Soil (Ask the Earth)

Our world contains another world within. Our very lives depend upon this dark and secret world. This hidden domain functions with machine-precision. Billions upon billions of marching workers accomplish more earth-moving in a single month than that of the pyramids’ construction. What is this finely tuned system with an incalculable number of laborers, all with one purpose to encourage life so that we, in turn, may live? 

The soil we trample on, probably without much thought, is this other world. Fittingly, the name of our planet gives recognition to the importance of the ground we walk on. “Earth” actually supports us, both literally and figuratively. The fungi, protozoa, and 5000 various types of bacteria help plants to grow and thrive. Without the tireless working of billions of bacteria and other microscopic organisms, we would die of starvation.

In one teaspoon of fertile soil there is an army of approximately a billion bacteria, in addition to fungi and protozoa. Each of the various kinds of bacteria helps plants to prosper. For example, some bacteria-workers convert atmospheric nitrogen to forms that plants can use. That same teaspoon also contains fungal filaments, some whose job it is to improve the ability of plant roots to absorb nutrients from the soil. These filaments and other substances produced by bacteria and fungi keep the soil from eroding by holding soil particles together. Also, thousands of single celled protozoa live in one teaspoon of soil. The contribution of protozoa is nitrogen, which is released as they feed on bacteria. About 80% of the nitrogen plants require is derived from protozoa. Larger creatures, such as earthworms, round out the soil-world’s laborers, which are all synced in the grand purpose of supporting life. Earthworms help aerate the soil, create channels for growing roots and increase the soil’s capacity to retain moisture by burying plant residue. Fifteen to 30 tons of dry soil can pass through one earthworm in a year. To put that in perspective, that is more earth than nine dump trucks carry in a single load. Kathy Merrifield, nematologist (scientist specializing in worms), sums up this underground realm: “All these things that live in the soil may seem unimportant, but they work together in a system that is truly the foundation of life.”1

Merrifield rightly terms this world a “system” since the microscopic creatures exhibit factory-like functions, independently at work, yet with an over-arching goal. In a handful of soil, these microbes are more numerous than the population of our planet, yet they all work together to create a perfectly suited environment for plant growth. If any of the components in this underworld were missing or in the “wrong” proportions, human life, dependent on the fruit and vegetables from the soil, could not exist. No system this interdependent and incredibly complex could arise without a strategy.

Consider just three aspects of soil composition that point to a Designer. First, sixteen nutrients are essential for plant growth and reproduction. Many others enhance plant growth, but sixteen are required for life. Some of these are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, calcium, boron and zinc. Secondly, these and other nutrients must be in the correct ionic form. For example, though nitrogen is available in the soil, it is “unusable by plants until it is made available” through the “decomposition by micro-organisms.”2 Thirdly, the nutrients need to be in the proper proportions and with the correct level of pH (measure of acidity or alkalinity). Most plants need a pH near 7.0 in order for the plant roots to take up nutrients. Calcium needs to be abundantly available, whereas only a small measure of magnesium is required. Sulfur needs to be present in even a smaller amount, and only a trace amount of boron is needed. However, boron is still essential, for without it, the plants could not construct their mineral-fed “bodies.”3 Soil has the “just right” combination, type, and proportion of nutrients. 

In addition, the domain under our feet contributes antibiotics. Researchers from Northeastern University in Boston have discovered 25 potential new antibiotics in soil. Since “many bacteria and fungi naturally make antibiotics to keep themselves safe,” most of the antibiotics used today are gleaned from nature. Of special note is one from a field in Maine which in studies killed a “wide range of bacteria, including the hospital superbug MRSA.”4  A recently found bacterium in the soil, Mycobacterium vaccae, duplicates the effect on neurons of such drugs as Prozac. This bacterium is a natural antidepressant with no adverse effects. Either by direct topical contact through a minor cut or by inhaling the bacteria, people can absorb it into their bloodstreams. The results of this natural antidepressant can last up to three weeks.5  So, we have one more reason to appreciate soil and one more reason to appreciate the Designer of soil. 

The loam beneath us provides for us from cradle to grave. The wood for a cradle began as a tree. Our lives are sustained by yields from the soil. In fact, for our every breath we rely on the oxygen released during photosynthesis. Finally, our resting place will be in the earth. The Bible informs us that we were sculpted out of clay in the beginning. In Genesis 3:19 we see the full human cycle. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

Perhaps you will want to pause with wonder at the toil within the soil when you next step out. Looking up shows you the stars, but looking down may be inspiration as well. For if every inch of soil wasn’t filled with such a staggering number of organisms working to allow and promote life, there would be no plant, animal or human life on the planet.



[1] Herring, Peg. “The Secret Life of Soil.” 2 February, 2010. Oregon State University Extension Service.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil
[3] Solomon, Steve. Gardening When it Counts. Canada: New Society Publishers, 2005.
[4] Macrae, Fiona. “Is this the answer to doctors’ prayers?” Daily Mail.

[5]  Grant, Bonnie. “Antidepressant Microbes In Soil: How Dirt Makes You Happy.” Gardening Know How.    

Humpback Whale Songs

“Music is the universal language,” Henry Wadsworth Longfellow claimed. Unfortunately, we cannot translate the music whales are composing. Pause for a moment and think about how unique it is for any animal to compose music! Many birds have musical calls, but their songs remain the same for a lifetime. They are singing, but they are not composing.* On the other hand, the male humpback whales have been described as "inveterate composers of songs that are strikingly similar to human musical traditions."[1] Each year, all the males in a population sing the same song, but the songs change from year to year. The changes are not minor; they are whole new repertoires. “For decades, researchers have studied the elegant, ululating songs of male humpbacks,"[2] In all this time, the same combination of sounds has never reoccurred! The song-composing ability of humpback (and other) whales is direct evidence for a Composer a.k.a. Creator since fine arts or music are not the results of random mishaps.

How and why would a symphony magically appear? Charles Darwin recognized an analogous problem of trying to fit beauty into an evolutionary model. Evolution (by definition) is unplanned, unsupervised, unintelligent, and more to the point in this case, unartistic. Darwin wrote, “The sight of a feather in a peacock tail makes me sick.”[3] Darwin was referring to how the peacock’s inexplicable beauty conflicted with his theory. Similarly, music does not “fit” the evolutionary model. There is no naturalistic explanation for beauty or symphonies in animals. Following the scientific method requires the naturalistic theory to be abandoned, not the evidence to be ignored.

Humpback whales’ songs can travel over a 1000 miles through the ocean. The sequences of “are quite complex and often continue for hours on end.”[4] Humpback whales change their song as a group and each ocean’s population sings a consistent song. Most of these songs last just under a half-hour and then repeat. This repetition is so precise that their performance is referred to as “singing” and each repeated series of sounds is termed a “song.” One song cycle can last up to 24 hours. Like human language, whale music constitutes sonic communication that exhibits remarkable structural complexity.

Yearly, a new song moves group by group travelling thousands of miles across an ocean. These songs are either carried by males who move between populations or shared when humpbacks mingle on migrations. For about half a century, scientists have tried tackling the question of why whales are singing. It was first proposed that singing attracted a mate, but not one shred of evidence has been found to support this theory. Many other questions remain unanswered: Why do whales have completely new themes year to year and alter their songs month to month or sometimes even week to week? Why do only the males sing? In a given group, why do all the whales tend to sing the identical tune? Even current research has failed to shed light on these questions.

Some researchers are so impressed with the humpback whales they “align them on the spectrum of personhood!”[5] The reason for this respect is humpback whales are very social creatures with highly developed brains and complex behaviors. According to scientists, whales actually possess a culture. The humpback whales learn various songs “through their social living, singing, and listening, and thus can be said to possess a form of culture.”[6] In addition, the whale’s brain has the same type of spindle neuron cells that direct feelings of fear and pleasure in humans. The frontoinsular cortex in people is active when we empathize with others. Spindle neurons help us remember emotions and “enable us to care for others beyond our immediate needs.” In whales these spindle cells are “found in the frontopolar cortex, but no one knows what they are doing there.” [7]

In his book, Thousand Mile Song, naturalist David Rothenberg alludes to an idea suggesting whales are communicating emotion rather than information with their songs. If this radical idea is true, then whales are composing and singing music for the same reasons that humans enjoy music! That theory would explain a great deal. First, it explains why there are stanzas and rhymes in the songs (first identified by scientists in 1971) and why the songs are a true composition with elements of rhythm and patterns. If whales are making music as art, it would explain why the sounds are recognized as mystical and beautiful. If whales compose and sing for enjoyment, then it makes sense the songs change frequently—because whales would tire of last year’s tunes. It may sound far-fetched to compare whales’ appreciation of music to our own, but scientists have been unable to formulate any other idea which fits the whale’s observed behavior so well. If people play around with “sounds for their own emotional and beautiful qualities, why not accept that other creatures could dwell in music the same way?”[8]

Of course, then the question remains, what type of song does the humpback whale sing? In the Bible the imperative is given in Isaiah 42:10: “Sing to the Lord a new song, and His praise from the ends of the earth, You who go down to the sea, and all that is in it…Sing to the Lord, all the earth.” Perhaps the mighty humpback whale is simply doing as it is told.


*Exceptions are the Nightingale and two African songbirds which do change their songs over a season.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_vocalization

[2] Keim, Brandon. “Listen: Humpback Whale Songs That Swept the Pacific.”

[3] Charles Darwin’s letter to Asa Gray. April 3, 1860. Darwin Correspondence Project, no. 2743.

[4] National Geographic. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/humpback-whale/

[5] Keim

[6] Revkin, Andrew C. Humpback Whales Yield Some Secrets to Science. 20 March 2012.

[7] Rothenberg, David. Thousand Mile Song. New York: Basic Books, 2008.

[8] Rothenberg.

Echolocation in Bats (Ask the Animals)

Bats are a remarkable example of animals that people can learn from. In the case of bats, animals are teaching advanced engineering! We finally figured out in the 20th Century the highly technical principles behind the bat’s echolocation and copied them to create sonar and radar systems.

Echolocation is the use of sound waves and echoes to determine where objects are in space, and bats are experts at it. Not all bats use echolocation, but over half of the almost-thousand species of bats do. Bats use “both constant frequencies (CF calls) and varying frequencies that are frequently modulated (FM calls). Most bats produce a complicated sequence of calls, combining CF and FM components.”[1] In their calls, bats use two different types of frequency structures to acquire information. The FM is a broadband signal, sweeping through a range of frequencies. This signal is used to precisely locate an insect and it reduces background noise of large objects. On the other hand, a CF tone is a narrowband signal; the sound stays constant at one frequency. The CF tone gives feedback on the velocity of a target and the fluttering of its wings as Doppler shifted frequencies (alteration in sound wave frequency). * When bats emit sound waves as clicks or chirps from their mouth or, in rare cases, the nose, these sound waves hit an object. By the intensity of the returning echo, bats not only can ascertain where an object is, but its size and shape. Bats can pinpoint objects as thin as a thread![2] So the bat’s ears are acting as receivers, and its clicks are equivalent to the electromagnetic waves of radar systems such as those used to locate planes.

Echolocation requires flawless execution. For example, the bat has to decide at what rate to pulse its sounds. When a bat is searching for insects, it may pulse slower; that is, have a longer interval (100 milliseconds) between calls. However, as the bat gets closer to a flying insect, it has to increase the rate of call-repetition (an interval of only 5ms) so it can keep updating information on the location of the target. Bats can pulse their sounds with incredible speeds, up to 200 clicks a second, after they detect potential prey. Understandably, these clicks are referred to as a terminal buzz! Since bats use echolocation to orient themselves as well as to locate dinner, their auditory systems would have to be created for this purpose and fully functioning from the beginning. The oldest bat fossils ever found support this fact; they look like the bat skeletons of today.

Bat sounds are extremely loud, equal to a smoke alarm going off four inches from your ear![3] Fortunately, they are ultrasonic, too high for the human ear to hear. However, this brings up an engineering-design problem. How can the bat’s sensitive ears not be damaged when it blasts out sounds at 60-140 decibels? Outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins succinctly explains: “Now here is the problem that would strike the engineer trying to design a bat-like machine. When an analogous problem struck the designers of radar in the Second World War, they hit upon a solution which they called ‘send/receive’ radar. The radar signals were sent out in necessarily very powerful pulses, which might have damaged the highly sensitive antennas waiting for the faint returning echoes. Engineers came up with the idea to turn off the sending.” To clarify: “The ‘send/receive’ circuit temporarily disconnected the receiving antenna just before the outgoing pulse was about to be emitted, then switched [it] on again in time to receive the echo. The bats developed send/receive switching technology long long ago...” [4]

Dawkins uses anthropomorphic language, claiming bats did the developmental engineering. People are forced to ludicrously assign creative abilities to the animal, itself, when they deny there’s a Creator. Engineers in WWII copied the engineering of the bat, but not the engineering by the bat. As Dawkins illustrates, echolocation entails solving complex problems that require innovative designing.

The “send/receive technology” of a bat refers to the working of the bat’s ear. Analogous to man-made radar, the bat shuts off his ear by contracting muscles to prevent three bones in the ear from transmitting sound. Dawkins elaborates: “The mounting and hinging of these three bones, by the way, is exactly as a hi-fi engineer might have designed it to serve a necessary ‘impedance-matching’ function.” The ear closes off sound before each loud pulse to avoid damage. Then…“the ear returns to maximal sensitivity just in time for the returning echo. This send/receive switching system works only if split-second accuracy in timing is maintained.”[5] [Emphasis is mine to call attention to the wording Dawkins uses to describe the technical aspects of a bat.] If reality is accurately described, words like “engineered” and “designed” can hardly be avoided.

Though Dawkins does not want to credit a Creator, his language points to design in describing how bats function. [Again, emphasis is mine.] A “clever idea that might occur to the engineer, especially one interested in measuring the speed of a moving target, is to exploit what physicists call the Doppler Shift.”[6] Bats do exactly this; by the echo, the bat determines if an insect is moving closer or further away from it. “Echo-sounding by bats is just one of the thousands of examples that I could have chosen to make the point about good design. Animals give the appearance of having been designed by a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer, but…”[7] Sometimes things really are what they seem, Mr. Dawkins. Animals have the appearance of being designed because—wait for it—they are designed.




*To better understand the Doppler shift, think of the sound of an ambulance speeding by you. You will hear a sudden drop in pitch as it races by.

[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-bats-echolocate-an/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation
[3] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-bats-echolocate-an/
[4] Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. (27).
[5] Dawkins (27).
[6] Dawkins (29).
[7] Dawkins (36).

SPICES, not 350 happy accidents!

Ah! The delightful fragrance of cinnamon wafting from an apple pie draws you to it. If you decide to taste the pie, you can savor the robust ginger in the amber juices. Perhaps you will detect a trace of nutmeg if you lick your lips. Indeed, spices are the spice of life. The Greeks knew this when their myths told of gods who valued spices above gold--a wreath of rosemary, for example. Why do all these spices taste so delicious and have the ability to enhance so many of our foods?

To me, there is only one logical explanation. Our evidently gourmet God invented them for our pleasure.  No vanilla bean adapts so that it can be enjoyed in ice cream. No mustard plant selects genes for their zestfulness, so we can have more flavorful sandwiches. No sarsaparilla plant gets a genetic benefit by producing roots with a flavor that satisfies in a frosty mug. Giving humans pleasure is not the business of plants; it is the business of a caring God.  

Spices enrich a dish, delight the senses of both taste and smell, and often offer some health benefit, such as aiding in digestion or boosting the immune system.  The most ubiquitous spice may be cinnamon, having endless uses when a flavor that offers warmth is desired. Just think, the scraping from a tree bark does everything from complementing chocolate to inventing the cinnamon roll. Ancient Egyptians used cinnamon and Hebrews offered it in consecrated incense. The ancient nations considered cinnamon as a gift fit for kings and gods. Yet, we know it truly is a gift to all humans, to be universally enjoyed.

Think about all the spices we like, from the bright flavors of Curry, Caraway, and Cumin to the unique tastes of Basil, Sage, and Oregano. Then there’s the licorice-taste of the aromatic Anise and my personal favorite, Mint. The bold fragrance of Rosemary compliments many main dishes. Wildly popular are the almost unlimited variety of peppers. There are black peppercorns, Jalapeno peppers, Paprika, and the base pepper, Capsicum frutescens, from which comes cayenne pepper, tabasco, and chili powder. The Hungarians had a saying about the fiery spice, Paprika. “Some long for riches, and others for fame, but everyone yearns for paprika goulash!” [1]

A delectable smorgasbord of flavors cannot simply be dismissed as an “accident”.  I do not think even one gratifying spice could be a random occurrence. Certainly, over 300 spices pleasing to the palette are not the results of mindless mutations. When one considers the variety and healthfulness of spices, the foregone conclusion is that they are the result of intent, intent to be both pleasing and healthy. Intent can only exist in the will or mind of a sentient being. Ergo, there is a Creator; a Creator whose works can be described in terms of unlimited creativity, gourmet sensibilities, and culinary mastery.

---

[1] Swahn, J. O. The Lore of Spices. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1997.

Thoughts on Art

Note: Not my usual one animal or object a post. This is simply my thoughts today on what is art.

First we need a working definition of art to address the topic of art in nature. According to an art history site, the basic components of art are content and form. Content concerns the ideas in and behind the artistic work. That is, what the artist was meaning to portray and actually did portray. Form includes color, value, space and line.  Form also refers to the Principles of Design such as balance, contrast, emphasis and proportion. Physical materials are also part of form.[1]  Materials are whatever the artist has used in creating the art; that could mean canvas and oil paints, but it is in no way limited to that medium. There are artists who work with paper, tin and other metals, marble, and much more. So here’s the question. Is any material excluded automatically? I think not. An artist could use sand for a castle on the beach, and though temporary, it is still an artistic endeavor and very much art!  An artist could use fabric and design an intricate quilt. Therefore, an artist could use botanical substances and it would still be art, would it not? I’ve seen lovely pressed flowers artfully arranged under glass which certainly qualify as art. So here’s the crux of this matter: Why do many people refuse to call botanical and biological designs art? Is their definition of art narrowed down specifically so they don’t have to admit there is an Artist?

If a work or object exhibits the components of art: design, order, intent, is aesthetically pleasing in its balance and proportions, and effective in its use of color and lines, it can hardly be said to have magically arisen. Consistency is necessary for the definition of art. For example, if a belt (cowhide) is tooled and designed, we praise the artist; we see the intent is to both hold up pants and to add decoration.  Consider if that cowhide is covering a mechanical bull-riding structure; we readily admit the ride had an artist. So, it is just one step further to ask, what if that cowhide is on a cow? That living cow fulfills the definition of art: It has design, function, aesthetic color combinations, balance, and an artist’s intent.  If a cowhide tacked on a mechanical ride requires an artist, how much more would the actual cow, infinitely more complex and useful, require one?

Some may wish to exclude as art, botanical and biological presentations on the basis of the materials used. Yet, those people are not consistent in excluding those materials. For example, a lovely flower arrangement in a shop is defined as art, but not the lovely arrangement of wild flowers in a spring meadow. It seems hypocritical to credit the artistic ability of the artist when fruit is painted on canvas, but not the artist of the original fruit. Artists universally bemoan their lack of ability to fully capture on paper the vivid hues of a sunset, the sparkle of an eye, or the loveliness of flesh. In other words, their “art” pales in comparison with the original “art.”

Since being on canvas is not a pre-requisite for art, it is difficult to make a case for restricting almost any medium. Artists routinely use non-traditional media. A case in point is a work of art near my town in Nevada which is made of dirt and space. This land artwork is called “The Double Negative” by artist Michael Heizer. “It is essentially two ends of a trench spanning empty space. The trenches together measure 1,500 feet long, 50 feet deep and 30 feet wide.”[2]  People travel from all over the world to see it. I hope they don’t miss seeing the contrasts in snow-capped mountains, the desert in riotous colors of spring flowers, or the fiery sunsets while they examine this other art.

An example of nature-as-art stands proudly at my garden’s edge: a row of sunflowers. The center of the flower contains seeds in a spiral designed with mathematical precision. The arrangement uses the golden ratio (1.61803).  That spiral is repeatedly found in nature and is reproduced in paintings; I think it is safe to assume the “original” spiral had an artist as well. When I see the sunflowers’ golden heads turned toward the sun, dare I not call it art and credit an artist? Yet when some person makes a feeble attempt to capture the sunflower’s bright summer yellows and the spiral design of its seeds on canvas, we call it art? How can the original figure, for example that of a man, not be considered art, when we call a sculpture of a man, art which is only copying those same proportions, such as “David” by Michelangelo?  However expertly the lines, symmetry, and image of a man are duplicated in marble, the statue is still a limited reflection of the original. If the copy is termed art, the prototype should be considered art.

So why when other objects d’art are minus a frame are they so decidedly not art? Could it be that if people admit to the beauty and wonder of the earth, from soft-pink cheery blossoms to fragrant roses, then they would have to admit to an artist? In their world-view, some people simply do not want there to be an artist. The decision is not based on facts, and certainly not on the abundant evidence around us, but it is a decision to close their eyes to a world of stunning art.

---

[1] http://arthistory.about.com/cs/reference/f/what_is_art.htm

[2] Bunker, Stephanie. “Renowned Modern Art in the Desert.” Moapa Valley Progress  29 January, 2014.

Thoughts about Barcode & DNA

When I was researching for my next post, I came across a site called the Barcode of Life Data Systems. The term "barcode" commonly used in genetics, prompted me to think, then write. So this post is a separate thought before I write about the silkworm.

In modern times in order to label products, a “barcode” system is used. Do you think that code formed on packages due to the accidental scraping of boxes? Of course not. The information is meaningful and consistent with the product’s identity. It has been put there as an IDENTIFIER of the object. The previous sentence is written in the PASSIVE VOICE; it needs a subject. What subject will you decide is the cause of the action? (Remember the law of cause and effect from science class: “Every material effect must have an adequate cause.”) What or who put the barcode on living beings?

Fill in the blanks and see how much sense you can make: _______put barcodes on cans of peaches, but ______ put(s) barcodes on silkworms. 

I’d be interested in your decision, but mine was: Intelligent people put a barcode on cans of peaches, but Someone more intelligent puts a barcode on the silkworm. In both instances, the barcode serves a purposeful function and is obviously the correct label for the object. In both cases, the barcode is a complex code. On canned goods, it is applied after the contents to serve only as a label. In living beings, the barcode also functions as a set of directions to “build” what it labels. The lines of code are akin to the arrangement of an instruction booklet. This system would be analogous to starting with an empty can, then pasting on a barcode and having that code dictate the creation of the peaches inside the can!

Due to space limitations, I’m including just a bit of code for the silkworm so you can visualize it.    

CGAAAATGAATTTATTCTACAAATCATAAAGATATTGGAACATTATATTTTATTTTTGGTATTTGATCAGGAATAATTGGAACATCTTTA---

AGACTTTTAATTCGAGCTGAATTAGGAAATCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGAT---

Skip the following if you understand what the genetic code is and why scientists assign a letter to each nucleotide.  The following is excerpted for background information from the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service from a website: Genetic Monitoring for Managers. The article is: “Principles of Conservation Genetics” at: http://alaska.fws.gov/gem/principles_I.htm

The genetic code is like a mystery novel, history text, and time log all wrapped into one. The goal of a geneticist is to learn how to read these books written in a simple* 4 letter alphabet and decode critical information about the species under study. 

DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid for those that want to impress their friends, is composed of a sequence of molecules called nucleotides. There are only 4 different nucleotides in DNA that create the genetic code and these are often referred to by a single letter: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), and Guanine (G). Yes, the text for your entire body is written in a code made up of 4 letters!**

*I object to the word “simple.” Computer code is written in “only” two letters and look what that accomplishes. The use of four-letters sounds streamlined, not simple.

**Note the passive tense (“is written”). That phrasing begs the question, WHO wrote it?

Preface

PREFACE

In the Bible, in the book of Job 12: 7 we are challenged to “ask the animals” with the promise that they will “teach us”. How can we do that? By either research or observation, we are essentially asking the animals how they are designed. We can let the animals tell us if they are purposefully created or the result of a random accident by noting how they look and studying how they live.

After researching a few facets of any animal, the animal “taught” me something far different than what the television was blaring day after day. For example, when I learned that the female emperor penguin abandons its egg for months, returning just in time to feed the newborn chick, the penguin was my teacher.  It told me to ask, “Who sets so precise a clock?” The Monarch Butterfly taught me to question: “Who could program a system so that an offspring four generations later knows to migrate to the same tree in Mexico?” I was even the student of a scarab beetle when I learned it navigates using the night stars as a compass. The beetle prompted me to inquire: “Who gave me eyes to the stars?” 

The elaborate design and astounding system of each animal poses a compelling question: Who made this? Job 12:9 states the animals will answer with a rhetorical question: “Which of all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?”  

The purpose of this blog is to reveal some of what you may be taught if you are willing to be “schooled” by animals.