Ye of little science: Creation was created by a creator

Scientists generally agree that the universe – defined as everything in existence – has not always existed. It came into existence with a bang about 13 billion years ago. This bang was a big one, so they named it the “Big Bang.”

Before the Big Bang, there was no space, no energy and no time – not even empty space, zero energy or stopped time. There was nothing.

And then everything was created out of this nothing. We call this everything “creation.” It’s the tangible universe around us, seen and unseen. It’s the energy, the matter, and the progression of time.

As a matter of logic, creation must have been created. And also as a matter of logic, whatever caused creation to be created is, by definition, the creator of it.

How the creator created creation, we haven’t a clue. Oh sure, there are theories that our universe is one of many “parallel” universes, blah blah blah, but there’s zero evidence for any of those theories. Those theories are mainly semantics games. They really just beg the question: If our universe is a “parallel” universe to some other one – some other creation – then how was that one created if not by a creator?

In short, if you acknowledge that the universe – creation – exists, you cannot deny that it was created by a creator. The rest of organized religion is just puny humans quibbling about the nature of this creator, in the tribal, shallow ways they do. They’re not striving for understanding; they’re arguing that their creator is better than yours.


On the other hand, if you deny that the universe exists, you should stop reading and immediately check yourself into the hospital.

Here’s where it gets interesting. In order to create the universe – in order to create creation – the creator must have been around (but around what?) before the universe came into existence. The laws of cause-and-effect go only one direction in time.  Yesterday’s effect cannot be produced by today’s cause. The creation could not be caused by something occurring after it happened.

But the universe is defined to include everything, which includes a creator. And so, unless you deny the laws of cause-and-effect by contending that the creator was created in the creation and somehow cast a cause backward in time to create the effect of that creation, this creator must have existed before it existed. But how can something exist before it exists?

These violations, of not only physical laws but basic laws of logic and cause-and-effect, seem the very definition of a “miracle.”

Given that the creator created all of creation – and did so before the creator even existed, or, alternatively, the creator itself existed before it existed – I can only conclude that this creator is capable of anything. Virgin births, Red Sea partings, growing my hair back, you name it.

That the creator that created creation is omnipotent does not alone validate any particular religion – the mere fact that the creator is capable of something does not prove it did that something. It just says that, scientifically speaking, anything and everything is possible.

Remember all of that in this season of goodwill and at other times as well. Be merry – I have a hunch that our miraculous, puckish creator is. And humble.

Stealing is not the queerist thing about Biden’s little perv perp

The Biden administration made headlines last year when they boastfully appointed a certain person to a high level position at the Office of Nuclear Energy. This person is “non-binary” and refers to his/her/them/itself with ungendered pronouns.

OK, I get that. The person feels that he/her/it/they does (do?) not fit neatly into the anachronistic gender labels developed over about two million years of human history and prehistory as interpreted by science, medicine, genetics, sociology, biology, logic, anthropology and biochemistry promulgated by dead white European men – and dead men and women of color on the rest of the planet – consistent with the male/female dichotomy in the animal world.

Yes, I get it – this person is mentally ill. Note that this mental case is a card-carrying member of the political party that “believes in science.”

Continue reading

The Supreme Court is preparing to strike down forced speech

In a case argued at the Supreme Court this week, a Colorado website designer appealed a decision from lower courts requiring her to create wedding websites for gay couples in violation of her religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Court is likely to reverse the lower court decision, and allow her to decline to create such websites. 

The liberal minority on the Court and the liberal media argue that such a decision will lead to a new Jim Crow era where the providers of public accommodation are allowed to refuse services to people on the basis of their sexual preferences or skin color. 

That argument is incorrect and probably not even sincere. Here’s why.

The First Amendment of course prohibits the government from banning speech. Less recognized is that the First Amendment also prohibits the government from compelling speech. That means it’s unconstitutional for the government to prohibit you from voicing support for gay marriage and it’s equally unconstitutional for the government to require you to voice such support. 

Continue reading

COVID was like Ferris Bueller’s Two Years Off

In a COVID panic, we told people to stop working. It became not only permissible not to work, it became a mandate. Sitting around the house watching daytime TV in pajamas became the responsible thing to do. With no one working, unsurprisingly, no work got done. It was like a two-year snow day. Or Ferris Bueller’s Two-Years Off. Democrats loved it, of course, because Democrats hate work.

COVID killed nearly a million Americans (though most had what the doctors euphemistically call “comorbidities”). And the lockdowns and mandates for masks, vaccines and social distancing (at least when one wasn’t rioting) were bad. And the lost year or two of learning for an entire generation was tragic (though we could make that up in four months if we improved the schools and tamed the teachers unions).

But the most destructive outcome of COVID was the destruction of the American work ethic. That’s the ethic — now considered a quaint notion — that work is good. It’s good for the pocketbook, good for the soul, and good for society.

Continue reading