I have been trying so hard to get in a weights session and a cardio session on BOTH days of the weekend. On Saturdays, I get to watch sports and funny men’s videos. On Sundays, I’m watching sermons or videos on apologetics. This past Sunday, I watched two videos on animal design from the 2025 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, and Tuesday night I watched two more.

First, I should say that Denton Bible Church is the best church in the United States for Christian apologetics. They have been doing apologetics events featuring people like William Lane Craig as far back as I can remember. The do apologetics conferences. And they do science and faith conferences. If you live near Denton, you should by all means attend this church. And if you like sermons, they have sermons, too. I’d be more inclined to trust these guys for sermons, because of their long, long, long record of apologetics.

So, on the past Sunday, I first watched this lecture with Eric Hedin on the design of the honeybee:

This lecture is only 35 minutes, but it talks about a lot of the strange behaviors of the honeybee, including their weird message-conveying dancing.

I found an article about it at Science and Culture (formerly Evolution News):

The famous “waggle dance” that a scout bee performs back at the hive after discovering a food source communicates to other bees (by touching, since the inside of the hive is dark) both the distance and the direction of the food in relation to the current position of the sun. Bee keepers have found that if they reorient the honeycomb on which the bee is dancing, the undaunted bee will adapt its dance so that it still correctly communicates the proper direction to the food source. Sometimes the dancing scout bee will continue its dance for more than an hour, and over this time, the position of the sun has changed. In response, the bee will compensate for the sun’s movement across the sky by gradually adjusting the angle of its dance.

So, the next one I watched was by Paul Nelson, and he was talking about the Monarch butterfly:

This one is only 30 minutes. Once, when I was at an intelligent design conference in the early 2000s, Paul Nelson came up to ask a question at one of the microphones. My foot was pushing out into the aisle, and he pinched it and said hello, and he knew my real name, because it was on my name tag. I have remembered it all these years. He is one of my favorite intelligent design people.

Finally, here is the one with Ray Bohlin, talking about the design of woodpeckers:

This one is only 15 minutes long!

I have a couple of red-headed woodpeckers in my backyard, and they had been pecking on my guttering very early in the morning. I got so mad at them, that I started bringing the bird feeders in at night, and putting them out in the late morning. That worked. I’m having a lot of fun watching these amazing little creatures, the older I get. I am putting out water, seeds, nuts, fruits, and nectar (if the hummingbirds are around) every morning, and taking it all back in at night. Next I have to build nesting boxes.

The last animal design video from this conference that has to do with design in nature is the one on plants, which is done by Emily and Daniel Reeves. It’s called “Plants are Creatures, Too!”

Daniel is the biologist, and Emily is the biochemist.

I remember in the old days, I would have order videos like this on VHS tapes through a web site, or by mailing in an order form and a check! And then, because I watched them over and over, I would have to rewind them over and over. Things are so much easier now. I would really like it if more young people knew how to make a case for design in nature by watching these videos over and over. What I would like is for Christians to be thinking about their faith. Not just having feelings, not just having community, but really thinking “could this really be true?” and “how would I explain what I believe to someone who doesn’t accept the Bible as inspired by God?”

Do you all have something to watch during your workouts? I stopped going to pay gyms, and made a home gym in my living room (I have no furniture), and that allows me to watch wholesome constructive videos while I work out and cook meals. It encourages me to work out and cook my own meals, because I can learn something and keep my skills up.

I listened to a lot of different apologetics-related shows last week, and the very best one was Dr. Casey Luskin appearing on Dr. Sean McDowell’s podcast to discuss new findings about chimpanzee and human DNA. Have you ever heard the argument for common descent that says “human and chimpanzee DNA only differ by 1% so of course they have a common ancestry”? I had a friend in high school who believed that. Let’s see what the evidence says.

This is the YouTube episode from Sean’s popular YouTube channel:

This is 64 minutes long.

Here are the questions from the interview:

• How did you first get interested in the topic of origins, and human origins in particular?
• What interested you in the topic of human-chimp genetic similarity?
• Can you give us some examples of people who’ve claimed that we’re 99% genetically similar to chimps or apes or kind of 1% different from them as they use that to make an argument for common descent slash evolution?
• How do museums present the data to visitors?
• When did that data that questions the 1% chimp-human DNA difference first emerge?
• What is an “icon of evolution”?
• Does human-chimp genetic similarity falls into that category of “icons of evolution”?
• Do you have a sense of how significant this piece of evidence is for supporting Darwinian evolution?
• How was the original 1% genetic difference calculation made?
• So now we have new evidence that the 1% number was wrong. A new paper suggests that there is a 15%. How did they calculate that?
• Are these numbers being challenged? Are critics accepting them, saying this is the new data?
• Now, one response that I’ve heard is that our genome is full of what’s called junk DNA. So, the differences are like repetitive DNA and thus junk. Thus, we can ignore them and get a much smaller number getting closer to that 1% if we assess the genome that way. Is that fair or reasonable?
• Humans can vary by as much as 10% difference in DNA, so is 15% between humans and chimps really a big difference?
• Does a small genenetic difference automatically imply common ancestry or it could be because of a common creator?
• Is this new 15% difference evidence against common descent?
• You’ve written a piece in the New York Post about how this is presented in museums. Did the museums respond at all? And if so, what did they say?
• Are there other areas of scientific misinformation at the Smithsonian that either you saw when you were there in person or you’ve just seen in your research?
• Where does this go next as far as you can see?
• If a follow-up comes in a journal article as prestigious as Nature and they go, you know what, we got it wrong, it’s 0.5% genetic difference and we blew it, whether two years, five years, 10 years, will you come back and say, you know what, I’ll own it.

If you don’t have time to watch the whole video, Casey did write a nice recent article in the New York Post about it.

He writes:

The National Museum of Natural History’s Hall of Human Origins vastly distorts the scientific evidence on human evolution, seeking to convince visitors that there’s nothing special about us as human beings.

“There is only about a 1.2% genetic difference between modern humans and chimpanzees,” the exhibit starts, with large photos of a human and apes. “You and chimpanzees [are] 98.8% genetically similar.”

No doubt you’ve heard this statistic before because many science popularizers say the same thing.

Yet it’s been known for years that these numbers are inaccurate. Thanks to a groundbreaking April paper in the journal Nature, we know just how wrong they are.

For the first time, the paper reports “complete” sequences of the genomes of chimpanzees and other apes done from scratch. When we compare them to humans, we find our genomes are more like 15% genetically different from chimpanzees’. That means the true genetic differences between humans and chimps are more than 10 times greater than what the Smithsonian tells us.

It’s very good for him to point this out, because we a lot of people go to these taxpayer-funded museums and believe things that we now know have been discredited by the progress of science. I had a friend in high school who saw this in some History Channel or Discovery Channel documentary, and he believed it. So I think it’s important for Christians to know that there is evidence available now, to push back against the claim. Even if you don’t know how to discuss it as well as Sean and Casey, you should know how to pull up this discussion, or maybe the New York Post article, and respond.

I have been working on an article that explains some of the reasons why Christian men are declining to approach, date and marry women. My list started off with 16 reasons, and now it’s over 30! There are policy reasons, feminist culture reasons, and feminization-of-the-church reasons. So, in this post, let me talk about two reasons, which came up in a recent TikTok video that went viral.

So, two of the “feminist culture” reasons why Christian men are declining to pursue women for marriage are:

1. entitlement
2. lack of accountability

Now it’s important to say that I am not talking about ALL WOMEN when I say these things. In fact, if you go back to the 1940s, these flaws were rare. But somehow, they have become dominant today. You can see them in the movies and books that are popular with female audiences.

The TikTok below has over 100,000 comments, and over 1.5 million likes. It’s resonating with young women, and we need to see why.

The TikTok is from Shylee Allen. Her channel is @wildly_shy. It’s 5 minutes long:

Please don’t message the TikTok lady, but please do pray for Boss to help her to make excellent decisions going forward. We get the most amazing results from women who have made mistakes exactly like hers. There are many Christian women who teach other women not to make the same mistakes that they made, and that’s great.

So, there are two flaws in this video, and I want to recommend that Christian men pay attention, because you want to learn these flaws, and make sure that you do not choose to approach, date, and marry women with these flaws. There are lots of women who are anxious to serve the Lord, and they want to help a man who will lead them well. You need to focus your attention on THOSE women.

So, the first flaw in this view is entitlement.

Entitlement

An entitled person feels that they deserve to get a particular outcome, without having to merit it, because of their special privileges or victimhood. One good illustration of entitlement was Tomi Lahren on the Piers Morgan Show, insisting that “real men” give women protecting and providing, without asking for anything in return. Think of going into a store with a gift card, and not having to pay any of your own money for anything under $100. The Tomi Lahren view, and I think her view is shared my other famous women like Laura Ingraham and Megyn Kelly, is that women have a gift card with unlimited dollars for use in the man store.

So, when men ask modern women “what do you bring to the table,” women today reply “I am the table”. Today, “strong, independent boss babes” demand that men pay for everything on dates, despite decrying sex differences as “sexist”. The common motto of modern women in relationships is “my money is my money, and your money is our money”. That’s what men are seeing as “entitlement”.

So, in the TikTok video, the woman felt entitled to a husband who meets all her emotional needs. Since she ended two relationships, clearly she did not get her emotional needs met. So how to succeed on the third attempt? Well, rather than feeling that getting your emotional needs met should be automatic, regardless of which man you choose, women need to test men, and choose one who can actually do the work. And not one who says he can do the work. Not one who she feels can do the work, based on his appearance and words. But one who has a worldview that rationally grounds doing the work. And one who has a record of demonstrated ability at doing the work. And the way to do that of course is just to disregard what the man says, and what he looks like, and observe for 2-3 years whether he is able to do actions that meet her emotional needs. And most importantly what is the worldview that caused him to do it. How stable is that worldview? What evidence grounds him in it?

One specific thing she mentioned was that the man lied about not being able to get her pregnant, and it’s not her fault for believing him. Anyone who has ever participated in a private sector candidate interview knows how to evaluate a candidate’s knowledge and ability. We don’t rely on “first impressions”. We don’t have intuitions about clothes or confidence. We are looking for competence. We hand you a marker, and we make you write code on the white board. We want to see your hobby coding and your Github repository of open source projects. We sit next to you and we pair program with you. We change the requirements, and we ask you how you would adapt your design. We need to help women take the job interview approach to dating, instead of the hedonistic approach. Having fun on dates doesn’t prove that a man can meet emotional needs.

Another problem with entitlement is that women have to accept responsibility for engineering relationship outcomes. Have you ever noticed that lesbians have the highest rates of instability and domestic violence? They have high expectations from their partners, but low ability to meet their partners needs. Women seem to be more likely to accept the “soul mate” view of relationships. They think that “the universe” will “manifest” the perfect mate for them. The perfect mate, of course, gives them everything they want, and asks for nothing in return. Soul mates don’t impose any obligations on you to fuel them or help them, you just “follow your heart”. But that’s not how anything works in the real world.

In the real world, you have to find out what counts as fuel to another person. You have to accept responsibility to fuel the other person. You have to solve problems that are roadblocks to success. In short, you have to run towards obligations, instead of away from them. We need to encourage young people to accept what Dr. Laura Schlesinger calls “loving obligation” in relationships. We need to teach women not to end relationships where their needs aren’t met, but to choose men wisely, and accept the obligation to fuel men so that the men want to meet their emotional needs.

The woman in our TikTok clearly felt entitled to certain outcomes from her marriage and motherhood choices. But what preparation did she make? She should have prepared herself to choose a good man by learning about religion and morality, so that she could choose a man who had a good reason to be moral when it went against his self-interest. She could have prepared herself to supply the typical kinds of fuel that men respond to, like food, sex, conservative politics, watching sports and playing co-operative video games. But if you watch that video, you can pretty clearly see that she just sees herself as a victim of “the patriarchy”. She talks about what she wanted as if it was a guaranteed outcome, but she has nothing to say about her process for choosing a good man, testing him, or meeting his needs.

The second flaw is lack of accountability.

Lack of accountability

A person who lacks accountability makes foolish decisions that are unlikely to produce the desired outcome, and then complains to others as if the predictable outcome of her choices was completely unexpected. You would think that after having TWO children with TWO men who she dumped, she would see that the problem is her own choosing. But she doesn’t see herself as responsible at all. And she’s screaming and crying about her innocence very energetically! she telling other women “I made no mistakes at choosing men, so if you choose a man, you won’t be able to do any better than me. So don’t date or marry men!” That’s like saying “I took a course in math, and I failed! So don’t you take a course in math, or you’ll fail too!” She refuses to accept that her failure was related to her own choices, and that someone who makes better choices might get better results.

There seems to be an epidemic of women going on social media and complaining about the shortcomings of their boyfriends and / or husbands. But what they don’t understand is that thoughtful men see these complaints about husbands and boyfriends as huge red flags. All it means to men is that if a man approaches a woman who complains about the men she chooses, then he will be the next man that she complains about on social media. If good men see a woman complaining about her ex, we know right away that she either 1) failed to choose a good man, or 2) failed to keep a good man. And then we don’t get into a relationship with someone with either of those problems.

The lack of accountability problem is a widespread problem. It’s not this one TikTok and the 1.5 million likes. Look at the voting trends of single women over the past decades. While married women are about 50-50 conservative vs leftist, unmarried women vote about 70-80 percent leftist. That’s a lot of women. They see government as a substitute husband. When they make mistakes, like bad marriages and student loans for useless degrees, they want the government to swoop in and give them no-fault divorce cash and prizes, single mother welfare and student loan bailouts. So, this problem is very widespread – and we should all care about it.

When I talk to conservative Christians who are “pro-child” and “pro-marriage”, they inevitably agree with women that the bad outcomes of a woman’s choices are never the woman’s fault. It’s always a man’s fault. For example, one pro-marriage advocate I know thinks that women should just be able to choose a man who is attractive to her, and then expect him to change after marriage. I will never forget one Christian woman who commented on my blog. She claimed to be a Christian and went on and on about how her ex-husband had mistreated her. I asked her “how did you test him to see if he really believed in Christianity, and had acted on it?” She said “he was not a Christian”. So I said “why would you marry a non-Christian man, and then think that he would act like a Christian?” And she replied “the Bible applies even to non-Christian men”. So that is the level of lack of accountability that men sometimes see. And I would really like to invite “pro-child” and “pro-marriage” Christians to start talking to women who have this problem about it. Women aren’t going to be empowered to choose better men unless we ask them to.

Advice for Good Men

Sometimes, men (because we are impressed with looks) will chase after women who are attractive, even if they have these two flaws. I want Christian men to stop choosing bad women. Don’t look at youth and beauty. Instead, choose good women who want to help you to achieve results for the Boss, women who follow your lead. It should be seen as a huge betrayal of God to give your time and money to women who aren’t interested in serving God. Choose good women. Choose women who choose good men, and choose women who accept the obligation to treat good men in the right way to fuel those good men to do good things.

What’s the best way to avoid women like the one in the TikTok? Avoid women who have red flags. Easy degrees are a red flag. Debt is a red flag. Tattoos are red flags. Piercings (especially nose and tongue) are a red flag. Spending a lot of money on make-up and cosmetics and cosmetic surgeries is a red flag. Excessive spending on displayed wealth is a red flag. Leftist politics is a red flag. Liking fiction like “50 Shades of Grey” is a red flag. Liking movies like “Titanic” and “The Notebook” etc. is a red flag. Seeing Christianity as life enhancement rather than self-sacrificial service to God is a red flag. Astrology and manifesting are red flags. Posting selfies of travel / entertainment are all red flags. Seeking attention with immodest photos is a red flag. Screaming and crying on camera for sympathy and money is a huge red flag. Men, we need to choose better women! Women who work for the Boss. Women who respect and value good leadership from good men.

By the way, if you’re a good man, and you want to learn how to choose better women, check out the YouTube channels of Emily King and Jedediah Bila. If you’re a woman who wants to avoid making the mistakes of the TikTok lady, you’ll like them, too.