Category Archives: Creation

Articles on creation, the deep biosphere, and the witness of the natural world

What We Replaced

I worked with hydroponics for a couple of years. Soilless gardening — mineral salts dissolved in water, no dirt, no microbes, just chemistry. The growth was fast and the yields were real. I was trying to feed a family that lived with us. The father had Long Covid and was bedridden much of the time. His wife and six young girls needed help keeping themselves fed.

Hydroponics seemed like the answer. Then the father got better. He believed his diet had done it, so he extended it to the rest of the family. A carnivore household has no use for hydroponic vegetables, and that was the end of it.

The Lord has saved my life through ALS. I do not mean He healed me — I mean He saved me in the way that matters. The changes have all pointed to glorifying the God who did it. At first I had trouble walking. His mercies are new every morning, and by October 2024 I could walk without support. By the fall of 2025 I was able to build the ladies a chicken house. Then in 2026 the Lord showed me the wonders of His creation, and I came to look at the soil as an extension of His will.

When I looked into it, things were not as they said they were.

Whose they? The works of man. In many cases they run contrary to the will of God.

The soil was cursed in Genesis 3:17 — “cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.” But a curse for our sake is not abandonment. The ground still works. The ground has been working since the Fall, doing what it was made to do, even under the curse.

We have lost our way. What was given to us to husband and manage, we have replaced with a shortcut. The trouble with hydroponics is that it uses mineral salts to grow food. It grows food. But consider this: would you rather be blessed by the Creator of all in the consumption of food, or go with the knowledge of man — which, when you look at things as a whole, is where the problem started in the first place.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband, and he did eat. — Genesis 3:6


The rhizophagy cycle: root tip absorbing and secreting bacteria in the soil

The rhizophagy cycle — a digestive system shared between plant and soil.

A root tip secretes sugars into the dirt. Bacteria come. The root takes them in through its softest cells, strips their walls off with a burst of reactive oxygen, and pulls nutrients from what remains — magnesium, calcium, iron, the metals that stick to bacterial cell walls. The bacteria, now wall-less, replicate rapidly inside the plant’s own cells. Then the root secretes them back out through root hairs, with enough food to rebuild. The bacteria return to the soil, recover, and the cycle starts again.

Hours, not seasons. Every growing tip. Every plant.

This is called the rhizophagy cycle. It was discovered in our lifetime. It has been there since the beginning.

The plant does not feed itself. The plant and the soil feed each other. The root tip attracts bacteria with sugars it made from sunlight, the bacteria deliver minerals the root cannot reach, the plant extracts what it needs, and returns the living bacteria to the soil to do it again. It is a digestive system shared between a plant and the ground it grows in.

Root hairs do not form without these microbes. The plant does not develop properly without them. No antioxidants, no phenolics, no amino acids in the fruit — or at least not enough. The microbes enter the plant’s cell nuclei during division and cause the plant to demethylate its own DNA, turning genes on. The plant’s genome is more expressed, more diverse, more alive when the system runs as designed.

A seed carrying microbial inheritance packed around the embryo

A seed is not sterile. It carries its microbial inheritance.

Seeds carry these microbes inside their cells, packed around the embryo. They are inherited. A seed is not a sterile object dropped into sterile dirt. It is a living package carrying its microbial inheritance into the next generation.

This is not a theory. It is observable, repeatable, and has now been documented in every plant examined for it.


Here is what man built instead.

We learned to pull nitrogen from the air with the Haber-Bosch process — a genuine feat of chemistry. We mined phosphorus and potassium. We spread them on fields. The plants grew. We called it progress, and it was, in the sense that more people were fed.

But thirty to forty percent of that fertilizer makes it into the plant. The rest runs off or sits in the soil doing damage. The soil’s microbial community collapses. The plant, now fed from outside rather than from within, stops producing the compounds that protect it. Disease moves in. We answer with fungicides. The fungicides kill more microbes. The soil degrades further. We add more fertilizer. The cycle accelerates.

We sterilize seeds. We grind and treat them so they store and ship cleanly, and in doing so we destroy the microbial inheritance packed around the embryo. Some conventional cultivars have lost the genes for microbial association entirely. Not the genes for the trait — the genes for the relationship. The plant can no longer do what it was built to do, because we bred the capacity out of it.

We did not improve on the design. We did not understand the design. We didn’t even know it was there. We saw a plant growing in dirt and assumed the dirt was inert and the plant was doing the work. We were wrong. The soil is alive. The plant is not growing alone.


Consider the work of God.

Living soil on the left, dead chemical system on the right

The designed system and the replacement. One is alive. The other produces bulk.

He made a system where a seed carries its own microbial inheritance. Where a root tip and a bacterium feed each other in a cycle that runs in hours and repairs itself. Where the plant’s genome is more alive, not less, when the system runs as built. Where the soil is not dead matter but a living participant in the plant’s life.

And man looked at it and said, “I can do better.”

He made a dead system. One-directional. Extractive. The plant is force-fed. The soil is a container. The seed is a sterile object. The microbes are pests. The relationship is replaced with a pipeline.

The dead system works — for a while, and only in the narrow sense of producing bulk. It does not produce the same food. Biological produce has more phenolics, more antioxidants, more amino acids, more diversity of gene expression. The fruit of the designed system is richer than the fruit of the replacement. This has been measured.

This is not a conspiracy. It is not a scandal. It is a pattern as old as we are. We see the work of God, and we build something we can control, and the thing we build is worse. Then we keep doing it because the thing we built is ours.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. — Proverbs 14:12


The rhizophagy cycle does not need us. It ran before we found it. It will run after we stop interfering with it. The mercy of God is that the system is resilient — it recovers when the chemicals stop. Dr. Walter Goldstein has rehabilitated conventional corn cultivars by putting the microbes back in. It takes three or four years. The plants recover their associations. The relationship can be restored.

That is the character of the God who built it. The system He designed does not just sustain itself — it restores itself when given the chance. The created order is not fragile. It is patient. It waits for us to stop long enough to let it work.

The next time you see a plant growing in a field, consider what is happening underground. The root tip is not pushing through dirt. It is running a digestive system it shares with the soil. It is feeding and being fed. It is doing what it was built to do.

We did not make it. We barely understand it. We replaced it with something worse.

The ground still works. The mercy of God still runs through it.

The Lithium Problem

The Big Bang story is the one everyone knows. Thirteen point eight billion years ago, everything that is began as something incomprehensibly small and hot, and expanded outward. In the first three minutes, the lightest elements formed — hydrogen, helium, trace amounts of lithium and beryllium. Everything heavier came later, cooked up in stars and scattered by supernovas. That’s the story. It’s told with confidence, and for good reason: two of those predictions work beautifully.

David wrote, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1). He didn’t have a telescope. He didn’t need one. The declaration is there for anyone with eyes to see. But when you’re committed to a story about how the heavens got here without Him, even the declaration becomes something to manage.

NASA’s nine-year WMAP image of the cosmic microwave background — the “baby picture” of the universe at 380,000 years old. This data feeds the baryon density predictions used in Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Credit: NASA / WMAP Science Team.

WMAP cosmic microwave background map

Big Bang nucleosynthesis — the name for the physics that calculates what the first three minutes should have produced — predicts the primordial abundances of the lightest elements. Hydrogen? Spot on. Helium-4? Remarkably close. Deuterium? Spectacular agreement between prediction and observation, confirmed by looking at the most distant, oldest gas clouds we can find. When the prediction and the measurement line up like that, it’s a real success. Nobody’s taking that away.

But then there’s lithium.

The same model, using the same physics, fed the same cosmic baryon density measured by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe — the same input that nails hydrogen and helium — predicts that the early universe should have produced roughly three to four times more lithium-7 than we actually find. Not three percent more. Three to four times more. The discrepancy is now at 4-5 sigma, which in plain English means it’s not a fluke, not a measurement error, not something that’s going to go away with a better telescope. It’s real. It’s been called the “cosmological lithium problem” in the literature for over a decade, and it’s not getting smaller. A 2008 paper out of Michigan State was titled “A Bitter Pill: The Primordial Lithium Problem Worsens.” It has worsened.

The Schramm plot: primordial abundances of helium-4, deuterium, and lithium-7 as a function of cosmic baryon density. Helium and deuterium observations overlap with predictions. Lithium-7 does not — the observed values sit a factor of 3-4 below the predicted curve.

Schramm plot showing lithium-7 discrepancy in Big Bang nucleosynthesis

Now here’s where it gets interesting — not the problem itself, but the response to the problem.

When hydrogen and helium match the prediction, that’s celebrated as confirmation of the model. When lithium doesn’t match the prediction, the model isn’t questioned. The lithium is. The proposed fix is that stars somehow destroy their own lithium over time — that the lithium was there at the beginning, as predicted, but something in stellar interiors burned it away over billions of years, leaving us with less than the model says should be there. The mechanism isn’t settled. The details are murky. But the direction is consistent: the model stays, the data needs explaining away.

Proverbs 18:17 says, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” The Big Bang had the floor first. It told its story, and the story sounded right — still does, in the parts that work. But lithium just walked into the courtroom. And the response of the first witness is to talk louder, not to listen.

Stop and look at that for a second.

If the model predicts X and you find X, you say “the model works.” If the model predicts X and you find one-third of X, you say “something must have destroyed two-thirds of X.” In both cases, the model is assumed right. The first case is science. The second case is something else. The second case is what you do when the model can’t be wrong — when the commitment to the model comes before the data.

If that pattern feels familiar, it should. You’ve seen it before.

Do you recall the beginning of covid? “Two weeks to flatten the curve” became “until the vaccine” became “until the boosters” became “the new normal.” The goalposts moved and moved and moved, and the confidence never wavered. States drew hard lines against “wrong think” — doctors who had studied hard, who had made sacrifices, who had built careers so that we would trust them, were silenced for asking questions the framework couldn’t answer. I am thankful to God that my ALS diagnosis came just before all of this. We were living in Minnesota, and if you haven’t had your head in the sand for three years, you know how that went down.

The current status of doctors is the current status of astrophysicists. They moved the story, kept the lab coat, and still want our trust. After everything that happened — after the contradictions, the silenced questions, the quiet reversals nobody acknowledged — they want us to trust them. And science.

The word science used to mean something. It comes from the Latin scientia — knowledge. That’s all it was. What do we know, and how do we know it. Newton called his work “natural philosophy” because the word still just meant knowledge back then. But over time the word narrowed, and then the authority claim hardened on top of it. “Science” went from meaning “what we know” to “the method by which we know” to “the institution that tells you what to believe.” Same word. Different thing wearing it. Somewhere along the way, “science” stopped meaning knowledge and started meaning trust me.

Jeremiah said this a long time ago: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD” (Jeremiah 17:5). He wasn’t talking about doctors or cosmologists — he didn’t have them — but he was talking about the human instinct underneath both. We want an authority we can see, a consensus we can lean on, a framework we can trust because the people in white coats told us to. And when the framework cracks, the instinct isn’t to question the framework. The instinct is to patch it and keep trusting.

That’s not a slam on scientists. Most of the people working on the lithium problem are doing honest, careful work, measuring stellar atmospheres, calculating nuclear reaction rates, looking for some pathway that might account for the missing lithium. Some of them might be right. There could be a stellar depletion mechanism that nobody’s found yet. That’s possible. But the shape of the search reveals the assumption: the answer must be something that preserves the model. Nobody in the mainstream literature is asking whether the model itself is the problem. That option isn’t on the table.

Richard Lewontin, the Harvard evolutionary biologist, told us why. Writing in the New York Review of Books in 1997, he said it more plainly than any scientist on his side of the line usually does:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”

Read that carefully. He didn’t say the evidence compels the materialist conclusion. He said the commitment comes first, and the apparatus of investigation is built to produce explanations that fit the commitment. The data is examined through a lens that was chosen before the data arrived.

The lithium problem is a small, clean example of exactly what Lewontin described. The model predicts an amount. The universe has a third of that amount. And the response is not “maybe the model is wrong” — the response is “find a way to make the universe match the model.” The model is the prior commitment. The lithium is the data that doesn’t fit. The apparatus of investigation produces explanations that preserve the model, because the model is what can’t be questioned.

There’s a pattern in Scripture that looks like this. Romans 1 says that what can be known about God is plain — He made it plain — but people “by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” They don’t just miss it. They have it, and they push it down. The word Paul uses is katechontōn — holding down, suppressing, pressing the truth under something else. The truth is there. The commitment to something else comes first. The truth gets explained away.

The lithium problem isn’t proof of God. It’s not proof the Big Bang didn’t happen. It’s one crack. One place where the confident story has a seam that doesn’t line up, and the way the seam gets handled tells you something about the story — not about the universe, but about the people telling it. The universe is fine. The lithium is what it is. It’s the story that has the problem.

If the framework can’t account for the data, and the response is to keep the framework and manage the data, that’s worth noticing. It’s worth noticing not because it proves anything, but because it shows you what’s being protected. And once you see what’s being protected, you can start asking why.

Jesus said, “If you abide in My word, you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32). The truth sets free. The framework — any framework that can’t be questioned — keeps you in.

One crack. That’s all. Just the thing itself.


References:

• Fields, B.D. (2012). “The Primordial Lithium Problem.” Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62, 105-123.

• Cyburt, R.H. (2008). “A Bitter Pill: The Primordial Lithium Problem Worsens.” arXiv:0808.2818.

• Lewontin, R. (1997). “Billions and Billions of Demons.” New York Review of Books, Jan 9, 1997.

What Hath God Wrought 2?

A short time ago, I could have walked past a prairie-dog colony and heard little more than barking and squeaking.

I would have thought I knew what I was looking at.

Prairie dogs.

Small animals that dig holes in the ground, stand upright beside their burrows, and bark when something frightens them.

What more is there to know?

I am beginning to discover how dangerous that question can be.

How many times have I looked at something God made, given it a name, placed it in a category—and stopped looking?

Psalm 150:2 — “Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.”

For decades, Dr. Con Slobodchikoff and his colleagues studied the communication of prairie dogs.

What they found should make us look again.

Prairie dogs are often considered pests because their burrowing can conflict with agricultural and land-use interests. They are also susceptible to plague. Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes plague, circulates among wild rodents and their fleas in parts of the western United States.

It would be very easy to see only that.

A pest.

An animal digging holes in a pasture.

But look closer.

Genesis 1:26 — “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth…”

Prairie dogs make alarm calls when danger approaches.

That by itself is not surprising. Many animals make sounds when frightened.

For many years, it was reasonable to suppose that such calls were essentially expressions of alarm:

Danger!

Run!

But Slobodchikoff began listening more carefully.

When a hawk appeared, the prairie dogs produced one kind of call.

When a coyote appeared, another.

A domestic dog produced another pattern.

A human produced still another.

Perhaps they were simply different degrees of fear.

That is a testable question.

So the sounds were recorded.

And when the recordings were analyzed, the differences were not merely something Slobodchikoff thought he heard.

They could be measured.

The acoustic structures differed in ways associated with what the prairie dogs were seeing.

Now we have something more than an impression.

We have an observation.

But there was another question.

Did those differences mean anything to the prairie dogs themselves?

There was a way to test that too.

Record the alarm calls.

Remove the predator.

Then play the calls back.

The prairie dogs responded differently depending upon which predator-associated call they heard.

Think about what just happened.

A prairie dog sees a predator.

It makes a sound.

Another prairie dog hears that sound and responds.

Now remove the predator.

Play only the recorded sound.

The other prairie dogs still respond according to the call they hear.

Something has passed from one animal to another.

Information.

And the experiments did not stop there.

Researchers found measurable acoustic differences associated not merely with broad predator categories but also with characteristics of what the animals were seeing.

That raises an extraordinary question.

What happens when a prairie dog sees something unfamiliar?

Something that does not fit neatly into its ordinary world?

Researchers presented prairie dogs with geometric shapes—a circle, a triangle, and a square—moving across the colony at the same height and speed.

Imagine seeing that experiment for the first time.

A geometric shape moves across a prairie-dog colony.

The animals look at it.

They call.

And when those calls are recorded and analyzed, measurable differences appear.

The results were not equally strong for every shape. Statistical analysis distinguished the triangle-associated calls from the circle-associated calls particularly well, while the distinction between the square and circle was less clear. In another experiment using two squares of different sizes, calls associated with the large and small squares could be distinguished with high accuracy.

I want to be careful here.

The experiment does not prove that a prairie dog has a word for “triangle.”

It does not prove that prairie dogs possess language in the human sense.

It does not tell us what is happening inside the mind of a prairie dog.

So what did the prairie dog just do?

I don’t know.

And that may be the most interesting answer of all.

Because there are things we do know.

There was an observable stimulus.

There was a recorded vocalization.

There were measurable acoustic differences.

There were repeatable behavioral responses.

And playback experiments showed that predator-associated calls could produce different responses even when the predator itself was no longer present.

Those are observations.

What we call them afterward—language, proto-language, communication, information encoding, or something else—is partly a matter of definition and interpretation.

But changing the name does not change what was observed.

That is becoming increasingly important to me.

If something can be observed, I want to observe it.

If it can be measured, I want to measure it.

If an experiment can be repeated, I want to repeat it.

And when the evidence does not justify a conclusion, I want to be willing to say:

I don’t know.

But I don’t want an assumption about what an animal cannot do to prevent me from seeing what it actually does.

There is wonder in that.

A short time ago, I might have heard a prairie dog bark and thought nothing more about it.

Now I wonder.

What information passed between those animals?

What does one prairie dog know about what another prairie dog has seen?

How much of the living world have I dismissed because I thought I already understood it?

How many times have I looked without really seeing?

I am finding myself asking the same kinds of questions as I look at slime mold and other living things.

What else have I overlooked?

What abilities has God placed within His creatures that I have simply assumed were not there?

I intend to keep looking.

Exodus 20:9 — “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work.”

There is something wonderful about being able to say, “I don’t know,” and then doing the work to find out.

God has opened my eyes to things I once did not see.

I find myself looking at the living world differently now—not because I have all the answers, but because I am beginning to understand how many questions I never thought to ask.

And perhaps the same can be true for you.

There is something far greater than prairie dogs, microbes, plants, slime molds, or any of the other wonders of creation.

Seek the Lord while He may be found.

Plead with Christ for mercy. Ask, and seek with an honest heart, for He knows you better than you know yourself.

We do not know the span of our days.

We are born, we live, and we die. Scripture tells us that because of sin there is judgment.

But it does not have to end there.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…”

And perhaps, once our eyes begin to open, we will look again at something we have seen a thousand times and realize:

I never really saw it before.

And ask:

What Hath God Wrought?

Sources

Acoustical Society of America — research presentation on prairie-dog communication

Animal Cognition — research on information encoded in Gunnison’s prairie-dog alarm calls

Applied Animal Behaviour Science — playback experiments examining prairie-dog responses to predator-associated calls

WellBeing International Studies Repository — research examining acoustic structures and responses to geometric stimuli

MIT Press — Cognition and Communication in Prairie Dogs

Northern Arizona University — Slobodchikoff research materials

Radiolab — “Wild Talk”

Animal Behaviour — research on prairie-dog alarm communication