Christian Natural Health

This week's podcast comes from this blog post, Hormesis. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the 1940s, as digital communications ramped up, Claude Shannon codified basic concepts of how to send and receive information along digital channels. His abstract model of communication goes like this: the message source creates a message in an encoding language, transmits the message, and then on the other end it is decoded by the message receiver. If there is a message with any coherence to it, there must be a message source. DNA is an extraordinarily coherent message. It's encoded in nucleotide bases, decoded by first RNA and then transcribed into proteins, which then fold in 3-D shapes that determine their functionality based on the chemistry of the protein sequence. A classic argument is the infinite monkey theorem: this is the idea that if you gave a monkey a typewriter, given infinite time, he might at least once by happenstance write Shakespeare's MacBeth (or War and Peace, or pick your favorite work of literature). Of course, one major problem is that no one argues that there was infinite time--most secular scientists believe the earth is a mere 4 billion years old. The probability of any combination of events occurring in sequence with one another requires multiplying the probability of each individual event--say, a correct first letter out of 26, times the probability of a correct second letter out of 26, times the probability of a correct third letter out of 26, and so on. The probability thus shrinks exponentially. Hamlet is around 130,000 letters. The probability of a monkey typing all 130,000 letters in the correct sequence is thus 1 part in  3.4 × 10^183,946. To put that in context, there are only 7 x 10^27 atoms in the entire universe, and 10^80 protons (since atoms are made of both protons and neutrons bound together in the nucleus). Even if every one of those protons was a monkey who had been typing at random continuously from the estimated time of the Big Bang (usually supposed to be some 13.7 billion years ago), it would still be statistically impossible for one of those protonic monkeys to accidentally produce Shakespeare's Hamlet. In order to have even a one in a trillion probability, we'd have to introduce the multiverse once again--there would need to be 10^360,641 universes, each filled with protonic monkeys typing at random for 13.7 billion years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem#cite_note-10). So for all intents and purposes, the supposition of the Information Theorem is absolutely correct. If there is a coherent message, there must have been a mind to generate it. Information doesn't come from nothing. It cannot. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Haley Perlus knows what it takes to overcome barriers and achieve peak performance. As an elite alpine ski racer, she competed and trained with the best in the world, pushing herself to the limits time and time again. Now, with a PhD in sport psychology, Haley continues to push boundaries and drive peak performance, helping athletes and Fortune 100 executives reach their goals.  Haley works with individuals and teams to manage and expand their energy capacity while increasing resilience, focus and drive. Dr. Perlus is a highly sought-after keynote speaker, professor, author and consultant to Division I athletes. She has spoken at many events some of which include VISTAGE, Tec Canada, Elite Fitness and Performance Summit and Trilogy Athletes. She is an adjunct professor at the University of Colorado lecturing on applied sport and exercise psychology at the graduate level. She has authored several books including The Ultimate Achievement Journal and The Inside Drive and her articles have been featured in publications such as Thrive Magazine, Fitness Magazine, IDEA Fitness Journal, EpicTimes, Telluride Inside, MyVega and BeachBody®.  Dr. Perlus earned her PhD at the University of Northern Colorado with an emphasis on social psychology of sport and physical activity, her MS at the University of Florida in sport pedagogy and her bachelor’s degree at the University of Western Ontario in kinesiology. Haley loves both water and snow skiing, and hiking. Her favorite meal is anything that requires only chopping or blending. To learn more about Dr Perlus, see www.drhaleyperlus.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An age-old objection to the concept of evolution is that of the blind watchmaker, and it goes like this. If a man were to find a working watch in an apparently abandoned place, far from civilization, which would be more probable: that the elements all happened to combine perfectly in the wind and heat and rain, such that a watch resulted by mere happenstance--or that another individual who had purchased the watch from an intelligent designer had been in that same place before, and had simply lost it? It's popularly believed that this argument has been discredited, but I've yet to hear the actual counter-argument to refute it. Darwin himself wrote of his theory of evolution, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." In other words, any organism, or component of an organism, that was irreducibly complex would discredit his theory. He could say this in his day, because at the time, biochemistry was entirely unknown. Author Michael Behe wrote in "Darwin's Black Box" that it was once believed that insects arose spontaneously from dung and spoiled food, because if left to themselves for any length of time, one might go away, return, and find organic material infested with them. When small organisms were assumed to be very simple, this seemed believable. Now we know better. Even the simplest cell is unbelievably complex--akin to an incredibly efficient city in which each citizen knows and performs his job. These jobs include protein synthesis and breakdown, energy production, repair, and communication within the cell and with the outside world, not to mention complete replication of itself. The concept of irreducible complexity, as Behe defines it, is to first determine the function of the system and all the system's components, and then to determine if all of those components are required for its function. If so, then by definition, that system could not have come about by gradual changes. If it did, natural selection would have no reason to select each iteration on the way to functionality, because each in-between step would be at best, useless, and at worst, fatal. The classic example of the former is the eye. Earlier iterations of this incredibly complex system could not see, and would thus be useless. Therefore, natural selection would have no "reason" to pass on the non-functional, half-formed system to future generations.  An example of the latter is the clotting cascade: an intricate internal and external feedback system allows blood to clot without a runaway clotting process that might solidify all the blood in the body at once. If the system did not work at all, though, even a minor injury would cause the creature to bleed to death. Objections to the concept of irreducible complexity tend to sidestep actual biochemical mechanisms in favor of conceptual precursors. These argue that light sensing organs were a precursor to the eye, for instance, and did confer survival advantage, and were thus passed down via natural selection. But since tiny steps cannot be demonstrated by which the one evolved into the other, this is a conceptual rather than a physical precursor, much like, as Behe argues, a bicycle might be a precursor to a motorcycle. The former is a much simpler means of transportation on wheels, but you can hardly make small, slight modifications to a bicycle and turn it into a motorcycle from the preexisting components of the bicycle. Even if one were to bring in outside parts to assemble, intermediate phases would still be utterly useless until the whole upgrade were complete. That scenario wouldn't represent evolution anymore, but something else altogether--something called punctuated equilibrium. The theory of punctuated equilibrium tries to rescue evolution from both the quandary of irreducible complexity, as well as the absence of fossil intermediates (which Darwin had predicted we'd be swimming in by now, if his theory were correct). The theory, proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in 1972, holds that evolution occurs in large jumps rather than tiny small changes. This theory reminds me of the deus ex machina literary device: "and then the gods came down and fixed everything." (Only, not God, you understand.) In literature, this device is considered a cop-out. Authors employ it only when they have no idea how to fix the mess they've created. But that's not the case in science, apparently. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week's podcast comes from this blog post, How Salt Affects Insulin Resistance. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Even if one were to believe that life evolved on its own, the physical laws are peculiarly conducive to life, apparently fine-tuned to an extraordinary degree. Stephen Hawking wrote in "A Brief History of Time": “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” Other prominent (non-believing) scientists who authored books on the subject of anthropic fine-tuning include Roger Penrose, Frank Tipler, and Paul Davies.There are four fundamental forces that define the subatomic world: gravity (which still isn't fully understood), electromagnetism (the attraction of opposite charges, enabling electron orbitals to remain in proximity to the nuclei, necessary for formation of chemical bonds), the strong nuclear force (binding atomic nuclei together), and the weak nuclear force (which allows protons to become neutrons and vice versa). If gravity were much weaker, matter would not be sufficiently attracted to each other and planets and stars wouldn't be able to form. If it were only slightly weaker, stars would not explode and distribute the heavy elements formed in their cores, necessary for life. If gravity were stronger, smaller and thus shorter-lived stars would have formed, burned out faster, and likewise would not have been massive enough to explode and distribute heavy elements for life. If the electromagnetic force were stronger, the electrons would collapse into the nucleus of an atom, rendering chemistry impossible. If it were weaker, electrons would not hover around the nucleus at all, likewise rendering bonding and thus, more complex molecules impossible. If the strong nuclear force were 50% stronger, hydrogen (the simplest atom and starting point for nuclear fusion in stars) would have been consumed in the early universe. If it were 50% weaker, fusion would either not have occurred at all, or would not occur to the degree necessary to form heavier elements. In order to produce adequate carbon and oxygen for life, the strong nuclear force could not deviate from its present strength much at all.  If the weak nuclear force were weaker, conversion of neutrons to protons would be much faster, and thus, hydrogen in stars would turn into helium too fast--ultimately causing the stars to burn up too quickly. In addition to these, the ratio of the masses of protons to neutrons is exactly as it must be for DNA to be possible. The masses of neutrons relative to protons are also exactly as they must be to allow heavy elements to form, without causing all stars to collapse into black holes. The convection in earth's core runs on radioactivity. If there were any less fuel, it might not have eventually formed iron, necessary for the production of earth's magnetic field which protects us from the sun's harmful solar wind, or charged particles that might otherwise destroy us. Any more radioactive fuel, and we'd be constantly beset by earthquakes volcanic eruptions, the ash of which would blot out the sun. Along the same lines, if earth were less massive, the magnetic field would be correspondingly weaker. As a result, the solar wind could strip away our atmosphere and thus, our breathable air.  If it were more massive, earth's gravity would correspondingly increase, which would at a certain point cause a more uniform surface (no mountains or sea floors). This would distribute the oceans across earth's surface, making us a water world. In order for water to be present on a planet at all, it must orbit its star at a precise distance, called the circumstellar habitable zone; too close and we would experience the same runaway greenhouse effect that is believed to have occurred on Venus (water evaporates, concentrates in the atmosphere, traps the sun's rays, and the temperature eventually becomes an oven). Too far, and it will freeze into an ice planet. The only way to prevent the water from freezing would be to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide to trap the sun's heat, but too much CO2 would mean not enough oxygen necessary to sustain life as we know it. Our sun also has to be exactly the right size. Too small, and it would be a red dwarf, emitting far less light, and most of it in the red end of the spectrum. This would greatly impede photosynthesis, as plants require both sufficient sunlight, and both blue and red spectrum light as well. Impaired photosynthesis means not enough oxygen. A smaller star would also have a much closer circumstellar habitable zone; the problem is, a much closer orbit to a star would dramatically increase the tides on the planet, too. This would cause the planet to become tidally locked, like Pluto and its moon, Charon. This means one side would always face the star, while the other would always face away, causing dramatic temperature variations. If the sun were larger, it

This week's podcast comes from this blog post, Does Salt Raise Your Blood Pressure?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rev. David Peterson is an ordained pastor and board-certified chaplain, with over thirty years of experience in ministry to congregations, as well as chaplaincy experience in hospitals, fire/EMS, law enforcement and hospice. He's provided emotional and spiritual care on the scenes of devastating events from 9/11 to school shootings and various community tragedies and in 1994, founded Shepherd’s Staff Pastoral Services, where he was able to provide spiritual care to thousands via chaplains he trained and placed at long term care facilities across the U.S. A study in resiliency and forgiveness, David has lived all his life with tremors in his hands and arms and navigated the bullying, harassment and embarrassing moments it has invited from those who lack understanding and empathy. And at the age of 12, he was targeted by a neighborhood pedophile who used alcohol, pornography and affirmation to abuse him sexually, emotionally, spiritually and mentally. Years of silence, anger, shame and self-destructive behaviors followed before healing and forgiveness transformed him. David and his wife, Arden — as well as their four sons and their families — reside in Chesapeake, Virginia. To learn more about Pastor David or to get his books, go to davidpetersonbooks.com  To check out some of his sermons, see - apostles-lutheran.org   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Tait is the founder of ORIGEN Orthopedics and Optimal Health, a medical practice that applies the principles of Functional and Regenerative Medicine with the goal of helping patients lengthen the lifespan of their joints, while simultaneously improving their total health and quality of life. ORIGEN is the only Orthopedic clinic in the region exclusively focused on non-surgical solutions. Dr. Tait has authored three books and has created two courses on his Integrative Regenerative approach to Orthopedic care and optimal health. He gives more than a dozen talks per year on his unique approach to optimizing one’s human potential. To learn more about Dr Tait, see www.origenortho.com ebook: 3 Reasons Doctors Never Get Surgery: tinuyrl.com/neversurgery Video: Stem Cell 101 Masterclass: tinyurl.com/helphealingSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's meditation comes from Psalms 6, 38, 39, 42, and 43. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.