Health FAQs

The human body doesn't look like an accident of nature.

Studying medicine completely changed the way I think about biology. One of the first things that struck me was how closely the heart, lungs, and kidneys depend on one another. A small disruption in one system can affect the entire body. That was the moment I started asking deeper questions about evolution.
Small evolutionary changes within a species, such as differences in height, skin pigmentation, or body shape, make perfect sense to me. But I find it much harder to understand how entirely new, integrated organs could arise through gradual, unguided processes. A functional organ requires thousands of muscles, nerves, blood vessels, and regulatory mechanisms that all have to work together.
Take an elephant's trunk as a simple thought experiment. It isn't just an extension of existing tissue. It's a highly specialized structure with its own muscles, nerves, circulation, sensory systems, and precise control by the brain. To me, explaining the origin of such an integrated system is fundamentally different from explaining variation within structures that already exist.
That doesn't mean I have all the answers, and I'm certainly not claiming that every question has been solved. But the more I learned about the extraordinary complexity of the human body, the less convinced I became that macroevolution is as straightforward as it's often presented.

If you'd like to read the complete argument, along with scientific examples and the original sources, you can find the full article here:
https://gohumannature.com/god/

Why Andrew Huberman Believes in God

Why do some of the world's most successful scientists, physicians, and neuroscientists believe in God? It's a question that is being asked more and more often. Andrew Huberman has also spoken openly about this topic and explained why he does not rule out the existence of a Creator.
Think about this: if you found a Rolex watch on the beach, would you assume that wind, sand, and millions of years produced that watch, or would it make more sense to conclude that it had a designer?
Intuitively, we tend to believe that the more complex and purposefully organized something is, the more likely it is that it was designed. Perhaps I'm guilty of thinking that way myself, as you've probably noticed by now.
The human body is not a simple watch with a few gears. It is a self-healing, self-regulating, and self-reproducing biological system in which billions of processes are precisely coordinated.
During medical school, I noticed that this sense of wonder led people in different directions. Some surgeons gradually began to see themselves almost as gods, believing they had complete control over life and death.
Others developed an even deeper respect for what they called "creation." They viewed their work not as something they completely controlled, but as something they had the privilege to contribute to, recognizing what they believed to be a greater order behind it.
Some even sincerely believed that God guided their hands during surgery.
If you'd like to read the full argument, see Andrew Huberman's comments in context, and explore the original source, visit gohumannature.com/god, where I've included the references and additional background.

Evolution Cannot Explain Embryos

In the earliest stage of an embryo, the body's basic blueprint is established. This is when the locations of organs are determined, body structures begin to form, and everything is coordinated into a functional whole.
These are extremely sensitive processes because they involve the blueprint itself. Mutations at this stage often have major consequences, and even small disruptions can lead to severe abnormalities or embryos that are not viable.
In other words, major changes at the very beginning are usually fatal.
Later in development, once the basic body plan has already been established, changes are much more likely to be viable. This is where variations within an existing framework arise, such as increased skin pigmentation in sunny climates, reduced body hair in warmer regions, differences in height, and other relatively small adaptations. These kinds of variations are well understood and well documented.
Speaking of embryos, there is another example that I often think about.
When my sister was pregnant, I realized just how much has to happen during pregnancy before a healthy baby can be born. We now know of thousands of biological processes that must be precisely coordinated during embryonic development.
From a single fertilized cell, an entire human body develops. Organs appear at exactly the right time and in exactly the right place. Cells specialize, nerve pathways are formed, limbs develop, and the heart begins to beat. Everything must happen in a precise sequence. These are not isolated parts that can change independently, but tightly interconnected processes that together create a functioning organism.
At the same time, we know that major disruptions early in development often have serious consequences. Mutations that significantly alter the embryo's blueprint are frequently not compatible with life or result in severe abnormalities. Because so many processes are interconnected, a change in one place can affect the entire system.
And that is where I keep getting stuck.
Evolution does not think ahead. There is no process that deliberately starts building blood vessels, nerves, and regulatory mechanisms because they will be needed later. Evolution works through random mutations and natural selection acting only on whatever provides an advantage at that particular moment.
But if major changes are often problematic because the system has to remain functional at every stage, then how do entirely new, integrated structures arise when they depend on multiple interdependent components working together?
That is why three professors I once watched together on a podcast, both atheist and religious, agreed that small variations within existing species can be explained by random mutations, whereas large-scale changes cannot. According to some probability calculations, the likelihood of such changes occurring is also extremely small.

Someone who explains this far better than I can is Dr. Ming Wang, an internationally renowned laser eye surgeon.
He grew up in China as an atheist and believed exclusively in science. During medical school, he became fascinated by the structure of the human eye. That was when he began asking himself how a system of such extraordinary complexity could have come into existence. Trillions upon trillions of cells must be perfectly coordinated during development to receive and process visual information. If even a single cell ends up in the wrong place, a person can be born blind.
That led him, as an atheist, to ask an important question: How could so many cells come together in such a short period of time through random processes?
He kept asking one of his professors this question until the professor responded with something simple.
"Ming, what do you see across the street?"
"A car."
"Which is more complex: a car or the human eye?"
"The human eye."
"Can you imagine random pieces of metal assembling themselves into a car?"
"Absolutely not."
"So what about the human eye?"
According to Dr. Wang, that conversation became a turning point in his life. It changed the way he looked at the complexity of the eye and led him to conclude that a system with such a specific purpose, namely vision, points to a designer, a Creator.
Don't get me wrong: I think the argument for macroevolution is substantial, but I personally find adaptation within an existing framework (microevolution) more plausible than the emergence of entirely new, integrated biological systems.

On the other hand, it is easy to imagine modifications to something that already exists.
Consider certain indigenous populations living in the African rainforest, such as pygmy groups, where a smaller body size may provide advantages when moving through dense vegetation and hunting efficiently.
That makes intuitive sense because it is a modification of a trait that already exists. But the step from becoming slightly shorter to developing an entirely new organ, complete with everything it requires to function, is a completely different matter.
Another aspect worth considering is what evolutionary biologists call "path dependence".
Once an evolutionary path has been taken, you cannot simply go back and start over. Each step builds on what came before it. As a result, the final outcome is heavily influenced by earlier chance events and branching points.
Yet when I look at the human body, I see a system that appears remarkably coherent and functionally integrated. If everything truly emerged step by step, system by system, through countless accidental detours, you might expect to find far more suboptimal, messy, or conflicting structures. Instead, what stands out is the degree of coordination between different parts of the body.
Of course, I am familiar with examples of so-called "poor design," such as the blind spot in the human eye or the unusual path taken by certain nerves, including the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
That nerve travels from the brain to the larynx, but first takes a long detour around the heart before making its way back up to the throat.
From an evolutionary perspective, this can be explained by the gradual adaptation of anatomy as body structures changed over time. From a purely design-based perspective, however, it can appear inefficient at first glance.
Yet as a medical student, I learned that the body is not simply a collection of individual parts that must each be perfect in isolation. What matters is the integrated functioning of the whole.
A blind spot, for example, is a small compromise within a visual system that otherwise provides extraordinary resolution and depth perception. To me, that does not look like a poorly optimized system, but rather like a system so complex that we may not yet fully understand the logic behind its specific trade-offs.
That is one of the reasons I find it difficult to attribute everything to chance.

If you'd like to read the complete article with all the arguments, you can find it here: gohumannature.com/god

Even Darwin Couldn't Explain This

Imagine humans needed a trunk on our forehead to survive.
How would something like that evolve? A trunk doesn't just require some extra skin. It needs an integrated system: muscles to move it, its own blood supply, specialized nerves, and a direct connection to the brain so it can be controlled.
It almost seems to require a multi-million-year blueprint in which generation after generation is selected for something that is barely functional in the beginning.
Imagine that, in one generation, a small bump appears on the forehead. At what point do additional nerves start growing into it?
When does the blood supply adapt?
How does a random mutation become the beginning of a useful organ?
As long as that bump provides no clear function or advantage, it would seem more likely to work against survival than in its favor. In nature, and in humans, extreme physical abnormalities are often less attractive when it comes to mate selection.
Features that visibly stand out from the norm generally do not increase reproductive success.
Once you stop and think about what it would actually take for an entirely new functional organ to arise, you begin to realize how enormous that leap really is.
And we're not talking about just a few muscles, but tens of thousands of muscle fibers. Not a few nerves, but tens of thousands of motor neurons. Not a handful of blood vessels, but an extensive network of arteries, veins, and capillaries supplying every millimeter of that trunk with oxygen and nutrients. And not just anywhere, but organized with extraordinary precision so that strength, sensation, breathing, smell, and fine motor control all work together.
Just look at one square millimeter of such a trunk. Even there, you would find an astonishing level of organization.
And it's not enough for new structures to appear. Existing structures would also have to change so everything connects and functions together as one integrated system.
Explain to me how that happens without any form of goal-directed process.
Because once you try to work through a concrete example like this, you begin to appreciate just how difficult this question really is.
In fact, even if we intentionally tried to design something this complex ourselves, we still couldn't do it. Take artificial knees, for example. They often function remarkably well, yet they still don't come close to matching the complexity, durability, and refinement of a real human knee.
So do you still find the emergence of an entirely new organ self-evident?
On the other hand, modifications of structures that already exist are much easier to imagine. Consider certain Indigenous populations living in the African rainforest, such as the Pygmies, where a shorter stature can be advantageous for moving through dense vegetation and hunting efficiently.
That makes sense because it's a modification of a trait that already existed. But going from "becoming a little shorter" to "evolving an entirely new organ with everything that comes with it" is a completely different question.

The full article with all the arguments: https://gohumannature.com/god/

60% of Doctors Believe in God

The human body doesn’t seem like an accident of nature. Even after millions of years of random mutations and natural selection, we still appear astonishingly complex. Yes, that’s a bold claim. But in the next few minutes, I’ll show you several scientific examples that might make you question just how self-evident the theory of evolution really is.
To give you some context, when I studied medicine, we spent an entire module learning how the heart, lungs, and kidneys work together. Each of these organs is already an engineering marvel on its own.
What stayed with me most was how precisely everything is coordinated. The moment one small detail changes, whether it's a slight shift in blood pressure, oxygen levels, or blood pH, the entire system starts to lose balance. The human body only functions because multiple systems operate together at the same time.
An airplane doesn’t simply appear flying in the sky. It is first assembled on the ground, piece by piece. Only when every component is in place can it take off.
That’s why I find it difficult to believe that systems this complex arose entirely one organ at a time. I do believe in adaptation within a species, what we call microevolution, because that is something we can clearly observe.
Darwin, for example, observed birds adapting to their environment through variations in feathers and pigmentation. Those are changes within structures that already exist.
The difference between growing more feathers (microevolution) and the emergence of a kidney (macroevolution), in my view, is not simply a matter of time. It's also a matter of information. In microevolution, you see variation on a theme that already exists. But creating a completely new, integrated system requires entirely new genetic information that has to work correctly in multiple places at the same time. I'll repeat that: in multiple places at the same time.
As Christian philosopher Frank Turek puts it:
"Human cells are astonishingly complex. Everything is so tightly interconnected that you can't change one part without disrupting the function of the entire cell. All of the parts would have to change simultaneously for the system to function at all. The system is irreducibly complex. That's why gradual change doesn't seem to work. And as Richard Dawkins himself said, if we don't have gradual change, we're back to a miracle."
Take a moment to let that sink in, because it may help you understand exactly where I think the difficulty lies.
In the next video, I'll use an intentionally absurd example that illustrates my point much more clearly.

Read the full article with many more arguments here:
https://gohumannature.com/god/

The Universe Shouldn't Exist. Yet Here We Are.

The universe appears to be fine-tuned with extraordinary precision, as the fundamental forces and constants of nature have remarkably specific values.
Take the strong nuclear force, which holds protons and neutrons together, or the cosmological constant, which influences the expansion of the universe.
If the strong nuclear force had been slightly weaker, atomic nuclei would not be stable, and matter as we know it could not exist. If it had been slightly stronger, everything would have clumped together far too quickly.
The same applies to the force driving the expansion of the universe. If it had been only a fraction stronger, the universe would have expanded so rapidly that stars and galaxies could never have formed. If it had been slightly weaker, everything would have collapsed back in on itself.
Just how narrow this margin is will become clear when we look at the numbers.
These constants matter not only because they are "precise," but because they determine whether complex matter can exist at all.
If atomic nuclei are unstable, elements such as carbon and oxygen never form. And if the universe expands too quickly, galaxies, stars, and planets never have the opportunity to develop.
Without those conditions, there is no complex chemistry and no stable environment in which life as we know it can emerge.
It is this extraordinary degree of fine-tuning that makes all of that possible.
Some calculations suggest that these values could not differ by more than one part in a number with 120 zeros.
That is a probability of 0, followed by 119 zeros before a 1 finally appears.
For comparison, the observable universe is estimated to contain roughly 10⁸⁰ atoms (ten to the power of eighty atoms). We are talking about a level of precision that vastly exceeds the total amount of matter in the universe.
Are we looking at the greatest cosmic coincidence of all time, with odds that are effectively zero, or are we looking at something else?

Children with Cancer Made Me an Atheist

From elementary school all the way through university, I was essentially taught that God does not exist, and almost everyone accepted that without question, myself included.
As a down-to-earth Dutchman, I viewed religious believers as extreme, vague, and irrational. For me, the fact that children suffer from cancer was already enough to conclude that God could not exist.
A phrase was once scratched onto a wall in the Mauthausen concentration camp:
"If there is a God, He will have to beg for my forgiveness."
When confronted with such unimaginable suffering, it is not easy to believe that a loving God lies behind reality.
Yet my perspective slowly began to change when I started studying medicine and became increasingly fascinated by the extraordinary complexity of the human body, composed of 30 to 37 trillion cells, with millions of processes seamlessly coordinated every second.
There, in the lecture hall, I was no longer so certain that everything was merely the result of blind natural laws, and the first cracks began to appear in my atheist convictions.
I shared my doubts with other atheists and non-believers.
What struck me was not the strength of the counterarguments, but the reaction my questions provoked, even among family members.
It felt as though I was touching a sacred belief, because instead of addressing what I was saying, people sometimes resorted to personal attacks.
Fortunately, we have the internet. Through lectures, interviews, and articles, I encountered rational arguments from scientists and philosophers that I could not easily dismiss.
After years of reading, thinking, and doubting, I simply find "pure chance" unconvincing, and it seems more plausible to me that there is something more.
I am not going to tell you which specific religion is correct, because I obviously do not possess that kind of certainty. They remain human attempts to understand the divine.
But with the following ten arguments, I have managed to make more than half of the people around me seriously question their previously unquestioned atheism.