The Bible, seen from the grocery store produce aisle
Have you ever wondered why humans must eat fruit to stay alive, but dogs, cats, cows, squirrels and other mammals don’t? It’s because all mammals need Vitamin C to survive, but simians (including humans) are among the very few mammals that cannot synthesize Vitamin C from their diets. Why? Because humans (along with other apes, monkeys, guinea pigs, fruit-eating bats, and a few other species), carry a genetic defect that disrupts the Vitamin C production process.
Here’s the interesting part. The vast majority of animals and plants are able to synthesize their own Vitamin C through a sequence of four enzyme-driven steps, which convert glucose to Vitamin C. Human metabolism can, and does, perform the first three of these steps, but we have lost the ability to perform the fourth, because our gene that would produce the required fourth enzyme contains a defect and no longer functions. Consequently, we cannot use the resulting proteins to synthesize Vitamin C: our bodies break the proteins back down and reabsorb them.
Why is this important? Well, the Bible tells us that the Garden of Eden contained fruit trees. Fruit trees would have been unnecessary if God had created Adam with a properly functioning gene to synthesize Vitamin C. Why did God not give Adam (whom God supposedly created in His own image) the properly functioning gene that He gave to virtually all other mammals? Also, why did God give Adam the genes for the other three enzyme-driven steps, even though they would be useless without the fourth? Doesn’t it seem…un-godlike…for an infallible God to have designed a “perfect” human who not only had a defective, non-functional gene, but also several functioning, useless ones?
Of course, evolutionary theory easily explains this phenomenon: millions of years ago, our ancestors once had four working genes, but a genetic mutation occurred sometime in our lineage that has been passed down through the subsequent generations. Fortunately for our ancestors (and us), this mutation was not fatal, because our ancestors were able to get Vitamin C from their diet, as we still must do today. True, fruit is not our only source of Vitamin C, but our rare inability to synthesize Vitamin C makes me wonder where the supporters of so-called “intelligent design” get their absurd belief that our design is intelligent, especially when their own holy book suggests that their infallible god created us, from the beginning, with a very obvious genetic defect.
Further to Jason’s great comment about flood myths, I have a theory about that which Jason also touches on but which I will embellish for the sake of argument.
It should not surprise anyone that most civilizations have flood myths. Floods are one of nature’s most terrifying events. Water pours in, seemingly from nowhere, to sweep away everything in its path, including buildings, livestock and people…to say nothing of trees and mountainsides. Floods don’t just kill people, they erase them from the earth. Even a war will leave behind bodies, but not floods. Moreover, floodsleave behind a layer of sludge that erases familiar landmarks, too, leaving survivors not just destitute and grieving, but lost and disoriented. When the waters recede, the known “world” is gone. Is it any wonder that so many cultures have myths about them?
What is curious is that so many cultures have similar themes, but perhaps this is also not surprising. What would a sensible person do when faced with a flood? Build a big ship and stock it with family, seeds and animals. And the part about releasing birds to find dry land…well, what would you tell your inquisitive child when she asks tough questions about the gaps in your mythical stories? You make up something that answers the question…and, really, how many likely answers are there to that question that would not feature a bird?
Also, we don’t know how much the stories have changed with time, especially in the face of global Christian evangelism. True, some of the stories seem to predate Christian contact, but we really don’t know how much influence those early missionaries might have had.
Of course, flood myths are not the only ones found across the planet. Many cultures also have myths about volcanoes, perhaps for the same reasons I mention above. Given what a volcano can do, is it any surprise that the underworld in many cultures is described as a burning pit of fire?
Anyway, as Jason says, far from supporting the Bible’s flood myth, the cornucopia of flood myths merely illustrates that humans with similar (i.e., very limited) worldviews will imagine similar answers to similar questions.
I also liked the reading the collection of flood myths that Jason posted, I wonder though if this is really just similar stories of the same theme or the same story with some variations? In all the stories there is only one survivor plus his family - why did not more families survive? People could have invented a story about a chosen people (see Bible) who were destined to be their forefathers. And this bird - would it be really necessary to use a bird to check out if the flood had receded and land was visible again? If you look at the stories that are told in different countries regarding the creation of the world you do have to wonder why this flood story has so many similar parallels. And why does it have to be a flood? Why not a big fire?
By the way, I find it weird that people obviously had no problems with the fact their civilisation was obviously based on incest if the myths were true. The same with the fundamental Christians who take the Bible literally. There’s the problem with Adam and Eve, and then later with Noah who had three sons (and no daughter?). I’m especially curious what kind of explanations the Christian fundamentalists have to offer.
Jason’s comment about the god-of-the-Bible fearing competition, reminds me of something I recently read which pointed out that the god-of-the-Bible actually does acknowledge the existence of other gods. In Exodus 20:3, the god-of-the-Bible says, “You shall have no other gods before me.” Notice that the god-of-the-Bible does not say, “There are no other gods but me;” rather, that we should not put any other gods first. Apparently, it’s OK to put them second, third, or whatever. Likewise, we often hear of the god-of-the-Bible referred to as the “Lord of Lords,” which makes no sense except in the context of other, lesser gods. So, apparently other gods exist…the Bible says so.
Did it occur to you that perhaps he gave Adam and Eve fully functioning genes, but only put the fruit trees in for their personal enjoyment? Then man lost the last part of the gene process thru mutation later.
sammy wrote, “Did it occur to you that perhaps he gave Adam and Eve fully functioning genes, but only put the fruit trees in for their personal enjoyment? Then man lost the last part of the gene process thru mutation later.”
sammy…are you suggesting that humans *evolved*? What an unusual argument to use to defend the Bible’s creation myth.
projektleiterin wrote, “…would it be really necessary to use a bird to check out if the flood had receded and land was visible again?”
Actually, yes. For as long as humans have been sailing the oceans, sailors have been following birds to find dry land. Not captive birds, of course, but wild ones. In the days before accurate maps and precise navigation, sailors risked sailing past even very large islands on their trans-oceanic trips, but they noticed that birds (which would fly beyond the visible horizon of dry land) created a much larger effective radius around islands, thus making a much bigger target for the sailors to hit. So, they would always look for birds, whose existence would indicate proximity to land and whose flight path would help guide them to it.