In the Beginning of Creationism vs Evolution

I’ve met an alarming number of creationists lately with whom – due to circumstances – I am unable to debate publicly. On one hand, I largely do not care what people believe as long as they’re not jerks or insist on foisting their beliefs on others. On the other hand, people are so unreasonable, it boggles reasonable minds and something must be said about their erroneous beliefs that they do want to foist upon others. Of course, the belief in creationism over evolution as an explanation for how life may have begun fits the bill.

While evolution doesn’t really explain how life began, people of many faiths and denominations of those faith take this to mean they should devise an explanation that is supernatural. What has long bothered me about creationism as an explanation for life’s origins is this – a believer, probably unknown to themselves because they do no critical analysis of their beliefs, is in essence saying that it is more likely that some divine being took a lump of clay and breathed life into said clay to create a man than molecules could spontaneously come together and at some point begin replicating themselves. The believer believes this despite ample evidence that the universe often displays self-organizing behavior; the formation of galactic clusters, galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets and the elements all of those things are made of to say nothing of the laws of physics that keeps everything stable enough for long enough in order for things to organize. Granted, this doesn’t speak directly to the origin of life, but indirectly speaking it seems plausible that a molecule – possibly RNA according to biologists current theories – might start copying itself or make other molecules due to natural chemical reactions and just might organize themselves into a larger system. As I said, the universe is not without a few examples, examples that are even prior to known life.

Moreover, the explanatory power of evolution is much greater than that of creationism whose powers of explanation do not go beyond the initiation of life. For the creationist who wishes to have their cake and eat it too, meaning they believe in creationism which is guided by evolution thereafter, they are merely shorting the process of evolution by one step. Why not just accept the first step as well or simply admit that one does not know how life began? Evolutionists – at least the ones who know what they’re talking about – will always say that the theory of evolution does not (yet) explain the origin of life, though from what they have inferred from the process thus far, it seems more likely that some molecule in prehistory began the evolution of life rather than submitting the explanation that an invisible and supposedly benevolent force made life simply pop into existence. In short, questions about the origin of life boils down to this: Is it more plausible that life suddenly popped into existence thanks to an invisible force that is sentient or that life began by some simple molecules organizing themselves? Maybe the answer depends upon how much one understands chemistry and biology, and maybe even physics.

As is always worth noting as well is that the very premise of life having a supernatural origin while the originator itself has no creator is completely nonsensical and arbitrary. If a creationist is going to be arbitrary in their beliefs or even claim evidence for their beliefs, why is it wrong for an evolutionist to be arbitrary in their beliefs or claim they have evidence for their beliefs? In actuality, both groups of ‘believers’ have life originating from non-life. Better to have something rather than nothing in common one supposes. Only, why something rather than nothing? 

What Is Time? And Is Time Travel Impossible?

Before I begin, it should explained why understanding the nature of time is seemingly important. Unlike the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and to a certain extent, gravity, we have extremely limited control over time. To understand time would potentially allow us – or whomever controls the knowledge or technology – to gain one more advantage over nature. If the nature of time could be understood, it is assumed we could control or at least manipulate it. Based upon our current understanding of physics and cosmology, I believe I’ve come to understand the nature of time. Equally important is that in understanding how time works, this understanding destroys the extravagant notion of time travel* altogether.

[*Time travel into the past, that is. Time travel into the future is known to be logically possible, but this concept of time travel is not regarded as ‘sexy’ because it does not allow any control or interaction with the past, much less the ‘now.’]

Why would we think time travel is possible in the first place? Human beings have been the stewards of impossible ideas for a long time and time travel is no exception. It is an even more bizarre thing to contemplate time travel when you take some of the most popular theories of time into consideration. For example, in the B-Theory of Time aka Tenseless Time or Eternalism, it is hypothesized that the past, present and future exist all at once and this would certainly not allow time travel. The B-Theory of Time is most likely a false hypothesis given Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity as it relates to the relativity of simultaneity and time dilation due to the effect of gravity (it is well confirmed that time runs differently, say, near massive objects as opposed to further away due to gravity). A similar criticism can be leveled against what is called Block Time, in which it is hypothesized that the past and present are real but the future is not; that the future amounts to an ever shifting ‘now’ that somehow leaves a trail of breadcrumbs we could potentially go back to and pick up. There’s less of a problem with imagining that only right now exists given anyone’s perspective from any point in three dimensional space, though upon reflection, what now is there? For as soon as it is now, now is in the past. This last point brings us to whether or not there is a flow to time.

Does time flow? That is, does time flow like a river or it does it manifest as a series of infinitesimally small pieces, like a quantum-sized roll of film? While some scientists believe that the latter is the case and have scaled packets of time down to what is called Plank Time (trust me, a super-duper small measurement) there is no explanation as to how one frame of time ‘becomes’ or seemingly ‘flows into’ another. It also seems odd that any scientist would insist on dividing time into packets since this would make time appear to be unlike anything else in physics; the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity are not even matter are cleanly divided into packets. (Of course, just because the others are not a divisible ‘something’ doesn’t necessarily rule this out of time’s nature.) Where would solid matter even go during the intervals in which time changes in this view? If on the other hand time is part of a fabric that comes from the stretching of space, this would appear to make more sense as there would be a connection between space and time that makes it plausible that any interaction with gravity would have differing effects. These differing effects are what ultimately causes time to flow in the only direction we have ever known – forward. Thus, whether or not time flows is rather irrelevant; it’s the seemingly forward direction of time that matters*. And, the reason why time only goes in one direction is because it is an emergent property of the expansion of space and not a dimension unto itself.

[*On the macroscopic level of organization in which we interact with the world. Time appears to have little meaning in the subatomic world, though overall this has little impact on time as we experience it.]

In trying to understand time, people seem to overthink or want to complicate the answer as to its nature because time is so hard to pin down, metaphorically speaking. Anything so elusive must be difficult to understand, is what conventional wisdom seems to want to say. But the question and answer are not intractable. What is time? It is the perception or measurement of space and matter in relationship to each other. Time is observed as changes in the differences between these two aspects of nature. And these things change in relationship to each other – all the time – because space itself is always expanding.

We know that on both a cosmic and local scale, space itself is expanding and doing so in every direction (thus there is no ‘center’ to the universe). It is also expanding at a speed per distance in every direction that is faster than the ability of light to transverse already interstellar distances, which is about 70km/sec per megaparsec and accelerating (we’ll see what this has to do with anything soon). Because of this, most galaxies are getting further and further away from each other (and not themselves necessarily ‘moving’ away from each other). Keep in mind for a moment that the expansion of space at the subatomic and local scale is overcome – that is, not taking place or doing so imperceptibly – due to the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and even gravity whereas massive objects like a planet, solar system, or galaxy is concerned. In deep space, space itself is expanding (more rapidly than at the subatomic and local scale) and as it expands, the change of objects in relation to each other changes. These changes are perceived as the passage of time. For example, in the smaller confines of space, such as within the area of a galaxy – which is small, cosmically speaking – a galaxy’s position changes in relationship to everything else in the universe and because the matter therein changes in relation to space – which is not static in any direction – this is what we construe as time. Even if space were not expanding and instead were collapsing, we would still see the arrow of time go forward because of the different arrangement of matter in relationship to space. (Or in another scenario, we would be unable to tell if time were flowing backwards or forward since we’d be part of the changes taking place. And now you’ve just realized that, heck, that means time could be flowing backwards right now and we wouldn’t know it.)

Meanwhile, as space expands and matter spreads itself out (for the most part) on the cosmic scale, the Earth is moving through space around the Sun at 30km/sec, the Sun is moving around the center of the Milky Way at about 200-250km/sec, and the Milky Way is moving approximately 600km/sec toward the constellation Hydra. This, too, provides us with a positional change between objects that we can observe and measure. Notice if you will how often scientists assert that time and space cannot be separated; this is a bit confusing because it is an incomplete assertion: time and space and matter altogether cannot be separated if time is to be observed and measured. Time and space may exist on their own together, but to do so would be irrelevant to the matter of which we are comprised. You will likewise hear scientists say that time didn’t exist before the moment the universe came into existence. As space came into existence after quantum fluctuations supposedly caused the Big Bang (or Big Bounce depending on what theory you want to go with), matter formed as space expanded and cooled, providing the universe with time as we know it*.

[*We’re not exactly sure how the Big Bang or Bounce could happen as quantum fluctuation would suggest the necessity of the passage of time. But it appears that the so-called arrow-of-time means little if nothing at the subatomic scale or at least little or nothing to massless particles such as a photon. Empty space, teeming with energy – meaning it’s not really empty – doesn’t rely on a direction of time for changes. I do realize this seems counterintuitive for those of us who live at the macroscopic level since we perceive changes as going forward in time. Quantum physics doesn’t play by the same rules, apparently.]

What implications does this hold for time travel? It makes time travel, at least to the past, impossible. (How could you use ‘forward’ time to go back in time anyway?) Space and time and their relation to matter do not allow for a ‘map’ in which there are points in the past we can revisit on a whim. Due to the expansion of space and the movement of matter within space – which is a drive towards the equal distribution of matter and energy in the universe – the position of the matter within the universe is constantly changing; to visit the past would necessarily no longer be the past we knew, but a new past that included the input of (our) new matter into the initial position of matter within the universe at the time in question. Some might speculate that to do such a thing would result in a new timeline/alternate universe, but there is no evidence to suggest creating an alternate timeline or universe is possible. Hence, to “go back in time” would be paradoxical and paradoxes are by definition impossible.

As I alluded to in passing several times now, quantum physics doesn’t play by the same rules of time that we are used to. Massless particles such as a photon, light, do not have experiences in the traditional sense because they are not directly affected by the forces that dictate the behavior of particles with mass. A photon can be pulled into a blackhole because of the curvature of space due to extreme gravity, but gravity has no direct effect on a photon. The curvature of space is what appears to make a photon – something that experiences no time – to experience time, by changing the photon’s position because space around it expands and/or curves. Although a photon has no mass (and can therefore exert no gravitational force or, again, be directly affected by gravity) and is essentially ‘frozen’ in time, it is perceived to experience the passage of time due to space expanding through the photon’s fixed points. All of this is to once again say and add to that, that not only is time a derivative of the expansion of space, but is an emergent property of changes to the positions of mass and massless particles due to the expansion of space while gravity curves that space.

Time travel to the past is not possible unless we can reverse the expansion of space and un-curve space to put mass and massless particles back in their previously experienced positions. Even if we could do this, we wouldn’t know that we’ve done it because we would all be in the same state we originally experienced. Again, if time were actually running backwards right now and the so-called arrow-of-time is just a phrase for the direction time flows, we wouldn’t know it because it is normal to our experiences. In my conception of time, none of the legendary logician Kurt Godel’s (1906-1978) ‘light cones’ are allowed to ‘tip over’ due to extreme curvatures of space and allow information or you to travel to the past.

Given this conception of time, some questions remain (though all are not directly tied to the nature of time itself). If it is assumed by cosmologists that approximately 80-90% of the universe’s mass is missing, how does this missing mass affect time, if at all? (Perhaps it isn’t missing and something we haven’t thought of is overcoming gravity to drive the expansion of space, though, Dark Energy is the name of this clandestine force I suppose yet sounds too precise for something totally unknown). It would also be interesting to know how consciousness allows us to perceive the passage of time.

Naturally, this theory of time as I have formulated it is without a certain level of preciseness as I am not a physicist. My theory, though, makes far more sense and possesses more explanatory power than other theories such as the B-Theory of Time or Block Time, both of which are not confirmable.

Time only goes in one direction, expanding so to speak, and this doesn’t allow for time travel. But don’t shoot; I’m just the messenger. Go back in time and kill me before I figure all this out if you don’t believe me. (Or, more courteously, simply point out where my argument fails. Thanks.)

I Read It So You Don't Have To: God's Crime Scene

Christian apologetics is hardly anything new in American literature, but the genre’s latest work by author J. Warner Wallace has taken a novel new approach in making a case for the existence of God. Wallace, a former L.A. County detective and former atheist, claims to apply his years of experience in examining evidence to conclude that the universe must have had a divine creator. “God’s Crime Scene” joins a growing number of books that attempts to use an atheist’s favorite tools – evidence and reason – against them. Unfortunately for Wallace, this tactic hasn’t worked for creation scientists and it doesn’t work now.

In making his case, Wallace attempts to use a number of analogies, which – judging from a number of reviews – seem to be quite engaging and convincing. This is as one would suspect from other theists who are not adapt at questioning whether an analogy is correct, much less question the conclusion the author draws. For example, Wallace begins the book by describing a possible suicide inside a house and looking for clues that might give him reason to think that what took place was actually murder. To do this, Wallace is going to look for things that may not be native to the scene such as mud on the floor or another person’s fingerprints or DNA. In other words, can Wallace account for things in the room as only being from inside the room? And right here, at the very beginning, Wallace’s analogies go awry.

If one is in the habit of questioning, one would be inclined to ask if a house is like the universe. The answer would be “no” because we have knowledge of things that can be outside of a house and brought in, but we have no knowledge of things outside of the universe that can be brought into the universe, seeing how we’ve never seen something inside the universe outside of the universe. To begin a book with such a flawed analogy does not help Wallace establish any credibility. Any credibility or benefit of the doubt one might have given Wallace for being a detective evaporates so quickly, one suspects Wallace took part in the now infamous O.J. Simpson case. (Defending or accepting Wallace’s arguments on the account of his credentials is The Argument from Authority logical fallacy anyway.)

Soon thereafter, Wallace glides into his first chapter which attempts to determine if the universe had a beginning. This appears to be an important point to apologists since given an infinitely old universe, an infinite number of possibilities might take place, such as the emergence of life. So then, the thinking goes, if the universe had a beginning, something must have set it in motion. (And, if the evidence indicates the universe was designed, it must have had a single designer. Nevermind that you never see complex structures built by a single person, but, whatever.) In order to argue against an infinitely old universe, Wallace likens a cause and effect universe to an infinite number of handguns in his police armory. If Wallace removes every fourth gun, he says, he is removing an infinite number from an infinite number, which is clearly nonsensical. The author then concludes that you cannot do the same thing with causes and effect either, so clearly the universe cannot be infinitely old. Problem is, infinite and abstract causes and effects are nothing like an infinite number of material objects. Nor is it hard to imagine how an infinite number of causes and effects are possible if one considers God’s (supposedly) infinite nature. Another bad analogy from which Wallace derives one of just many rushed conclusion.

Because it is an important point to apologists, Wallace perhaps feels (rightly so) that this argument isn’t enough to convince a skeptic and continues to argue for a universe with a beginning. So, using science to lend his argument validity, asserts that cosmologists and physicists largely agree that the universe began with the Big Bang. This is true, though Wallace doesn’t mention here that the Big Bang theory is running into a number of competing theories about the universe’s origin lately. (The least of which include a holographic universe theory and corrections to Einstein’s theory of general relativity.) A bit more on target, Wallace argues that we could never arrive the finish line that is ‘today’ without there being a beginning from which to start from. Nice try, Wallace, but what is ‘today’? Is it right…now? But now has already come and gone, which makes one wonder just how long is now? Like the universe’s origin, Wallace doesn’t give any thought here to the slippery concept of time which most physicists agree is in a lot more trouble than theories of the origin of the universe. Wallace even gives too much credit to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as it is not entirely sure that the universe is a closed system. (Of course, anyone who knows anything about science knows that nothing is 100% certain, which makes it curious that any apologist would lean on science to argue for the existence of God. Or maybe it’s not so curious as theists are finding out that appealing to blind faith is not enough to withstand criticism.)

Throughout the book, Wallace continues to make bad analogy after bad analogy from which he continually derives conclusions long since discredited by atheists. (Honestly, I don’t know why apologists are still using the ‘fine tuning’ argument.) At best, Wallace’s arguments would result in there being multiple entities involved in the construction of the universe, or to use Wallace’s own analogy, suspects in this ‘murder.’

Reviews for “God’s Crime Scene” have been glowing, which is understandable once you consider the book’s audience, most of whom do not possess the philosophical skills to call B.S. when they see it much less the bravery to say so when they do. I do think the author’s approach is intriguing – hence my initial interest in the book – and the book is written with a clear, easy to understand voice. The side bars that describe the methods by which detective work is conducted is interesting as well, but these skills obviously do not translate into believable conclusions about the supernatural. As the author indicates, he is a former detective and not a lawyer, with a lawyer being someone who would destroy Wallace’s conclusions in an actual trial on the matter.

I give the book two stars (out of five) for a gallant and unique effort in a field crowded with philosophical shenanigans. Wallace’s prose is clearly written for the layperson, but so much so that his arguments fall deaf upon trained ears. I wish Wallace better luck with his next book; “Cold Case Islam.”

[“Cold Case Islam” would be Wallace’s next logical book and a follow up to his first book, “Cold Case Christianity” in which the author’s investigative skills lead him to conclude that everything the Bible says about Jesus is true. Given that there is far more evidence for the life of the prophet Mohammed, I would be curious to see what conclusions Wallace would make about the Muslim prophet.]

Is The Universe A Simulation?

Human beings have longed to understand their origins. There are several theories as to why this is the case; maybe it is an attempt to nail down the disruptive thought that our identities are anything but static or that understanding our origins will clearly point out the purpose of our lives. At any rate, countless hypotheses have been advanced as to human origins. One of the newest (or at least the one that is getting a lot of press lately) is the hypothesis that the universe is a simulation run by an intelligence superior to our own. The details of this hypothesis are laid out here in this Discover magazine online article, though if you just want to go straight to the analysis of this poppycock idea, I provide snippets of the text below with a corresponding rebuttal.

The article starts with this gem, “To us, these programmers would be gods, able to twist reality on a whim…are the implications too disturbing?” Well, yes, the implications would be disturbing but not because we would discover these particular gods. In discovering these gods, we would still be inclined to ask who or what created these gods. So, discovering there are gods in this case doesn’t bring us closer to any ultimate truths. These so-called gods would still exist in some universe of their own and whose universe may be a simulation itself. (The article even acknowledges this possibility further on in the reading.) In uncovering these ‘gods of the simulation’ we would solve nothing other than to reveal our own slavery. Any ultimate truth would still be waiting to be discovered.

“Given the rapid technological advances we’ve witnessed over past decades — your cell phone has more processing power than NASA’s computers had during the moon landings — it’s not a huge leap to imagine that such simulations will eventually encompass intelligent life.” That’s a very humorous sentence since the definition of intelligent life is so contentious to say nothing of the fact that people often treat others unlike themselves as though they weren’t human. Do simulations qualify as intelligent life? I suppose we could ask Siri…

“Legislation and social mores could soon be all that keeps us from creating a universe of artificial, but still feeling, humans — but our tech-savvy descendants may find the power to play God too tempting to resist.” In other words, regardless of whether we are or are not simulations, we’d still be assholes. Great.

“John D. Barrow, professor of mathematical sciences at Cambridge University, suggested that an imperfect simulation of reality would contain detectable glitches. Just like your computer, the universe’s operating system would need updates to keep working.” This article began by mentioning the amount of computing power and intelligence that would be needed to create our simulation and it came off as sounding as if our simulators would be a whole lot smarter than the team that programmed Windows Vista. Barrow’s suggestion is pure speculation, aiming to suppose that our simulators would be as incompetent as we are. Well, I should hope not. After all, they kept blowjobs as part of the simulation. That implies vast intelligence.

“Most physicists assume that space is smooth and extends out infinitely. But physicists modeling the early universe cannot easily re-create a perfectly smooth background to house their atoms, stars and galaxies. Instead, they build up their simulated space from a lattice, or grid, just as television images are made up from multiple pixels.” Wow, this is exactly the same kind of reasoning that leads people to believe in miracles, events that supersede the laws of physics: If we cannot do it or explain it, then it must have been the Hand of God. Utter B.S.

“Unfortunately, our almighty simulators may instead have programmed us into a universe-size reality show — and are capable of manipulating the rules of the game, purely for their entertainment. In that case, maybe our best strategy is to lead lives that amuse our audience, in the hope that our simulator-gods will resurrect us in the afterlife of next-generation simulations.” First, a ‘universe-size reality show’ is still a smaller universe than the one our simulators are in, meaning, the size of our universe isn’t actually that impressive. Second, we have no idea what, exactly, amuses our supposed audience the most, since our simulators are eerily mum on that account. Much like (insert the name of your god here).

Other thoughts? As one commenter, Chris Pope wrote, “If we can conceive of any test that would prove that we are in a simulation then would not that possibility have already be conceived by the designers of our simulation? If the designers are able to respond to our actions and construct the simulation in such a way that we observe the results that they want us to, then how can we ever devise a test that can prove that we are in a simulation? Unless the designers want us to have that power they will be able to gimmick the results of any "test" such that the result returns to preserve the illusion of the simulation.” We don’t know how the simulators would react to us discovering we are a simulation. Do they want us to know? If we found out could they simply erase that knowledge from our memory? What if we rebelled against the program and would that even be possible? Moreover, theguy126 wrote, “Exactly what would define a real world as opposed to a simulation anyway? If we were to break free of our simulation and enter the real world what would be so distinctively different about that real world that makes it more "real" than a perfect simulation? The answer is nothing. There is nothing substantial about real matter because all that is just information that could have been simulated. There is no meaningful difference between a real world and a perfect simulation of the real world.”

It’s all speculation, folks. And if it turns out I’m not real, well, I’ll just move to California where it’s okay to be as fake as you want.

The utter nonsense of this hypothesis is relatable to solipsism, which I have defeated. Read about it here.   

Miracle Whip

“No miracle has ever taken place under conditions which science can accept.” Renan

On occasion, the believer likes to point toward fulfilled prophecies and/or miracles in their scriptures as evidence for the existence of their god. To these people I have but one thing to say…C'mon! How much of a sucker do you have to be to think that prophecies and miracles aren't just the ravings of madmen? Okay, enough of the ad hominem attack.

Sure, prophecies have come true in the most vague senses of interpretation. Surely miracles happen too, because really there is just no other possible explanation for some events than divine intervention. Riiiiight. When it comes to prophecies and miracles, theists are quite ignorant of the criteria needed to fulfill the definition of these two divine words. And away we go…

Let's start with prophecies. A prophecy is the description of an event that is told will come to pass to fulfill a spiritual message. Now, what kind of criteria must a prophecy stand up to, to prove that it's of supernatural origin and is genuine? First, a prophecy must be clear and give sufficient detail to exclude its fulfillment by otherwise vague events or details. In the NT, the savior's name is Jesus; not Immanuel or Joshua or whomever, as loosely prophesied in the OT. You can't toss around the notion that Jesus is just another name for Immanuel or Joshua after the fact to justify a prophecy coming true. Nor can I predict, "Something bad will happen next Monday." Given that bad things happen everyday, and Mondays are typically the start of the work week, it wouldn't be much of a startling prophecy.

Furthermore, common events are not subject to being called fulfilled prophecies. Anyone can say a city, or any particular city for that matter, will be destroyed. It's guaranteed that at some point (no matter how far into the future) a city will no longer exist. Next, a prophecy cannot be staged or manipulated. Did Jesus really rise from the dead (which by-the-way was never foretold in the OT)? I seem to recall Jesus' followers not recognizing him when he returned from the grave. Maybe he had an impersonator. Maybe he didn't die at all, but was just wounded and then nursed back to health. I'm just brainstorming possibilities here. Finally, a prophecy must be made in advance of the predicted event, obviously. Sadly for the believers, no fulfilled prophecy has ever stood up to the test of these criteria. 

Miracles pretty much suffer the same fate. What is a miracle? A miracle is the supernatural violation of the laws of nature. Some of the previous criteria for testing prophecies apply here. A miracle should be unique and be unable to be staged for the amusement of those who don't know much about how the world works. I might mention then that eyewitness accounts of miracles are not the extraordinary evidence required to believe that a miracle has taken place. Would you believe me if I told you I had tiny people living in my air vents and that they every so often would attack me with laser beams? No, because such things are not consistent with the reality we're all familiar with. Moreover, it cannot be shown that a ‘miracle’ has violated a natural law of the universe when not all the laws of the universe are known (or at least not known how exactly they all work together). Reports of miracles may be chalked up to unknown forces and have nothing to do with a god. It seems it would take a miracle for there to actually be any miracles. 

Now, I do apologize if it appears I’m nit-picking the subject, but we must do so to ensure we’re not being duped. It's not likely that theists can rule out possibilities other than "God did it" in their quest to believe in prophecies and miracles. What with the simple criteria I've advanced here, no prophecy or miracle stands up to the test. It is exceedingly more possible that prophesies and miracles are merely stories meant to be inspirational (though I don’t see how) or influence the actions of the easily manipulated. [Think David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, or Shoko Asahara and the Supreme Truth Movement, or the Heaven’s Gate/ Halle-Bopp suicide cult, or…] Yet theists cling to these stories as some kind of truth like naïve little children, afraid of the Big Bad Wolf that is reality. Well, reality is not a Big Bad Wolf, it simply is what it is. In that reality the criteria for validating prophecies and miracles are not satisfied. Such is the legacy of theistic belief.