It was an act of God


If God created the Universe then he must have created everything in it. Creationists use things like the eyeball to show that life could not have happened by accident. But why do you need God only in the case of eyeballs and not in the case of even the simplest biological forms? Even the simplest living cell is so complicated that scientists do not understand all its workings. If the act of creation was a miracle, then every time a lamb is born is also a miracle. Every time hydrogen and oxygen join to form water is a miracle. Every time a photon of light travels from a firefly to a frog’s eye is a miracle. If God created the Universe then nothing can exist without God’s continuous intervention. He is someone who is continuously spinning plates. If he takes his attention away the plates come crashing down. But a God that can create a universe is all powerful and can keep all those plates spinning with ease. Every time a raindrop falls from the sky you have witnessed an act of God.
When a nail rusts, when iron oxidizes, this is an act of God. How can it be otherwise? Did the iron oxide choose to form itself out of oxygen and iron? How can anything happen without the Creator’s immediate involvement? That is if there is a Creator.

Compassion and Choices

The Hemlock Society changed it’s name in 2003 to Compassion and Choices. I don’t like the new name, but oh well. They did surveys and focus group tests. This will be better, right?

The Hemlock Society was founded to fight “for voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide to be made legal for terminally and hopelessly ill adults.” –

Inflammatory Speach

Come to think of it .. maybe the United States government ought to cancel all assistance to LA until these people develop an ability to think rationally. -Neal Boortz regarding California’s stand on Arizona’s immigration laws.

I know Neal Boortz is being facetious and being facetious is entertaining, but he seems to be trying to be rational and reasonable in the rest of his post. It just gets under my skin when talk show hosts make ad hominem attacks even if they are kind of kidding around. All talk show hosts are guilty of this more or less and it makes it hard for me to listen to anything else they have to say, even if I already agree with their position.

A Question for Bobmo

I’ve been involved in a conversation at* about agnosticism. This is what Bob has to say about the subject:

Coined by English biologist Thomas Huxley in 1860, the word agnostic has taken several forms over the years. Agnosticism typically addresses the knowledge of God’s existence, but most agnostics don’t stop there. They often take a position on the existence of objective truth as well. One agnostic will say, “I don’t know, but you don’t know either,” or, “I don’t know, and I can’t know. And, neither can anyone else.” Others say, “I don’t know now, but maybe some day there will be more evidence and I’ll know then.”

So I have a question for anyone who is an agnostic. How do you know that agnosticism is correct?

If you say, “Well, I don’t know,” then, why are you agnostic if you have no basis for it? Or maybe you say, “In the absence of any convincing evidence, agnosticism is the best position to take.” But how do you know that agnosticism is the best position to take in the absence of any convincing evidence? Where’s your evidence for that?

It seems that, no matter how you slice it, agnosticism is a claim to knowledge.

My question for Bob is this: If there is no justification for saying, “I don’t know”, then on what basis would anyone say, “I know”? Under what circumstances is one justified in saying, “I don’t know.” Maybe the correct position to take is one of silence. If you don’t know, then maybe you should remain silent.

*A question for agnostics. Here is the link to the article itself, but to get to the comments you have to go here.

Ludwig Boltzman

The scientist asks not what are the currently most important questions, but “which are at present solvable?” or sometimes merely “in which can we make some small but genuine advance?” As long as the alchemists merely sought the philosopher’s stone and aimed at finding the art of making gold, all their endeavors were fruitless; it was only when people restricted themselves to seemingly less valuable questions that they created chemistry. Thus natural science appears completely to lose from sight the large and general questions.

– Ludwig Boltzman (Taken from The Mind’s Sky by Timothy Ferris)