Hawkings

Stephen Hawking has written a book claiming creation is possible without God.  Alas, I haven't read the book - not least, I doubt I'd understand very much of it.  However, I imagine that Hawking's argument rests on a little more than this finding of some other system in space where planets orbit some sun.

I think the point I'd make is (as is so often the case) more eloquently put by Chris Dillow at Stumbling and Mumbling: So what?  That it is possible makes no difference for what did actually happen back when the universe as we know it either suddenly came into being or was created.  Neither are empirically prove-able and hence a position on either end of the spectrum involves an element of faith: We can only go so far on evidence, and the rest takes a leap of faith.

Non-believers in creation will say creation is impossible because x, y and z, and therefore jump to the conclusion creation therefore didn't happen.  Believers will dispute x, y and z and provide a, b and c, and then jump to say: Creation therefore happened.

I'm a Christian and an econometrician, and I run with things as this: I have reason to believe in what the Bible says - historican events bear testament to the reliability of the Bible on important things such as the life of Jesus.  We have an odd death involving a person willingly subjecting himself to crucifixion - why?  The Bible provides an answer.  From there I make my jump to say: I trust what the Bible says about how we got here - God created.  Do I take Genesis literally, it all happened in seven days?  No - that bit of the Bible isn't a historical document - the essential point is that God created - not how he did it.

Finally: Does that mean I don't bother doing econometrics?  Of course not.  People don't realise Christians were the early pioneers of science.  We want to know more about this wonderful world we believe God created, and that's what I try and do every day with my research.

The Don't Knows

I liked this blog article on the BBC this morning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11206057

It basically says: Polls don't include the "don't know" respondents when reporting results.  So when we're told x% support tighter immigration controls, it's even more bogus a number than we might have already thought.

Yet the "don't knows" are probably the wisest respondents of all, since they realise how complicated the underlying issue is that the questioner is being asked.

Having said that, the case regarding immigration is clear.  If you want more expensive meals, transport, etc., then by all means throw out all the immigrants.  Be careful what you wish for...