Creationist Wisdom #737: Miracles Are Everywhere

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Northside Sun, a weekly newspaper published in Jackson, Mississippi, the state capital. It’s titled Christmas is a time to appreciate the miracle of life, and the newspaper has a comments section.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name — but today we’ve got an exception. The author is Wyatt Emmerich. He’s the newspaper’s publisher, and that certainly qualifies for full-name treatment. What we found is his column, so technically it’s not a letter, but it belongs in our collection. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Okay, here we go:

My Sunday School class discussed last week why miracles are not as prevalent today as they were in the time of Jesus. I beg to differ. Miracles are all around us all the time. The problem is we don’t see them. Our eyes are closed. When you are surrounded by miracles every second of your life, it’s hard to see the forest for the trees.

Wowie — we’re surrounded by miracles every second! Then he says:

In our increasingly humanistic secular society, science is replacing God. You see this in the global warming debate, in which secular humanists look to science, not God, to save our planet.

The fools! After that he tells us:

After all, Adam ate the apple because he and Eve wanted to know what God knows. We still do. We never stop trying. It’s not enough to accept that God is in control. We want to be in control. We want the power and the glory and the knowledge.

Lusting after scientific knowledge is sin! He continues:

I have been reading a book called “A Brief History of Time” written by Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest theoretical physicists of our era. He is an atheist. … The problem for Hawking is that as science unfolds the layers of the universe, God becomes more, not less, apparent. That’s tough for an atheist physicist to explain.

Hawking can’t explain anything because he’s an atheist. But Emmerich is wiser than Hawking. Let’s read on:

There are four main material forces in the universe: [he attempts to describe them]. As it turns out, if any one of these four forces was altered by the tiniest amount, the universe could not exist. How tiny an amount? That would be the number 10 followed by 27,000 zeros. We don’t have a word for that number.

We’re not told how that number was calculated. Another excerpt:

So how could this be? Hawking keeps asking this question again and again in his book. The best answer he comes up with is the anthropic principle, which goes something like this: “No matter how improbable the universe is, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question if it didn’t happen.” That’s it. That’s the best answer the greatest theoretical physicist in the world can come up with to explain how our world exists without God. Excuse me, Dr. Hawking, while I go read the Bible.

Ah, now we’re getting somewhere! Here’s more

It is one thing to deny miracles when all of science tells you they can’t be true. It is another thing to deny miracles when all of science points a huge neon flashing sign to God’s miracle of creation.

[…]

It’s not JUST the universe that is so miraculous. Earth is just as miraculous. If you factor in all the things that had to happen for human life to exist on earth, it comes to a number that exceeds the stars in the universe. Star Wars got it wrong. We are alone in the universe. The science proves it.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Science proves we’re alone! And now we come to the end:

So when you ponder on the miracle of Christ’s birth, don’t hesitate to believe with all your heart and soul. The promise is real, Far more real than human understanding. That’s a good reason to have a Merry Christmas!

That was a wise and inspirational letter — a fine addition to our collection.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

19 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #737: Miracles Are Everywhere

  1. Charles Deetz ;)

    Miracle that the universe was created …. miracle that I didn’t get hit on the highway this morning. Amazing span of miracles.

  2. How tiny an amount? That would be the number 10 followed by 27,000 zeros.

    Where’s KevinC when we need him to explain why that’s really an extremely tiny number?

  3. Hawking’s book came out in 1989. Glad the old coot is catching up on his reading!

  4. A kid in Mr. Emmerich’s Sunday School class:
    “When my dad lost his leg in an accident you prayed for him, didn’t you?”
    “Yes I did Timmy.”
    “I remember! You prayed that Jesus would give him the strength to carry on.”
    “Yes I did Timmy.”
    “Why didn’t you pray for my Dad to get his leg back?”
    “”

  5. michaelfugate

    “The promise is real,…”

    What promise would that be?

  6. Just think that God used his omniscience and omnipotence to create the laws of physics so that life would be possible.
    But that was not good enough.
    He had to make Earth to be special among all of the planets in all of the star systems in all of the galaxies so that life could be possible only on Earth.
    But that was not enough.
    He had to suspend the laws of thermodynamics so that life could exist on Earth.
    But that was not enough.
    He had to make “mankind” to be an extra-special form of life, among all of the forms of life.
    So, how was that an expression of omniscience and omnipotence to fine tune the parameters of physics. And to make Earth so special. And to make life contrary to thermodynamics. And still need another expression of omniscience and omnipotence to make “mankind”?
    What sort of omniscience and omnipotence are we seeing?

  7. Newspaper publisher/preacher boy Wyatt Emmerich:
    “In our increasingly humanistic secular society, science is replacing God. You see this in the global warming debate, in which secular humanists look to science, not God, to save our planet.”

    It was bad enough when climate change became politicized — but now it’s a religious issue??? Oh, heaven help us!!!

  8. Excuse me, Dr. Hawking, while I go read the Bible.
    Nothing like reading the good book and those lovely passages about being a good slave and stoning the old lady if she has a wandering eye. Yep, the miracles abound.

  9. Wyatt wrote: “You see this in the global warming debate, in which secular humanists look to science, not God, to save our planet.”

    So God is Captain Planet!? I knew it!

  10. “You see this in the germ theory debate, in which secular humanists look to science, not God, to save us from disease.”
    “You see this in the internal combustion engine debate, in which secular humanists look to science, not God, to get us to move faster than a horse.”
    “You see this in the papyrus debate, in which secular humanists look to science, not God, to enable us to record the annals of the Pharoah.”
    “You see this in the flintknapping debate, in which secular humanists look to science, not God, to enable us to skin the hides of our prey.”

    This is actually kind of fun, once you find a rhythm.

  11. “You see this in the global warming debate, in which secular humanists look to science, not God, to save our planet.”

    I heard the Big Guy is going carbon neutral.

  12. michaelfugate

    So he/she/it is giving up burnt meat sacrifices for the good of the planet?

  13. I do believe our publisher and Sunday school teacher is mixing up his immaculate conception with his virgin birth.

  14. “secular humanists look to science, not God, to save our planet.”
    Eeeehhhhh ….. isn’t that why Wyatt’s god gave mankind science (theologically: grounds it?) So that humans can use it to save our planet? This is a false dilemma according to Wyatt’s own christian theology. Wyatt confirms this when he refers to A Brief History of Time, that ends with the significant words: “Then we know the Mind of God”. Apparently he intends to refuse this gift of his god.

  15. DEVO the band was correct. Devolution is real. Or at least people like this publisher sure are strong evidence. (I know, I know. Evolution does not have a direction. You get what I mean).

  16. Ok, I give up on science. God, you’re in charge. What a relief, now I can sleep in. Please be sure to pay my bills, mow my lawn, shovel the snow, etc. And you better not let me get sick.

  17. James B Theuer

    I see changelings communing with familiars quite often where I live. I tried to muster some peasant levies to hunt and burn them, but then someone told me to go back to the 16th century and just let the children play with their freaking dogs. when christ returns they’ll see where their naturalism got them! muhaha

  18. There are four main material forces in the universe: [he attempts to describe them]. As it turns out, if any one of these four forces was altered by the tiniest amount, the universe could not exist. How tiny an amount? That would be the number 10 followed by 27,000 zeros. We don’t have a word for that number.

    Actually, it turns out it may not even be true. I wish I could find the article (I think it was in Scientific American–but the gist of it is that theoretical scientists have simulated universes with alternate values for the four forces–even zero, I think, for the weak nuclear force–and it turns out that at least some of the universes they got could, in principle, have supported life.

    Ah, creationists would respond, but not human life! To which I answer, “So what?” Only an idiot believes that God, if He/She/It exists, looks like a human being. We’re supposed to have put Zeus, Odin and their kind behind us, aren’t we?

    (Actually, I’m sure creationists would reject those scientists’ work as mere “speculation”–but even if that were true, it would be better than the outright fantasy upon which creationism depends.)

  19. If there is an Anthropic Principle which indicates that basic parameters of the universe were designed so that (human) life is conforming, then wouldn’t life be conforming with the laws of thermodynamics, and with any “law of conservation of information”? There would not need to be anything special about Earth as an environment for life – life would just naturally occur on Earth as a consequence of the design of the parameters.