philosophers, a closed-Bible approach to studying earth history became popular in certain professedly Christian academic circles. While insisting that the world of nature be studied apart from biblical revelation about nature, these Christian academics displayed obvious hypocrisy toward God’s Word—“It is God’s Word, but look here at what we discovered in nature.” This disregard for biblical truth opened the gates of “Christian” academia to interlopers influenced essentially by deism, whose errors thrived in closed-Bible environments.
Typically, these scholars did not publicly blast the Bible as being “wrong” or “irrelevant” regarding earth history, so their failure to treat biblical geologic information as authoritatively relevant was not a frontal assault. However, their educational practices followed and promoted secular theories about earth history that without question contradicted biblical data (e.g., old-earth scenarios that discarded the Genesis account of the global Flood)—elevating these theories as more reliable and more important, and thus more relevant, than what the Bible itself taught about nature.
In other words, they conformed to the secular culture of their society, rather than treating the Scriptures as the authoritatively relevant Word of God.
Modern Deists Nullify God’s Truth
In our time, founders of the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) employed the “wedge” strategy, an approach to design-focused science that intentionally uses a closed-Bible approach to investigating earth history and origins, with a goal to remove “religion” from academic discussions in order to prove that science “naturally” exhibits design.
However, this practice effectively nullifies the Genesis record, functionally denying that the first book of the Bible is authoritatively relevant for explaining origins.
Accordingly, IDM’s closed-Bible approach is just as flawed and disappointing as the approaches used by the geoscientists of the early 1800s—those same old-earth geoscientists who provided a uniformitarian platform for Charles Darwin’s natural selection theory.
The Wedge strategy of IDM, as a form of apologetics, disappoints [to put it mildly!] on several serious grounds.
First, the epistemological price for “marketing” IDM is just too high. As a strategy, IDM abandons public acknowledgment of the Lord Jesus Christ as earth’s Designer and Creator in order to gain a hearing on the topic of biological design. As a consequence, avoiding talk about the identity of the Designer allows the apologetic of IDM to accommodate theistic evolution, or any other unbiblical kind of “designer,” as the imagined producer of complicated life forms.
Second, IDM’s failure to treat Scripture as authoritatively relevant opens the door to evolutionary anthropological theories, such as one proposed by [theistic evolutionist] William Dembski, who imagines that hominid animals were morphed into Adam and Eve and then specially blessed by a miraculous amnesia of their evolutionary ancestry.
In effect, Dembski’s advocacy for “design” has, in fact, placed a “wedge” of false [epistemological] doctrine in the Church. Special revelation (truth provided in Scripture, e.g., Romans 5:12) is effectively separated from general revelation (truth observed in nature, e.g., Psalm 19:1).
Third, the commitment to a closed-Bible approach by IDM for explaining earth’s origins unsurprisingly forfeits any standards for preventing “unequally yoked” alliances between believers and unbelievers, and even uses the word “apologetics” while practicing wholesale ecumenicalism. Does the earth’s Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, really need a mixed-bag of such religiously diverse experts from Presbyterians to Baptists to Catholic evolutionists to Moonies? Contrast IDM’s team [illustrated by the Discovery Institute] of “strange bedfellows” with Nehemiah’s policy of rejecting heterodox ecumenical teamwork!
Fourth, what ultimate message is conveyed by a closed-Bible approach to discussing origins? It is a mask worn to appeal to the world, like an actor on a theatrical stage. This approach to analyzing earth history, and our own origins, effectively denies that the Holy Bible is authoritatively relevant in what it says.
Admittedly, movements like Intelligent Design [Movement], which essentially take the characteristics of religious deism, do occasionally post “gains” for God’s natural revelation (e.g., showing biology’s “irreducible complexity”). But the price paid for these gains is a net loss, because it gives the appearance that God’s Word is not needed and, thus, not authoritatively relevant to origins science—and nothing is more false than that.
Accordingly, using a deistic pushback to the Protestant Reformation’s “get-back-to-the-Bible” revival, secularists have advocated deistic/atheistic (i.e., rejecting-the-Bible-as-authoritatively-true-or-relevant) assumptions — relying upon an empiricism-enshrined “reason” as a (supposedly adequate) methodology for acquiring reliable truth about creation’s present and past.
In particular, deistic assumptions, applied to natural science categories, historically led to inventing and endorsing anti-creationist theories of “evolution”, as a rationalistic “high-brow” (i.e., pseudo-intellectual) attempt to escape Genesis’s record of our origins — with the peer-pressured endorsement of such “evolutionary” theories being lobbied prior and apart from any evidentiary prove-up of those grandiose speculations.
Why the rush to accepting deistic cosmogonies?
And why are evolutionary theories so desperately and vociferously defended by secular humanists (whether they wear the name “deist” or “atheist” or something else)?
Since one of the strongest proofs of God’s Creatorship is the physical creation that we live in (which includes our own physical bodies and the food we eat ), the non-theistic humanist is immediately confronted with the witness of creation, as an inescapable exhibit of God’s Creatorship. Trying to evade that reality, the non-theistic humanist lunges into an ephemeral illusion of uniformitarian ages and “natural selection”-invented phylogenetic “evolution” as substitutes for the Creator-God, Whose deeds are reported in Genesis. This is fallen human reason trying to find a replacement for God the Creator, groping in quixotic optimism that the ideas of Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin will “save” humanity from accountability to the God of Genesis.
How deistic humanism idolizes (despite mankind’s undeniable fallenness) human reason, and human ability, including an idolatrous epistemology that strives to replace the history reported in Genesis – by providing a theoretical tale of uniformitarian origins that relies on material accidents (and miraculous levels of luck), but it must be so materialistic that even an atheist can endorse it!
Successfully denying reality is, of course, ultimately impossible. And, for mere mortals, doing the impossible is, to say the least (!), not easily accomplished, — so secular humanists cannot be too choosy about what materialistic myths to accept as etiological replacements for the Creator-God of the Bible.
Consequently, the most popular effort aimed at that Creator-replacement target, since the AD1700s, has been the Hutton-Lyell uniformitarian assumption, which illogically reverses evidentiary norms of forensic science by assuming that the past is “key” to the present, which requires rejecting Genesis’s historical data.
Furthermore, the extended version that relies, for its imagined etiology, upon Charles Darwin’s magic-producing mantra, “natural selection” — a deceptive phrase that attempts to replace the etiological need for a true Creator Who can and does make selections, in order to make and order the huge biodiversity (of humans and animals, especially) that inhabit planet Earth.
By sleight-of-hand semantics, appearing to equate the bait-and-switch oxymoron-phrase “natural selection” with the tautological bromide “survival of the fittest”, Darwin’s imaginings must paint a plausible picture of origins (including credible cosmogonical and biogenetic etiologies) that luckily produce a creation (like the one we live in), yet which allegedly do so without a Creator-God (like the One described in the book of Genesis). And, for starters, the deists proudly promote their materialistic Creator-replacement enterprise — swaggeringly strutting as they hawk their snake-oil medicine, with an academic institution haughtiness that competes with the bluff-and-bluster pomp and pageantry of Hans Christian Anderson’s classic satire, The Emperor’s New Clothes.
But the scientific vocabulary that accompanies evolutionary myths (e.g., “natural” joined to “selection”; the biochemical “language” of DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis. The DNA “code”, which is supposed (by naturalistic evolutionists) to be all a matter of materialistic luck, is just the first of many embarrassments for materialistic cosmogonists. As a matter of forensic science, it gets much worse.
Among many other insoluble problems with this replacement cosmogony, however, was the problem of “missing links” – because if (and the “if” is unimaginable huge) humans supposedly “evolved” from ape-like ancestors, who themselves supposedly “evolved” from (if the imagined “transitional forms”) four-legged mammals, who supposedly somehow were biogenetic descendants fish, etc., etc., — where are the physical remains of those many “intermediate” (a/k/a “transitional”) animals, in that imagined long, long, long, long lineage of goo-through-the-zoo-to-you?
The basic idea of biological evolution is that random [i.e., accidental, unintended, unchosen] genetic mutations, over immense periods of time, have led to the appearance of physical or other traits that have provided organisms with a survival advantage. Consequently, because the surviving organisms, whether plant or animal, have had more reproductive success, new species have developed and, gradually, this process has brought about more and more varied types of living things [tracing back to common ancestors].
A study of [Charles] Darwin’s writings will reveal the immutable rule that those newly developed traits must have conferred a survival advantage in order to become more prevalent in the population.
A sticking point is the issue of “transitional forms” [a/k/a “missing links”], viz., those organisms which had not yet completely “evolved” certain traits [i.e., postulated “transitional” organisms that somehow acquired new and partially “complete” features, such as a partially developed wing, not yet capable of successful flight, or a partially developed lung, not yet capable of successfully breathing air].
Darwin found that the fossil record is sorely lacking in [such imagined] transitional forms, and he pondered why they were not “embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the [imagined-to-be-eons-old] earth.” [Quoting Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, 3rd ed. (London: John Murray, 1861), page 190.]
Thus, a major counterpoint to Darwin’s theory [of so-called “natural selection”] is that any biological structure (e.g., the eye) must work properly [i.e., advantageously so as to promote competitively “better” survival consequences] from the start, or the poor creature possessing only a partly “evolved” body would not be the most fit for survival.
Quoting Jonathan C. O’Quinn, “Gearing Up for Survival”, CREATION MATTERS, 20(5):12 (September-October 2015). This provides two glaring proof problems for evolutionists:
(1) what “transitional form” phenotypes are actually “advantageous”, for competitive survival and competitive reproduction purposes?
(2) Even if such “transitional forms” (of animals-evolving-into-other-kinds-of-animals ever existed), why is it that their physical remains are never found, in the fossil record (or elsewhere)?
In short, if evolutionary tales were true, when judges by forensic science proof standards — or, if evolutionary tales were even potentially plausible, by combining simple logic with imagined etiology scenarios, — the whole world should be cluttered with the physical remains of “missing links” (i.e., what evolutionists euphemistically call hypothetical “transitional forms” or “intermediates”) — if evolutionists were correct about the past we should be flooded with millions (if not billions) of “intermediate” hybrid-kind animal bones. But we are not avalanched in “missing link” skeletons – not even a snowdrift!
For this forensic absence of what evolutionary theory (when subjected to simple logic) requires, there is no plausible excuse. In other words, there is no excusing evidence or explanation that allows “common-ancestor-of-all-life” evolutionary etiologies to be “plausible”, that adequately explains away how or why the “missing links” are still “missing.
Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the “missing link,” the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more. If you still don’t know what a missing link is, don’t worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We’ve never seen one.
Moreover, evolutionary theory’s gradual-lucky-changes-over-many-generations assumption is shown as implausible, because half-evolved phenotypical traits could have provided an “survival advantage” to satisfy the Darwinist assumption that competitive survivability is populationally enhanced, accidently, by newly (and materialistically) acquired phenotypical traits (like new wings or new lungs).
Of course, more evidences and analysis could be given, to show the illogic and irrationality of secularized origin theories (and their assumptions, e.g., uniformitarianism, eons of “deep time”, “natural selection” as a phylogenetic “process”, etc.), — but the problems above suffice to show that secularized origin theories are not scientifically sound. Rather, they exist and are quixotically fought for as a desperately “needed” substitute for the history reported in Genesis.
In sum, naturalistic assumptions oppose Scripture’s authoritative relevancy, for no sound epistemological reasons. Rather, secularized etiology myths constitute a secularized attack – a secularized Counter-Reformation – against the authority (and especially the authoritative relevancy) of God’s Word.