Really, “worlds without number”

Really, “worlds without number” February 20, 2019


Mojave Desert and Milky Way
The Milky Way above California’s Mojave Desert     (Wikimedia Commons)


(6 February 2019):  “BYU researchers find new target for pancreatic cancer treatment”


(14 “BYU researchers unfold new class of mechanical devices: ‘Developable mechanisms’ are built into the surfaces of structures”




“Ultima Thule is shaped like two lumpy pancakes: New images reveal the skinny side of the Kuiper Belt object”


“Citizen scientist discovers ancient astrophysical object”


The universe remains inconceivably vast.  Our galaxy alone is inconceivably vast, so try to imagine hundreds of thousands of them:


“New sky survey reveals hundreds of thousands of galaxies”


“And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. . . .

“But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.

And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.”   (Moses 1:33, 35-38)




Some treat science as if it were a sort of infallible oracle, like a divine revelation–or if not infallible, at any rate such that when it comes to fixing belief, science is the court of last appeal. But this can’t be right. . . .  science doesn’t address the topics where we most need enlightenment: religion, politics, and morals, for example. Many look to scientists for guidance on matters outside of science, matters on which scientists have no special expertise. They apparently think of scientists as the new priestly class; unsurprisingly, scientists don’t ordinarily discourage this tendency. But of course a scientist pontificating on matters outside her field is no better than anyone else pontificating on matters outside her field.

Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies


Posted from Detroit, Michigan



Browse Our Archives