Richard Dawkins, a famous Atheist said: “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”(wikipedia). In other words, he’s an Agnostic. Dawkins is also a liberal, and as we all know, liberals love to split hairs when it comes to what words mean. Because he lives his life “on the assumption that he is not there”, he thinks its ok to call himself an Atheist. I would call that assumption a huge mistake. Its sort of like assuming that you can cross a street without looking or playing Russian Roulette with what you assume is an empty gun. If Richard were being honest with himself, he would have to admit he simply prefers to live his life as if there is no God, because believing in God is too restrictive.

God said in the book of Romans (1:20): “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” God is saying (via Paul of Tarsus) that it is obvious that there is a God in spite of the fact that he is invisible to us. There are many things that are invisible to us, such as the wind. We know the wind is real because we can feel it. Atoms are invisible and are an example of many ultra small things that are invisible because of their small size. We know they are real because we can see them with an electon microscope, and we can use mathematics to predict their reaction to certian stimulus. We also know the difference between an accidental action as opposed to a purposeful (by an inteligent actor) action. Accidental action is messy and distructive, and purposeful action is stuctured and constructive. What God is pointing out in Romans 1:20 is that the structured and construtive environment we live in was most certainly the result of purposeful action, and those who deny it are without excuse.

Because the Earth displays purposeful action, it is proof that it is a Creation, and that there is a God. The creation (as we call it) is like a meter that proves the existence of God. An atheist has to deny this reality. In fact, the Atheist HAS to believe in the primorial soup hypothisis, of which there is absolutely NO evidence to support this notion. Atheists like to talk about macro evolultion as proof that the Earth was not “created”, but in actuality, it is illogical to use this as a proof of anything other than how the animals came to be. Abiognenisis, which is what the primordial soup hypothisis is called, is the only logical reason an Atheist can use to say that the Earth existing today could exist without a Creator. So the Atheists assertion that there is no God is based on a hypothisis.

Because you would have to be crazy and illogical to base your world view on a hypothisis, I think that no honest person could ever be a complete Athiest. They always have to have a little Agnostism in them to maintain SOME semblance of intelectual honesty. This is why Richard Dawkins says “I cannot know for certain…”. AND this is why I can say for certain that there is no such thing as an Athiest! God said it best when he said in Psalm 53:1, “The fool said in his heart, there is no God….”.

The recent story about Donald Trump wanting the Hispanic Judge to recuse himself got me thinking. Trump has called for illegal aliens to be deported (most of which are Hispanic), a wall to be built across the border with Mexico, and has made statements about Mexican illegal immigrants being criminals. Then, as soon as he gets the nomination, a law suit is filed against him. The timing of the law suit is obviously political. The judge assigned to the case turns out to be a 1^st generation American with Mexican immigrant parents. Trump thinks maybe the judge won’t be fair because he may be sympathetic toward Hispanic illegal immigrants. Also, it turns out; the judge also belongs to a La Raza (“the race”) lawyers group. La Raza has not been supportive of Trump’s campaign.

Because Trump asked the judge to recuse himself, both Republicans and Democrats have labeled Trump a “racist”. The assumption is that Trump thinks because the judge is Hispanic, he cannot be fair (making an assumption that Hispanics are inherently unfair?). Aside from the fallacious argument Trump’s detractors are using (could it be that Trump thinks the judge may be mad about his positions on immigration?) the use of the word “racist” got me thinking. Being a “racist” implies that you think certain “races” are better than others. So what “race” is a Hispanic? Hispanics can be 100% Spanish European, part Spanish part Amerindian, part African part Amerindian, part Spanish part African, 100% African, or 100% Amerindian. So the “race” of a Hispanic is ambiguous at best. In fact, in my opinion, Hispanics kind of disprove the entire concept of race. The traditional concept of race is that there are 3, Black, White, and Yellow. Hispanics are basically different combinations of all three. So without knowing what combination of heritages the Hispanic judge has, is it correct to call Trump a racist? What if the judge was 100% Spanish? Is Trump still a “racist” then? This is why I think “race” is a ridiculous concept.

I believe that the Ark story is true, and that it actually happened. Based on this, there cannot be 3 races. While there were 3 brothers, the sons of Noah on the Ark, there were also the 3 wives. All these people were descendants of Adam. So where do the 3 races come from? It basically comes from how different Europeans, Africans and Asians look. These people look different, but basically, they are ALL related. Also, the race concept does not take into consideration how people in the in between areas like North Africa, West Asia and the Caucus look sort of a combination of the areas they separate. North Africans look sort of Middle Eastern and African. West Asians look sort of like Middle Eastern and East Asian. Caucasians look sort of like European and Middle Eastern. In fact, if you just look at the extreme ends of Asia, Europe and Africa, people look quite different. But if you consider all the people in between, the concept of race becomes ambiguous.

If you believe we are descended from Adam, or if you think that genetically we are all descended from a Mitochondrial Eve, as a book I read on DNA says, then the concept that we had 3 parallel “races” that developed independently of each other is ridiculous. Fact is, no matter how you look at it, we are all related to people who came from the Middle East. The gradual change as you head North, South and East is basically the result of hunter/gatherer migrations, and people inbreeding with one another, and gradually looking different from each other as they moved further away.

Anthropologists think we are all descended from a guy in East Africa. This is the real “racist” idea. The implication is that Africans, or more specifically Bantu people, are less “evolved” than the people who migrated out of East Africa through the Sahara Desert to the Middle East. I think this is ridiculous, because hunter/gatherer people would find it almost impossible to migrate through the Sahara. I think that the fossils that were found in Africa are not an indication that man evolved there. With the uncertainty of dating techniques and some fossils later discovered to be apes, and not human, the idea that we evolved from there is not proven in the slightest. The evidence shows that we most likely started out in the Middle East and migrated away from there to the North, South and East. Hunter/Gatherer bands can move as fast as a mile a day, so covering the earth in a short period of time is possible. In the 6000 years since Noah got out of the Ark, mankind has migrated away from their initial location in the mountains of Ararat. The Bantu people are simply the descendants of people who migrated through the Sahara fairly recently. The lack of established civilizations is proof of that. The same thing goes for the people who migrated across the Bering Sea to the Americas. Both people groups, the Bantu and the Amerindian needed newer technology to migrate across the huge deserts of the Arctic and the Sahara. Boats, knowledge of ecosystems and knowledge of getting water in the desert were required for these migrations. The evidence shows that these people are actually “newer” (and if you believe in evolution, MORE evolved) than the rest of the earth’s people. I believe that humans did not cross the Arctic desert and the Sahara desert until they possessed the technology and knowledge to do so.

What does this all mean? Basically, calling Trump a “racist” is bogus.

Megan McArdle (a reporter for the Bloomberg news service) decided to write an article titled “Global-Warming Alarmists, You’re Doing It Wrong”. For suggesting that the climate change argument needs people to “talk about climate change like civilized adults”, she got a considerable amount of hate mail, from alarmists that objected to the notion that there was any need for any discourse on something they think is “settled”. My opinion is that the debate is hardly settled, and predictions 100 years into the future hardly qualifies as a reason to ruin our economy. In the discussion that followed, I wrote the following posting:

“You ruffled the feathers of people for whom ‘climate change’ is part of their world view (ie. religion). The reaction you got was a religious one. Its sort of like going into a Baptist church and arguing the case for sprinkling. You think climate science should be an intellectual discourse? So do I. But then, I am am one of those evil “deniers” that are skeptical of science being co-opted for political purposes. Finding logical inconsistencies in the conclusions drawn by journalists (and not scientists) I too, find myself under the same kind of religious condemnation that I have experienced in my own church over theological issues. This is why as a religious person, I think the best thing that can be done for climate science is to take the religion out of it. Religion belongs in churches, synagogues, and mosques, not in scientific research!”

For me, the response of the alarmists is proof positive that what we have going on in the US today amounts to nothing less than a religious war. By portraying themselves as atheists or agnostics, the alarmists think they are not being religious, but the reality is, they most certainly are! God tells us all throughout the Bible not to worship Idols, and Climate Science and Scientism in general have become Idols! By not thinking they are being religious, these alarmists can bypass the constitutional imperative not to establish a religion, and have found a way around it and are now establishing the Idol of Scientism.