Scopes trial DW

Best Of 2025: A Century Ago, The ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ Shook The Nation. The Stakes Are Still High.

Best Of 2025: A Century Ago, The 'Scopes Monkey Trial' Shook The Nation. The Stakes Are Still High.

Academia

ACLU

American History

Bible

Charles Darwin

Christianity

Education

Science

Tennessee

A foundational pillar of quantum mechanics—wave-particle duality—faced a significant challenge this year following a provocative reinterpretation of the classic double-slit experiment.
While physics has long held that light simultaneously possesses particle and wave-like properties, researchers led by Celso Villas-Boas have <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2507992-physicists-used-dark-photons-in-an-effort-to-rewrite-physics-in-2025/">proposed a model</a> that explains interference patterns using only particles (photons).
In the traditional double-slit experiment, light passing through two slits creates an interference pattern of bright and dark fringes on a screen. This has historically been cited as definitive proof of light’s wave nature. However, the team from the Federal University of São Carlos suggests a different mechanism:
Instead of waves crashing into each other, the researchers utilize &#8220;dark states&#8221;—special quantum states where photons are unable to interact with other particles. These dark states account for the dark stripes on the screen. By explaining the experiment through the presence or absence of photon interactions, the need for a &#8220;wave&#8221; model is effectively eliminated.
The mathematical foundation of Villas-Boas’s work centers on the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian, the standard model for describing how light (radiation) interacts with matter (a two-level atom). The crux of the math is the &#8220;coupling&#8221; between these photon states and the detector&#8217;s atoms. The researchers identified two distinct types of collective states: bright states and dark states.
The reception among the scientific community has been polarized: Many educators feel the work upends decades of established pedagogy regarding interference. Proponents argue this view clarifies &#8220;impossible&#8221; phenomena, such as interference between non-overlapping waves or between mechanical and electromagnetic waves.
Beyond theoretical debate, this shift suggests tangible advancements. Villas-Boas’s ongoing research into dark states reveals that thermal radiation (like sunlight) may contain significant &#8220;hidden&#8221; energy that does not interact with matter. Furthermore, this reinterpretation could pave the way for novel technologies, including: light-driven quantum switches and materials engineered to be transparent only to specific light states.
Traditional solar panels and thermal collectors only harvest light that &#8220;couples&#8221; or interacts with their materials. If sunlight contains photons in &#8220;dark states&#8221; that don&#8217;t interact with matter, we have been missing a massive reservoir of energy. This could lead to a new generation of Quantum Photovoltaics designed to &#8220;break&#8221; the dark state of these photons, allowing us to capture energy that previously passed right through our best solar cells.

US-GAMMA RAY HALO

Beyond Duality: How ‘Dark States’ Are Redefining The Nature Of Light

Light

The federal government awards research grants to universities to make scientific breakthroughs, but for every dollar that it has spent on science, up to 70 additional cents is diverted to administrators, a new study found.
That allows the universities to essentially extort the federal government by claiming that the funding is necessary for public health, while gobbling up a large portion for DEI, hiring more deans, and unrelated campus programs.
Current policy provides an overhead rate of a whopping 50 to 70%, paid on top of the actual scientific grant, dramatically ballooning the cost to taxpayers and creating a college industrial complex, watchdog group <a href="https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/6/Transparency_Academia_Overhead.pdf">Open the Books</a> said in a new report. The costs are a &#8220;black box&#8221; that is absorbed by taxpayers, but has no public accounting, the group said.
The findings come as the Trump administration seeks to rein in the partisanship of universities and find ways to reduce waste without impacting important scientific research. The Trump administration has proposed reducing the overhead rate to 15%, but the move has been stalled by a court ruling after university groups sued.
The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, one of four universities that Open the Books examined, had a negotiated overhead rate of 55 to 56%. It received $9.4 billion in federal research funding between 2013 and 2023, up to $2.3 billion of which was siphoned off for &#8220;overhead,&#8221; the report &#8212; first obtained by The Daily Wire &#8212; found. During that time, the university&#8217;s administrative staff, but not professors, swelled, and DEI staff climbed from 27 to 179.
One grant was for $2.5 million to take a curriculum from the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center and turn it into a middle school anti-racism program about &#8220;white supremacy&#8221; and &#8220;solidarity.&#8221; That project alone brought in a whopping $1,173,910 in additional money for the university thanks to its 56% overhead rate.
Rutgers had an overhead rate as high as 57%. Of $3.8 billion in science grants, as little as $2.4 billion was left for direct costs. Concurrent with the influx of funding, its staff grew by 10,000 &#8212; only a quarter of whom were teachers.
The high overhead rates give universities a financial incentive to apply for grants even if the research is not useful or high-quality. Recent reports found that only 46% of 53 cancer studies could be replicated, and most research in psychology journals did not replicate. That means the conclusions are so dubious that when someone else took the same steps, they didn&#8217;t get the same results.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
A National Association of Scholars report described the perverse incentives: &#8220;While scientists pursue research funding for discovery, institutions want research grants to generate revenue. Because scientists are employees, and administrations are employers, administrations’ interests will always have the upper hand. This is the means whereby academic scientists are reduced to being generators of revenue, not agents of discovery.&#8221;
That group said that in 2023, the federal government gave universities $60 billion in research grants, $22 billion of which went to overhead. If the overhead rate was reduced to 15%, it would have freed up $14 billion, which could be used on actual research or simply to save taxpayer dollars.
The National Science Foundation spent $7.4 billion in research and development grants in fiscal 2024. Although the Department of Health and Human Services, and its arms like the National Institutes of Health, make more awards to colleges, there is additional bloat in NSF funding because of a congressional requirement, Open the Books found.
Congress, through a bill called the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, required those grants to include what it calls &#8220;broader impacts&#8221; work, requiring scientists to do DEI and public relations work. &#8220;These requirements fundamentally transformed universities and their approach to scientific research,&#8221; the report said.
For example, a $600,000 grant for a chemistry project called “Unravelling the Nature of Elusive Transition Metal-oxyl Complexes” now included a hidden slush fund, under &#8220;broader impacts,&#8221; for &#8220;recruiting Underrepresented Minority (URM) high school students to STEM fields.&#8221; A $1.5 million project to develop a dog-like robot at Rutgers University had a &#8220;broader impacts&#8221; slush fund to &#8220;leverage diversity programs at Rutgers University to recruit and support underrepresented groups.”
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill received $7.7 billion in science grants over a decade and had an overhead rate of 52-55%. A $510,000 chemistry grant for &#8220;vapor deposition techniques&#8221; was siphoned off for &#8220;promoting LGBTQ+ participation in scientific research and in society as a whole.&#8221;
The DEI programming was concealed under line-items that appeared to be for legitimate scientific research. &#8220;When critics of Trump’s plan to eliminate NSF discuss funding cuts to science, they don’t mention that funds for actual scientific discovery are already being cut into with Congressionally mandated, ideologically motivated, side projects,&#8221; Open The Books said.
Trump has attempted to remove identity-based &#8220;broader activity&#8221; mandates, but some recent grants have included them nonetheless, Open The Books found.
Universities are fighting the 15% overhead cap. But at a minimum, &#8220;universities, which have suffered reputational blows from hard-left campus activism and programmatic activities in recent years, could additionally volunteer to release data on overhead flows and amounts to regain the trust that taxpayer dollars are being put to good use,&#8221; the report said.
It is colleges &#8212; not the Trump administration &#8212; who have been anti-science by diverting limited funds, it concluded, saying &#8220;hijacking grant proposal requirements to further ideological goals&#8221; is &#8220;a secret tax on research and development.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-zealand-scrapped-all-social-science-funding-trump-could-too">New Zealand Scrapped All ‘Social Science’ Funding. Trump Could Too.</a>

University of Michigan Ann Arbor

How Universities Divert Federal Science Grants To DEI And Administrative Bloat

Donald Trump

U.S.

Tom Brady didn&#8217;t just defeat teams in pursuit of his seven Super Bowls; he&#8217;s apparently defeated death.
Let me explain. Tom Brady cloned his dead dog Lua, who died in 2023, and with the help of Colossal Biosciences, the legendary quarterback has a new member of the pack, Junie, who obviously looks just like Luna.
&#8220;A few years ago, I worked with Colossal and leveraged their non-invasive cloning technology through a simple blood draw of our family&#8217;s elderly dog before she passed,&#8221; Brady said in the statement shared with The Daily Wire by Colossal. &#8220;In a few short months, Colossal gave my family a second chance with a clone of our beloved dog.&#8221;
Wait what? Yes, you can hop into a self-driving car to pick up your cloned dog from daycare in the year 2025.
Colossal specializes in de-extinction. The company recently acquired Viagen, which is known for cloning Paris Hilton&#8217;s and Barbara Streisand&#8217;s pets.
&#8220;I am excited how Colossal and Viagen&#8217;s tech together can help both families losing their beloved pets while helping to save endangered species,” Brady said.
Junie, the clone, has the same genetic makeup as Lua. Colossal spokeswoman Emily Lowe told The Daily Wire the process cannot clone personality.
Is this messing with the circle of life or simply carrying on a legacy? It depends on who you ask.
Some people are calling this <a href="https://x.com/iceFURYice/status/1985771185280352320">weird</a> and messing with <a href="https://x.com/Gearshifter09/status/1985772377322434779">nature</a>.
And there&#8217;s several people who think it&#8217;s <a href="https://x.com/DividendDad1/status/1985776038987669992">cool</a>.
Others simply want a DNA test on Patriots quarterback Drake Maye because Maye is showing glimpses of Brady-like play for the New England Patriots right now.
For those who say they want to be like Brady, they had better save up because the groundbreaking process is pricey. Viagen&#8217;s website shows that it costs $1,600 to preserve a pet’s genetics, and $50,000 to use those genetics to clone a dog or cat.
Wherever you land on cloning pets, Colossal and Viagen believe in their mission.
&#8220;This strategic move unites Colossal’s pioneering de-extinction and species preservation platform with Viagen’s industry-leading cloning and cryopreservation technologies.&#8221;
So far, Viagen has cloned 15 species. Colossal <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scientists-claim-they-brought-back-extinct-dire-wolves-with-birth-of-3-new-pups">brought dire wolves back</a> from extinction through their <a href="https://colossal.com/direwolf/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">technology</a>.
Yes, the same white wolves in Game of Thrones are back on planet earth, well, three of them at least. Remus, Romulus, and Khaleesi are the three dire wolves Colossal brought back to life after 10,000 years of extinction.
Tom Brady has trademarked his initials. It may be time to trademark his DNA because this cloning technology is proving that anything can come out of retirement.

Tom Brady

Tom Brady Alters Circle Of Life, Clones His Dog

Dogs

Conservationist Jane Goodall has died at the age of 91. 
The British primatologist and anthropologist was best known for her work studying chimpanzees, which began in 1960. Goodall remained active in the scientific community until the day she died, and was on a speaking tour in California at the time of her passing.
Born in London in 1934, Goodall grew up in England with a love for animals, which was spurred in part by her father buying her a stuffed toy chimpanzee named “Jubilee.” 
She <a href="https://www.biography.com/scientists/jane-goodall">traveled</a> to Africa in 1957 and later met anthropologist Louis Leakey, who saw promise in her curiosity and invited her to Tanzania to study wild chimpanzees. 
In July 1960, at the age of 26, Goodall established a field camp at Gombe Stream National Park, where she pioneered immersive observation and discovered that chimpanzees possess the ability to use tools, hunt, and form social bonds. 
Over the decades, Goodall became a fervent conservationist. She founded the Jane Goodall Institute in 1977 and launched Roots &amp; Shoots, a youth-oriented environmental movement. 
She was named a UN Messenger of Peace in 2002 and has received multiple awards, including the Templeton Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which was presented by Joe Biden in January 2025. Goodall’s later years were devoted to conservation, climate activism, and youth outreach.
Goodall was married twice and had one child. She was raised Christian and maintained a belief in a higher power, even as her scientific colleagues were atheist or agnostic. She had critical words for organized religion, choosing instead to embrace a looser approach to spirituality.
“I realized that my experience in the forest, my understanding of the chimpanzees, had given me a new perspective,” she <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jan/13/jane-goodall">wrote</a> in one of her books, Reason for Hope. “I was ­utterly convinced there was a great ­spiritual power that we call God, Allah or Brahma, although I knew, equally ­certainly, that my finite mind could never comprehend its form or nature.”

Jane Goodall

Chimpanzee Expert Jane Goodall Dies At 91

California

conservation

Death

Environmentalism

The universe follows rules. The evidence points to a Designer. Not to an infinite carnival of imaginary universes.
We’ve written before about the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-modern-physics-points-to-god?" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-modern-physics-points-to-god?&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1758912070748000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2GdNjKu7h0FKQn1iXoiSlI">fine-tuning</a> of the universe’s constants — precise numbers like the strength of gravity or the charge of the electron. Change them even slightly, and the universe collapses.
But beneath those numbers lies an even deeper mystery: the laws of nature themselves.
Gravity pulls. Opposite charges attract. Particles collide in predictable patterns. These aren’t just quantities — they’re the rules that structure reality.
But here’s the riddle: Why these laws, and not others?
Since science explains everything in the world as consequences of the laws of nature, it’s natural to ask if science can explain the laws themselves. Physicist Lee Smolin put it this way: “Facts about the world need to be explained, and a fact most in need of explanation is why particular laws are observed to hold in our universe.”
Scientists once hoped they would find a simple answer that would be consistent with their prior beliefs. Maybe there was a unique “final theory” — a logically inevitable set of laws that could explain everything and rule out all alternatives. If that were true, then the laws of physics wouldn’t be one possibility among many. They would be the only possible laws a universe could have.
But that hope didn’t pan out.
After years of effort, scientists came to a sobering realization. The dream of a unique final theory was just that — a dream. There’s no logical reason why our universe had to follow the laws we observe. In fact, scientists have constructed many alternative sets of laws that are mathematically consistent — they just don’t describe our universe.
In Smolin’s words:
“Looking back, it is clear that the assumption that a unified theory would be unique was no more than that — an assumption. There is no mathematical or philosophical principle which guarantees there to be only one mathematically consistent theory of nature. In fact, we now know that there can be no such theory.”
With the dream of an inevitable set of laws off the table, the fundamental question returns with even more force: Why do these laws govern our universe, and not others?
While the question might seem unanswerable, the solution begins to emerge once we recognize that our laws of nature are not arbitrary or random. They’re extraordinary. They’re tailored to produce order, structure, and complexity. Among all the ways a universe could be governed, our laws are remarkably well-suited for creating atoms, planets, stars, galaxies, and life. In the words of physicist Paul Davies:
“You might be tempted to suppose that any old rag-bag of laws would produce a complex universe of some sort, with attendant inhabitants convinced of their own specialness. Not so. It turns out that randomly selected laws lead almost inevitably either to unrelieved chaos or boring and uneventful simplicity&#8230;in some sense we live in the most interesting possible universe.”
It’s a profound idea. And it carries significant implications.
If almost all combinations of laws lead to lifeless chaos or dull simplicity, but our laws produce order, complexity, and life, then the laws of nature are not random. They’re clearly designed.
When one specific outcome is chosen from a range of possibilities to achieve a result, we instinctively recognize what that means: intelligence at work. That is, after all, the very definition of intelligence. Intelligence selects. It aims for a purpose, which is why the design embedded in the laws of physics points so powerfully to a mind behind them — an <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/post/intelligent-design-laws-of-nature" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.physicstogod.com/post/intelligent-design-laws-of-nature&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1758912070748000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3NL-agPZclwf1LtzbMiOEj">intelligent designer</a>.
This is not a “God of the gaps” argument. It is not based on ignorance about why we have these laws instead of others. It is based on scientific knowledge: only this specific set of laws produces a universe with structure, complexity, and life. That points directly to design and an intelligent choice of laws. This conclusion arises from what we know, not from what we don’t.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a> 
But for many in the scientific community, that conclusion is unacceptable. Not because the evidence rules it out, but because their philosophy forbids it. Scientists committed to atheism cannot allow that an intelligent God created the laws of nature. So they look for another way.
Their solution? The multiverse.
Faced with the challenge of explaining why our universe has the right laws, some physicists propose an infinite number of other universes, each with entirely different laws. MIT physicist Max Tegmark calls this the “Ultimate Ensemble” — a radical claim that every mathematically possible structure exists as its own physical universe. As Tegmark himself writes: “The only postulate in this theory is that all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically.”
Let that sink in. According to Tegmark, for every imaginable set of laws — no matter how bizarre — there is a universe that follows them. Some universes have laws like ours. Others operate under rules where everything moves only in triangles. Some have seventeen dimensions. Others have 242 million. The possibilities are endless.
So why, out of all possibilities, do we find ourselves in this rare universe with its particular laws?
Their answer is simple: because only a universe like this could host observers like us. The lifeless universes can’t be observed, so of course, we’re not there. We exist here only because this is the kind of universe where existence is possible.
At first glance, the multiverse might sound like an answer. But it quickly unravels.
We observe one universe. Scientists have discovered that it’s governed by specific laws that give rise to structure, complexity, and life. Instead of using these discoveries to illuminate reality, the multiverse strips them of their significance.
If every possible law of nature is real somewhere, then the laws we discover in our universe lose their value. They’re not universally true. They’re just one set among an infinite collection of every imaginable possibility. Newton, Einstein, and Feynman didn’t uncover the ultimate truth. They only described a local chapter of reality.
Within that distorted framework, science no longer seeks universal truth. It simply catalogs accidents. The very idea of a “law of nature” collapses. There is no foundation, no explanation, no reason. If everything possible exists, then nothing in our universe is more real than any fantasy world. A theory that explains something by positing everything explains nothing.
Of course, atheist scientists can always shrug and say: Too bad. Reality is meaningless. Everything possible exists, and nothing is more real than anything else. But even that bleak position collapses on its own terms. Although it’s a more extensive discussion, it can be demonstrated that the <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/is-the-multiverse-real" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.physicstogod.com/is-the-multiverse-real&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1758912070748000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0CgniyX8XEcAT2W_Ir-XDH">multiverse fails</a> by the very standards of science itself.
Ultimately, the choice is stark. Either we believe in an infinite carnival of imaginary universes where anything goes and nothing means anything, or we accept the clear evidence that the designed laws of our universe have an intelligent cause. One path empties science of truth. The other balances both science and reason. The laws of nature are designed, and the only real question is whether we <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/does-god-exist" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.physicstogod.com/does-god-exist&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1758912070748000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1JFywVeUSR7fT_V0-iLlsG">acknowledge the Designer</a>.
Rabbi Elie Feder, PhD, and Rabbi Aaron Zimmer host the “Physics to God” podcast.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Equations.jpeg

Why Do We Have Laws Of Nature — And Why Aren’t They Different?

Nature

Physics

Religion

Trump Tells Pregnant Women To Avoid Tylenol Over Autism Fear

NIH Chief Jay Bhattacharya On DEI, Tylenol, And The Basis Of Truth In Science

COVID

Department of Health and Human Services

Health Care

interview

Isabel Brown

Jay Bhattacharya

Tylenol

Vaccines

The Trump administration renewed its push to return control of education to the states after new data revealed continued declines in the reading, math, and science scores of high school seniors nationwide.
The National Center for Education Statistics released the &#8220;Nation&#8217;s Report Card&#8221; for 12th-grade students on Tuesday, finding that reading levels had reached new lows and math scores were the worst in 20 years. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon <a href="https://x.com/EDSecMcMahon/status/1965370143657148681">said</a> that the numbers confirmed a “devastating trend” of American students testing at “historic lows.”
“Despite billions in federal spending and countless well-intentioned programs, the achievement gap between students is widening, not shrinking. And this trend did not begin with COVID, it goes back a decade,” she said in a video message posted on X, noting that 78% of high school seniors were not proficient in math and another 65% were not proficient in reading in 2024. 
“Clearly, success is not about how much money we spend, but who spends it. That’s why President Trump and I are committed to reversing course and returning control of education to the states so local communities with parents in the driver&#8217;s seat can better innovate, adapt, and tailor education to their students’ needs,” she said. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Today’s <a href="https://twitter.com/NAEP_NCES?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NAEP_NCES</a> 12th grade math and reading and 8th grade science scores confirm a devastating trend: American students are testing at historic lows.
Nearly HALF of America’s high school seniors are testing at below basic levels in math and reading. The status quo is… <a href="https://t.co/FMxGX5cu66">pic.twitter.com/FMxGX5cu66</a>
— Secretary Linda McMahon (@EDSecMcMahon) <a href="https://twitter.com/EDSecMcMahon/status/1965370143657148681?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The National Report Card is an ongoing assessment of what American students know about various subjects, providing a nationwide snapshot of trends and measuring student performance.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/reading/2024/g12/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> that the average reading score for 12th graders in 2024 was three points lower than in 2019 and 10 points lower than in 1992. For <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/mathematics/2024/g12/">math</a>, scores were down three points compared to 2019 and five points compared to 2019. Science <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/science/2024/">scores</a> for seniors also decreased by four points compared to 2019. 
Educational achievement has also dropped for students in lower grades. In January, the statistics showed that around 70% of students in grades four and eight were not proficient in math or reading. 
Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) said that the poor education numbers were endangering national security and would have economic consequences. 
“Low academic skills don’t just hurt grades, they weaken our economy, workforce, and national security. Without strong foundations in these core subjects, America’s freedom and economic competitiveness will be in jeopardy,” he said. “Republicans and the Trump administration are prioritizing students — working to ensure every child gains the skills essential to be successful. This is crucial to America’s success.”
While moving to reduce the size and scope of the Education Department, the Trump administration has encouraged states to adopt school choice policies to allow parents to use state dollars to help cover tuition costs at private schools.

First Lady Melania Trump Hosts White House Task Force On AI Education

‘Nation’s Report Card’ Finds Reading Scores For High School Seniors At Record Lows

Department of Education

Linda McMahon

Mathematics

School Choice

Trump Administration

In a recent Daily Wire piece, we argued that discoveries in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-modern-physics-points-to-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">modern physics point directly to God</a>. In a follow-up, we exposed how some scientists are trying to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-multiverse-scandal-how-academia-is-redefining-science-to-avoid-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">redefine science</a> — not to advance knowledge, but to sidestep the inconvenient possibility of a Creator.
Believe it or not, there’s another tactic in the academic playbook that’s even more brazen. When there is crystal clear evidence for God or some other thing scientists don’t want to acknowledge, they don’t confront the facts, but spin them. Instead of admitting that design implies intelligence, they claim that the incredible design in our universe is evidence for an infinite chaotic multiverse.
We’ve seen this kind of reasoning before. When facts contradict the narrative, the narrative doesn’t change. Instead, the clear implication of the facts gets twisted.
Defund the police, and then crime explodes? Just say that the real problem is a lack of community programs. Teen mental health collapses after a wave of gender surgeries? The experts insist we need to start even younger.
The pattern is the same: take evidence that clearly undermines your position and spin it as if it supports your position.
Surprisingly, this tactic isn’t limited to politics or culture. It’s happening in the heart of elite physics departments.
You’d think that physicists would stick to hard evidence and cold logic. But when modern science starts pointing toward a designer, objectivity disappears. What follows is a breathtaking exercise in mental gymnastics, and a revealing glimpse at how far some atheist scientists are willing to go to protect their belief that God doesn’t exist.
Let’s take a closer look.
Modern academic culture begins with a core assumption: God does not exist. The universe is purely material, blind, and meaningless. Nature has no goals, no plans, no mind. Against this backdrop, it becomes inconvenient when modern physics uncovers something that looks suspiciously like evidence for a Creator.
In the 1970s, physicists made a startling discovery: the basic structure of our universe depends on a set of precise numbers, known as the constants of nature, built into the laws of physics. These include values like the strength of gravity and the charge of the electron. If some of these were even slightly different, the universe wouldn’t work. No atoms. No stars. No galaxies. No life. Just chaos.
This phenomenon is known as “fine-tuning,” and it’s not about minor coincidences. The numbers are astonishingly precise. In some cases, the odds of getting the right value by chance are worse than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.
So, what’s the simplest, most reasonable explanation? These numbers were set deliberately. That an intelligent cause fine-tuned the universe to produce complexity, order, and structure. In other words, fine-tuning is exactly what you’d expect to see if the universe were intelligently designed.
This was a problem for atheist scientists committed to a godless universe. They couldn’t deny the fact of fine-tuning — the evidence was too overwhelming. So instead, they did what academics often do when facts threaten cherished dogma: they twisted the interpretation.
Their explanation for fine-tuning? The multiverse.
Here’s the basic idea. Some theories in physics, like eternal inflation, suggest the possibility of an infinite number of universes. Now imagine, they say, that each of those universes has different laws and constants. If that’s true, then it’s no surprise that we find ourselves in one that works. After all, we couldn’t exist in any of the countless dud universes without atoms, stars, or life.
Sounds clever. But even if you accept the assumption that an infinite number of unobservable universes exist, there’s still a bigger problem: what’s the actual scientific evidence that the universal laws of nature vary from one universe to another? After all, they’re called “constants” for a reason. Every measurement and observation we have tells us that these numbers don’t change.
Here’s where it gets wild.
One of their main arguments for why the constants must vary is the fact that our universe is fine-tuned. That’s right. The very evidence that screams design is now used to argue for infinite cosmic randomness.
MIT physicist Max Tegmark, writing in <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0302131" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Scientific American</a>, makes this move explicitly. He uses fine-tuning itself as evidence for a multiverse with varying constants:
“Cosmologists infer the presence of Level II parallel universes by scrutinizing the properties of our universe. These properties…have exactly the values that sustain life. That suggests the existence of other universes with other values.”
Let that sink in. The very fact that our universe is perfectly calibrated for life is now used as evidence that other, totally different universes must exist. First, the multiverse was a way to explain away fine-tuning. Now, fine-tuning is offered as proof of the multiverse.
What’s the logic? Since they’ve already ruled out an intelligent cause, the constants must vary — because there’s simply no other way to explain why these numbers are so perfectly set. That’s what passes for logic in elite academia.
How did this inversion become acceptable in a field that prides itself on rationality? Because the foundational assumption is never questioned: God cannot exist. And sometimes, physicists say this outright.
In response to the <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/fine-tuning-argument-for-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fine-tuning argument</a> for God, Perimeter Institute physicist Lee Smolin writes the following:
“This argument is valid only if there is no way to explain how the laws of nature might have been chosen except by invoking the action of some entity outside our universe. You may recall the principle with which I started this book: there is nothing outside the universe. As long as there is a way of answering all our questions without violating this principle, we are doing science and we have no need of any other mode of explanation.”
Smolin isn’t making a scientific argument. He’s laying out a philosophical bias. And he’s clear about it. On the very first page of the book, he boldly writes: “It cannot have been made by anything that exists outside of it, for by definition the universe is all there is, and there cannot be anything outside it.”
In other words, the existence of God isn’t ruled out by evidence. It’s ruled out by definition.
If you start your investigation by excluding the possibility of God, then yes, an infinite number of other universes with different constants becomes necessary. Not because the evidence points there, but because no other option is allowed. But ask yourself: is there any more absurd conclusion to draw from one perfectly ordered universe than the claim it suggests an infinite number of chaotic ones?
Science is supposed to follow the evidence, not twist it to fit a predetermined worldview. And if your worldview forces you to reinterpret what the evidence plainly shows, maybe it’s time to question the worldview.
Start with an open and honest question: Does the universe show signs of an intelligent cause? Once you do, the answer becomes clear. Fine-tuning is not evidence for a multiverse. It is powerful <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/does-god-exist" target="_blank" rel="noopener">evidence for God</a>.
Rabbi Elie Feder, PhD, and Rabbi Aaron Zimmer, host the “Physics to God” podcast.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Artificial intelligence science fiction

How Scientists Are Working Overtime To Deny God

Crime

Transgender

A pre-born life frozen since 1994 has finally been welcomed into the world, in what is believed to be the oldest embryo ever brought to birth.
Tim and Lindsey Pierce utilized embryo adoption to grow their family, per the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/baby-embryo-30-year-birth-ohio-129926d4456dcba4781f155898aca7d8">Associated Press</a>. The Ohio-based couple is part of a small movement of people who focus on frozen embryos currently suspended in time.
For many Christians who believe life begins at conception, it is unthinkable to “dispose of” these fully unique human persons even at their very early stages of development. But embryo adoption remains an underutilized option, especially considering estimates that more than 1.5 million frozen embryos are currently being stored in the United States today.
The Pierces adopted the frozen embryo from Linda Archerd, 62. 
She said she had four frozen embryos after undergoing an IVF procedure more than 30 years ago and gave birth to one daughter. But then she and her husband divorced, stalling her plans to expand her family further. Still, Archerd thought about her embryos and believed they deserved a chance at life, too.
“I felt all along that these three little hopes, these little embryos, deserved to live just like my daughter did,” Archerd told AP.
She found the Pierces through an embryo adoption agency. One embryo did not survive the thaw, Archerd told the outlet. Two embryos were transferred, but only one implanted, resulting in the live birth of one little boy on Saturday.
The biological mother of the donated embryos said she looks forward to meeting her son, named Thaddeus Daniel Pierce, which was one of the stipulations she put forth for the adoption.
Archerd said she already sees the family resemblance. “The first thing that I noticed when Lindsey sent me his pictures is how much he looks like my daughter when she was a baby,” Archerd said. “I pulled out my baby book and compared them side by side and there is no doubt that they are siblings.”
“I’d love to meet them some day,” she said. “That would be a dream come true to meet — meet them and the baby.”
Lindsey Pierce told <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/07/29/1120769/exclusive-record-breaking-baby-born-embryo-over-30-years-old/#:~:text=The%20embryos%20were%20created%20in,Christian%20%E2%80%9Cembryo%20adoption%E2%80%9D%20agency.&amp;text=A%20baby%20boy%20born%20over,for%20the%20%E2%80%9Coldest%20baby.%E2%80%9D">MIT Technology Review</a> that she and her family are doing fine. “We had a rough birth but we are both doing well now,” the new mom told the outlet. “He is so chill. We are in awe that we have this precious baby!”
“The baby has a 30-year-old sister,” she said. The outlet also noted that she and her husband, Tim, who are 34 and 35 respectively, were only toddlers when their future son was conceived.
“We thought it was wild,” Lindsey said. “We didn’t know they froze embryos that long ago.”
“We didn’t go into it thinking we would break any records. We just wanted to have a baby,” she added, noting how her family thinks the whole thing is “like something from a sci-fi movie.”

Three Decades Later, Life Begins: Ohio Baby Boy Born From 1994 Frozen Embryo

Ohio Baby Conceived, Frozen In 1994 Becomes 'Oldest' Embryo Ever Born

Adoption

babies

Health

Medical Research

Ohio

Pro-Life Movement

John Thomas Scopes On Trial

A Century Ago, The ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ Shook The Nation. The Stakes Are Just As High Today.

The intelligentsia is always telling us to “follow the science.” But what happens when “the science” starts undermining academia’s deeply-held beliefs? Suddenly, the definition of science changes — or we’re told we misunderstood it all along.
If you’ve followed the debates over climate change or gender ideology, this story might sound familiar. But what may surprise you is that the same tactics are now at work in elite physics departments around the world. Even the most brilliant minds aren’t immune to bias — or to pushing a philosophical agenda under the guise of objectivity.
So, how is this playing out in the world of advanced physics?
Atheist scientists hold one belief above all: God is fiction. Why? Because God isn’t science. And only scientific claims can be true. Science, they say, explains the universe through natural, blind forces. This picture of reality is supposed to be testable and falsifiable.
But are they still living up to that standard?
In recent decades, physicists uncovered something remarkable. Nature’s laws contain fundamental constants, specific numbers that determine how particles like electrons behave. For years, no one knew where these mysterious numbers came from. Then came the scientific discovery that many of them are finely tuned. Change them even slightly, and the universe as we know it wouldn’t exist. No atoms. No stars. No life.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial&amp;_gl=1*r8odly*_gcl_au*MTQ5MDUzNjQ0NC4xNzQ1ODQ0MzMyLjEwNDAyMzM0NDQuMTc0NzY1MzIxNy4xNzQ3NjUzMjE3*_ga*MTM1OTk4Njg2NS4xNzA2NzE2NTAy*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NTEyOTIzMDQkbzMyJGcxJHQxNzUxMjkyOTI5JGo1NyRsMCRoMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-75638">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
The implication was hard to miss. An intelligent cause had <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/fine-tuning-argument-for-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fine-tuned</a> the constants to produce a complex, structured universe. That conclusion sounded uncomfortably like God. And many atheist physicists wanted nothing to do with that.
Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind, himself an atheist, explained the fear:
Physicists dislike mixing religion into physics. I think they were somewhat afraid that if it was admitted that the reason the world is the way it is has to do with our own existence, that that could be hijacked by the creationists, by the intelligent designers. And of course, what they would say is, “Yes, we always told you so. There is a benevolent somebody way up high in the universe who created the universe exactly so that we could live.” I think physicists shrank at the idea of getting involved in such things.
But if the evidence pointed to God, scientists had a choice: follow it, or explain it away.
Enter the multiverse: an infinite set of unobservable universes, each with different laws. If the multiverse exists, then finding ourselves in a fine-tuned universe isn’t all that surprising. With infinite tries, some universes are bound to support life. And naturally, we’d only ever find ourselves in one of those.
Sounds clever, but here’s the problem: science requires observation and testability. One of the most renowned physicists of the prior generation, Richard Feynman, stated clearly: “All scientists will agree that a question — any question, philosophical or other — which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment…is not a scientific question.”
By definition, an infinite number of unobservable universes can’t be tested by experiment. By Feynman’s standard, and that of virtually all scientists for the past 300 years, the multiverse is not science.
So, what does academia do when faced with this problem? It tries to change the rules.
Physicist Bernard Carr openly argues for redefining science: “It is surely dangerous to impose a philosophical prescription that prevents scientists from changing the border of their field. As Susskind cautions, it would be a pity to miss out on some fundamental truth because of an over-restrictive definition of science.”
In other words: if the multiverse doesn’t fit the definition of science that’s guided discovery since the Enlightenment, no problem — just redefine science.
As if redefining science weren’t bad enough, some scientists go further. Johns Hopkins physicist Sean Carroll boldly claims that falsifiability was never a requirement of science:
The ways in which we evaluate the multiverse as a scientific hypothesis are precisely the ways in which hypotheses have always been judged. The point is not that we are changing the nature of science by allowing unfalsifiable hypotheses into our purview. The point is that “falsifiability” was never the primary criterion by which scientific theories were judged (although scientists have often presented it as such).
So, Feynman got it wrong. Einstein too. Generations of scientists? All mistaken. Or so we’re now told.
How long before textbooks are rewritten to teach students that science doesn’t require testing, observation, or falsifiability? We’ve seen this play before, and it doesn’t end well.
This isn’t just semantics. Redefining science erodes public trust in real, tested science. If untestable multiverse theory now falls under the esteemed banner of science, how is anyone supposed to tell the difference between the real thing and its impostor version?
Fortunately, some scientists have sounded the alarm about these shifts. George Ellis, a leading physicist, has warned bluntly:
The foundations must be respected if one is to preserve the core features of science that have led to its phenomenal success: that is, the feedback from reality to theory provided by experiment and observational testing. One abandons that at one’s peril&#8230;it is dangerous to weaken the grounds of scientific proof in order to include multiverses under the mantle of “tested science”.
Ellis is right. If science is to remain credible, scientists need to stop playing word games. Fine-tuning in our one, ordered universe is a real scientific discovery. But it most certainly doesn’t point to an infinite, chaotic multiverse.
The bottom line? The <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/is-the-multiverse-real" target="_blank" rel="noopener">multiverse isn’t science</a>. It’s a speculative philosophical idea — and not even a good one. Passing it off as science is dishonest. These scientists are hijacking the credibility of science to promote a weak philosophical theory that can’t stand on its own.
We’re not saying God is a scientific theory. That would be dishonest. What we are saying is that science<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-modern-physics-points-to-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> points to God</a>. Because when you follow the evidence, the most straightforward explanation for fine-tuning is an intelligent designer.
And if academics really believe in “following the science,” then maybe it’s time they followed it themselves — all the way to God.
Rabbi Elie Feder, PhD, and Rabbi Aaron Zimmer, host the “Physics to God” podcast.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Space warp travel trough universe

The Multiverse Scandal: How Academia Is Redefining Science To Avoid God

universe

Menu