A Master’s in Creationism

March 19, 2009 | By | 24 Replies More

LOL*cough*

Excuse me. I nearly choked on a handful of almonds. My created/intelligently designed oesophagus is just a little too close to my trachaea, making it very easy to block the latter with particles of chewed food whilst laughing my arse right off its hinges when I read stuff like this FOX article:

State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) proposed House Bill 2800 when he learned that The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), a private institution that specializes in the education and research of biblical creationism, was not able to receive a certificate of authority from Texas’ Higher Education Coordinating Board to grant Master of Science degrees.

So. “Education” and “research” (grin) of biblical creationism (chortle). OK, well, although I’m no theologian or creation scientist (snort) , allow me to sum up the entire proposed course for you:

Image by gadgetdude at Flickr via Creative Commons

Image by gadgetdude at Flickr via Creative Commons

Education: God did it.
Research: it says in the Bible that God did it.
Thesis: the Bible says God did it; the Bible is always right because God wrote it; God is always right; the evidence for this is in the Bible which God wrote; my conclusion is that God did it (and is always right, just like the book He wrote).

Well done, here’s your diploma & whimsical “WWJD” t-shirt that all the kids are wearing. That’ll be several thousand dollars. Hmm? What do you mean you can’t get a job in any university in the world (except Bob Jones U, whom we hate because they always beat us at football)? What do you mean everyone points, laughs and calls you “Flintsone”? Gasp! My God, you’ve been pre-Expelled! Damn you, Big Science! *shakes fist at sky* Damn you all to Hell!

But wait – there’s more! No story about improvident creationist lackwits would be complete without a variation on Ye Olde Argumente From Not Being A Monkeye’s Uncle:

“I don’t believe I came from a salamander that crawled out of a swamp millions of years ago,” Berman told FOXNews.com. “I do believe in creationism. I do believe there are gaps in evolution.

“But when you ask someone who believes in evolution, if you ask one of the elitists who believes in evolution about the gaps, they’ll tell you that the debate is over, that there is no debate, evolution is the thing, it’s the only way to go.”

Well, in the sense of having the only credible, testable and verifiable evidence, evolution is, has been and most likely will be forever the only way to go. And if the number and size of “gaps” in a theory (a theory which, by the way, has been constantly revised, edited and updated since 1859, has literally billions of pieces of evidence supporting it and, very, very importantly – has not been disproven or debunked in any meaningful fashion, ever, by anyone from anywhere) are directly related to how true that theory is, please can you explain how your Bible (which has remained unchanged & ignorant on even the most basic facts of reality, such as the shape of the planet and its positiong in the sky, more or less, since it was duct-taped together in the fourth century) explains anybloodything at all except the roots of fundamentalist lunacy like yours.

But to give you a partial credit, you are semi-correct about one thing: you didn’t come from a salamander from millions of years ago. In fact, both “you” and your salamander “came from” a self-replicating proto-organic molecule from billions of years ago. Yeah. I thought you’d like that.

Tiresome, pathetic, predictable and laughable as it is, I really wish these moonshine-swilling creationist troglodytes would make even the tiniest, token effort to actually comprehend what the theory of evolution says  – and what it bloody well doesn’t say – before not only dismissing it as fantasy (pot, meet kettle) but also attempting to offer (chuckle, snort) Masters’ Degrees (CACKLE) in some allegedly conspired-against-by-Atheo-Neo-Darwinist-Evilutionismists “scientific” alternative!

Science is not some dark, ever-shrouded conspiracy-mill, you cud-chewing half-pate. Just because your precious Bush government was exactly that for 8 years is no reason to project it onto harmless nerds in labs inventing the interwebs or trying to find, oh I dunno, cures for frickin CANCER. So, please, do some actual research and publish something that backs creationism up (and remember to show your work so the other kids can replicate your results) or stand to one side and allow the big kids into the lab to get some frigging work done.

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

Category: Current Events, Education, Evolution, ignorance, Religion, Science, snake oil

About the Author ()

Hank was born of bird-watching bushwalking music-loving parents from whom he gained his love of nature, the universe & bicycles. Today he's a musician, non-profit aid worker, beagle keeper and fair & balanced internet commentator - but that just means he has a chip on each shoulder.

Comments (24)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Erich Vieth says:

    You're on fire, Hank. I thoroughly enjoyed this bashing of the ignorant wanna-be scientists who are NOT (as you so clearly point out) willing to go out and find evidence disproving that natural selection is the main engine of evolution. That would be much to haaaard, because there isn't any. No, you can't find any zebra fossils buried next to (or beneath) the trilobite fossils.

    I'm also going to plug one of my recent posts for the vast expanse of evidence that is explained by natural selection. Evolution is not just an idea, as the creationists want to argue from their arm chairs. It is a trillion new demonstrable biological facts every day and it is a rock solid framework for seeing that these facts aren't ad hoc–there is a ubiquitous logic to all of the types of critters we find on Earth.

  2. Isaac says:

    Jip, I would also say that you are on fire. Much the same fire that scientist were on for the last 3000 or more years. It is a pity that creationist and so called scientist can't see that the view of the Bible on creation is nothing more than primitive scientific results which by the way were improved over the years to what you now seem to belief is the last and only truth. Laugh, chuckle and choke as much as you like, because that is what scientist will do with your last and only truth in a few (thousands?) years time. Did you ever read Genesis chapter one? Can you maybe in all your wisdom explain to me how in the world could a Bible writer (scientist?)now the order of the evolving (call it what you like) of the planet and the living creatures. That was 500 BC. Ain't that a funny coincidence.

  3. Tim Hogan says:

    No. 1 thing Erich and Hank didn't say before (properly) ridiculing the attempt by Texas folks to get a MS in Creation Science!

    1. Oh my God! The Loonies are at it again! [my reaction!]

  4. Dan Klarmann says:

    I can't resist: Genesis: Step 1, create the Earth. Step 2, Create light. Step 3, create the heavens, the sun, the moon, and the stars.

    Yep, exactly what astronomers say. 🙄

  5. Isaac says:

    Maybe before Hank go on the same old poem and sarcasm please take note to the reference to primitive scientific results. It seems that you are holding an ancient document accountable to still defend it's results in modern times. My reference to Genesis 1 was only to the beautiful insight to planet earth and the developing of living creatures. No matter what jokes you make about this it still is very good scientific insight for 500BC.

    • Dan Klarmann says:

      Isaac, the Bible says that fish and birds were created together in an era before land animals. No mention of insects. Not very accurate given what we learned since the dawn of actual science.

      Please list the insights from Genesis that have been corroborated by actual science. Now compare the correct insights with the demonstrably false ones. Even with the most forgiving interpretation, the old book does no better than random chance on this true-false test.

  6. AnonaMiss says:

    While I agree with the pith and point of your article, I found parts of it to be highly offensive. I don't know how to classify this particular "-ism" – probably classism – but the association of rural accents and moonshine with Creationist claptrap is uncalled-for. Some people are genuinely poor, some people are genuinely rural, without being stupid or even creationists. It's stereotypes like these that promote and feed the myth of the liberal elite with active malice towards the rural poor – or at least I thought it was a myth, until I heard the bitterness in this post. Can you imagine your own indignation if you had replaced the "hillbilly" stereotypes in this post with the equivalent stereotypes about the urban poor?

  7. Isaac says:

    Wow! Dan! It seems that you are actually very unforgiving! How in the world can you hold the Biblical view about creation still accountable in modern times? You don’t have to be genius to punch holes in ancient science like that of the Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks and even the Romans. Likewise with what the Bible has to offer. If you try to read my first comments without to the urge to ban religion to all damnation, you will see that I also criticize the creationist who tries to uphold the biblical creation theory. You would have to be blind not to see wonderful insights in the Genesis 1 theory about the beginning of living on planet earth. Yes any scientist can punch holes in it now after 2500 years. But so can we do with a lot of what Aristotle, Pythagoras and a few other said about creation in their times. That’s why I say, even if we can learn a lot out of all the evolution theories of modern times, Genesis 1 still gives a wonderful insight for primitive science.

  8. Hank says:

    AnonaMiss, point taken on the hillbilly/moonshine issue, that may have been OTT – however the "urban poor" (whoever they're meant to be – is that a racial euphemism? Because if it is, at least take note that I name names, as it were, with my cultural stereotyping instead of concealing my intent) don't have a track record of attempting to insert this kind of superstitious garbage into the education system. It's simply a fact that creationists are more active in the southern states (though the biggest smackdown thus far of creationism happened in Pennsylvania) than anywhere else. Therefore I chose to use the common stereotype of the ignorant Bible-thumping hick because that's pretty much what this guy is. I don't care if he's poor, votes Republican or lives in a mansion and votes Democrat – he's an idiot if thinks a Masters of Creationism is worth the paper it's printed on.

    Isaac. Please.

    As Dan explained, everything Genesis "describes" about the world and its development has been proven flat wrong. Light existing before stars? Wrong. Considering it's meant to have been written or inspired by the very Creator of the Universe, the Bible getting that piece of info wrong from the very start is very telling. This "scientific insight" is no insight at all, except into the (quite understandable) ignorance of the people of two thousand years ago. The lack of understanding from the Bible's author(s) is only eclipsed by your lack of understanding of both the Bible and of science. However, I'm willing to give the authors of the Bible a pass on their inaccuracy, because you've had the benefit of access to two thousand years of scientific enquiry. And seem to have ignored almost all of it.

    In a science class, you teach current knowledge backed up by current evidence. You don't teach what people used to think is true, or what people think is beautiful – that gets covered in history/mythology/comparitive religion/literature/art/everything else.

    Science is the search for explanations of observed phenomena. Considering the Bible explains nothing (except the possible mindset of the culture that created it) it's not useful to anyone as a source of scientific insight.

    You said: "It seems that you are holding an ancient document accountable to still defend it’s results in modern times."

    Of course it should be held to account if someone wants to promote it as scientifically accurate! It would be – it IS – the same with any book. Any claims made in the book must be verifiable according to current evidence. Since none of the "results" of the Bible are accurate, it is inappropriate to use it as a scientific text.

    It's the 21st century. Why is it the allegedly most advanced nation in the world still has to deal with lackwits like Leo Berman? What is it about America that produces such ignorance? I love America and I love my US friends but sometimes I fear for your whole society. With people like Berman even allowed to float this ridiculous idea – and with people actually supporting it – it really make me wonder how you guys are going to cope.

    But hey, I'm Australian. You guys up there want to view Lord Of The Rings as a frigging documentary, you go for it. My country isn't perfect, but at least ideas like this receive the scorn they deserve. There's a reason Ken Ham left Australia and built his laughable Creation Museum in Kentucky …

    • AnonaMiss says:

      I chose "urban poor" to contrast with "rural poor." The hillbilly archetype, while stereotypically white, is not necessarily so; same with the urban poor archetype and their stereotypical blackness. See Eminem's upbringing for example. (I know he's not urban poor NOW, but by the time someone's famous enough to be cited as an example for anything, they're not usually poor anymore.) The difference between the two categories is that the grand majority of upper- and middle-class people live or work in cities, and so see the urban poor often enough to understand how wretched their conditions are, and thus are more likely to acknowledge them as people in need of help. The rural poor are out of sight and out of mind, except to themselves and the few of us nouveau-middle-class who still have close enough relatives out there to visit. Race is beside the point.

      And quite to the contrary, we're talking about a politician here – a privileged person, with considerably more wealth than is attached to the stereotype you denigrate him with. "Hillbilly" isn't an accurate archetype to ascribe to him, because he has wealth and power that he has chosen not to use to gain any kind of scientific education. So all you're doing in your "justification" is further demonstrating the contempt you have for a group of underprivileged people largely unrelated to the subject at hand (Bible colleges, as most institutions of organized religion, are out to make a profit, so few members of the rural poor could afford to get even Masters in Creationism) by labeling someone who is not a member of the group as a member of the group, intending it as an insult.

      On rereading, I'm appalled to note that you even admit as much! You don't care if he's rich or poor, Democrat or Republican – he's stupid and from the south, and therefore it's accurate to describe him as a "hick"! That's like saying it's accurate to call all non-native-English-speakers "wetbacks," because many illegal Latin American immigrants have a less than stellar grasp of the language. The stereotype isn't even true for all members of the group it's (unacceptably) narrowly used to describe, but the label is used to denigrate anyone who fits that one part of the stereotype, thus strengthening the stereotype and further denigrating the original group. (I know "wetback" isn't normally used this way – but if it was, it would be an analogous situation.)

      What. The. Hell.

    • Erich Vieth says:

      AnonaMiss: Based upon Hank's original post, your extended criticism seems WAY over the top. How much of a mea culpa would you like to see from Hank? Would you like him travel to the United States to fall on his knees and make personal apologies to each of the moonshine-swilling creationist troglodytes?

      Hank can speak very well for himself, but I must say that Hank's "offensive" description is tightly qualified by the terms "creationist" and "troglodytes". I don't see any indication that Hank thinks that all poor people or all Christians or all moon-shiners or all Southerners can be lumped together as to their religious or scientific beliefs. Good grief.

      I supposed that you'd like to ban the movie "Inherit the Wind" for the same reasons that you're intent on flogging Hank?

  9. Isaac says:

    Well I thought this won’t be necessary. But as you keep ignoring the fact that I am not defending the creationist, let’s then do the exercise of appreciating an ancient document and its insights. I will start with your explanation about what science would be. Of course you will be correct about your assumption about the so called Masters in Creationism. And don’t we get degrees and masters in all sort of rubbish? What you would now categorize as history / mythology / comparative religion, etc were actually the science of their times. Some of it we use and some (most) of it we look at with sympathy because there was no way they could have known better. I am not familiar with this so called Masters in Creationism, but I assume they are trying to proof God’s existence through creation as hard as a lot of people try to disprove God’s existence with something like evolution.

    That said I want to show you that Genesis has not been proven flat wrong as you say. I again want to emphasize that it falls short of exact detail and of modern insights and you can punch holes in it when looked at as a modern explanation, but in the time of its writing was not bad science. I ask you to kindly ignore the reference in Genesis that God created. Then it tries in a very primitive matter to explain how everything evolved.

    1. Heaven and earth evolved – this would be near enough

    2. Light evolved – hard to explain even in modern times

    3. Division of water in liquid and gas forming the atmosphere – primitive but not to bad

    4. Division of water and dry land – I can go with this

    5. Evolving of plants – first life in the sea was algae and on land it also was plants. Of course there is no explanation of trilobites, sponges, starfish and jellyfishes and a lot more but what could the poor sods who thought the earth was flat knew about that.

    6. Evolving of lights in the skies. – This is not hard to explain. It is dead wrong.

    7. Evolving of living creatures. (Large sea creatures and birds) – Not precise but not bad at all.

    8. Evolving of animals on land and eventually the evolving of man. Except for a lot of detail about dinosaurs and other stuff, still not to bad for 2500 years ago.

    Now, before you go and rip this to pieces please try to understand how science works. You take temporarily results and assumptions work with it and try to better it. I think in 2500 years time scientists have exactly done that with this primitive insight.

    The problem as I have said is that some poor “un”believers have tried to use this to proof the existence of God. It seems that their faith was not strong enough and now they try to use the Bible as a scientific work accountable for all eternity. At the most we can make a few assumptions about how people understand their existence in ancient times. The Bible helps us in this regards but we certainly can’t use the Bible as a scientific handbook. At the same instance non believers are doing exactly the same. Funny isn’t it?

    I would warn modern science to withhold itself from arriving at the final destination. At the most we have more feasible insights into the evolving of man and other living creature but we haven’t reached the final destination. In ancient times scientists were under the impression that the earth and man was the centre of everything. Even with great insights in times before Christ, this was taught up to modern times. The arrogance with which evolution as the final explanation is presented should warn one to listen with caution. I am pretty sure that in a few thousand years scientists will also have sympathy with our short sighted science. Hopefully they won’t laugh at us and make insulting comments but have understanding why at a certain time we thought that our insights were correct.

    A last comment – There nothing more bad for science as so called scientists that don't have respect for others insights and think that they have reached the final destination. If you keep ignoring the fact that ancient times gave as a valuable stepping stone to modern insights you will have to continue on this bitter note.

    • Erich Vieth says:

      Isaac: I don't buy your theory in the least. You conveniently stick the word "evolution" into your proto-scientific interpretation of the Bible when there isn't a hint of it in the Biblical writings. If the Bible had even hinted about evolution, the creationists wouldn't be against it.

      Your accusation regarding the supposed arrogance of scientists is a red flag to me, a flag I'm going to add to this list in light of the many reasons to be as certain of the theory of evolution as of the theory of gravity.

    • Dan Klarmann says:

      Isaac apparently doesn't know what science is, nor how it came to be the dominant method to understand our universe and everything therein.

      Primarily, science is NOT a list of ideas. It is a methodology for determining the most likely idea to explain all observations, and to predict future observations. It is not a collection of conclusions, but an open ended technique for arriving at and verifying them.

      Science never claims to have final answers. Things that are considered absolutely proven are called "theories". They are subject to change if conflicting information emerges.

      The Bible is a list of conclusions based on folk tales. No amount of studying the Bible has ever led to any scientifically useful "theory".

      That's why science (formerly known as "natural philosophy") only emerged once the idea that studying the universe itself was better than revisiting ancient conclusions for understanding how things really are.

      Trust your elders, but check their sources.

  10. Niklaus Pfirsig says:

    Hank, I AM a hillbilly (actually I was raised in the hills of Tennessee, although my name isn't Billy) and I am not offended. I do admit that there seems to be a disproportionately large number of fundies in them hills, and I get your drift.

    Isaac, I think you may be mistaken on evolution. The idea of evolution was around long before Darwin. The original concept was even embraced by the church long ago as an explanation of how so great a variety of animals could be descended from the pairs on Noah's ark. It was a monk that worked out the basic foundations of genetics. Evolution is about how populations of living organisms adapt over several generations, to be compatible with their environment and competitive with other species.

    Darwin did not originate the idea that species evolve. He figured out how and why they evolve.

    • Isaac says:

      Niklaus, thanks. I did some reading on Darwin in 2007 and was supprised to find he was theologian that was brought in discredit by the church. Though he kept his faith he declared at some stage that he resents the fact that he even bothered to try and make it easier on the church. It was also an eyeopener to see that Darwin was not the father of evolution as he is still described by many. None the less he must have been a great and brave scientist to challenge what the church sw as the only truth.

  11. Isaac says:

    You guys must be ignorant are you have trouble to understand English. I used the word evolved to take the argument away from “God created” to an insight which can also be found in the Bible. Your argument is that the Bible is flat wrong on everything. Mine is that you can learn something of the science in the era 500BC from what is said in Genesis 1.

    Is this insight due to God suddenly revealing it? I think not. If you do look into it you will find that what is read in Genesis 1 was rather the scientific opinions of the more technology advanced Babylonians reformulated in a religion perspective. You say the Bible is flat wrong, I say well, well I think not.

    I am Christian as Darwin was and just as Darwin I can also see the logic of evolution, though I have my doubts about certain theories. You would be surprised about how many Christians have no trouble at all to accept the results about the development of the universe and living creatures on earth. But that is not to say that you or the creationists can bring the Bible in discredit by presenting it as a scientific handbook which is either flat wrong or proof of the only explanation of how the world was created.

    You criticize the Bible without knowledge of its background or how it became the handbook of Christianity. It don’t have one author and also not even 66 but a lot more. It wasn’t written in at a certain stage but develop over a very, very long time. The Bible does not present itself to be science, but is misused by believers and nonbelievers in their effort to proof or disproof the existence of God. I have seen the importance to study the relationship between science and religion. As can seen in your articles and I suppose in the so called Master of Creationism it was and is a relationship of mistrust and doubt.

    The problem I have with your line of argument is that you don’t even try to hide the fact your results are supposed to discredit the Bible. Red flag or not any scientist should know that he is supposed to let his research determine the result and not his desired outcome. This was exactly what certain Christian leaders did in the past. Your understanding of science is ofcourse correct but you should practise what you preach. Don't critisize the creationists for their stubbornness in the assumption that only they know the truth while you do exactly the same.

    In my studies I have experience how my mind was opened to a better understanding of religion and science. I don't look at it as opposites but a whole lot that still need further study and explanation. As certain as people were in ancient times that the earth is flat and in later times that the earth is in the centre of everything and now with all our theories of Big Bang, evolution and quantum physics,am I now certain that our views will change a lot and even our understanding of religion will also change.

    • Erich Vieth says:

      Isaac: Use "Bible" as a search term at this site and you'll find out just how wrong you are when you say: "You criticize the Bible without knowledge of its background or how it became the handbook of Christianity." Virtually every person writing for this site was raised in a Christian faith.

      Look . . . we don't have Christian meteorology, Christian chemistry, Christian metallurgy, Christian linguistics, Christian physics, Christian mathematics or Christian anatomy. For the same reason, we don't need Christian biology. The scientific method used by biology is the same scientific method used by all the other sciences, and you would presumably study those other sciences on their own, (without any "need" to consider them in concert with Biblical teachings).

      As stated by every first-rate scientist or philosopher of science, "science" is not a collection of facts. Rather, it is a method by which we make observations, test them, look for correlations among them and theorize about them based only on other observable and testable facts. I'll admit that there are some theoretical sciences that freely admit that they are more speculative than some other branches, such as metaphysical cosmology (to the extent it deals with the creation of the universe). When we study evolution, though, we are not engaged in theoretical biology. Rather, evolutionary biology precisely accounts for a wide variety of publicly observable phenomena. The Bible doesn't hold a candle to evolutionary biology when it comes to describing and accounting for all of the plants and critters one finds on earth. When you compare the Bible to the principles of evolutionary biology, side by side, it becomes all the more apparent that there is no comparison.

      The motivation at this site is to better understand the natural world, not to make capricious attacks on religious writings. The "attacks" only come when Believers (many of them well-meaning) get in the way of good science, only when Believers argue that we shouldn't follow the evidence where it leads.

  12. Hank says:

    AnonaMiss. I have no intention of further responding to your concern-trolling (aw, the poor picked-on & persecuted white christian male, there there, pay no attention to the nasty ol' Aussie blogger). I stand by what I said and refuse to either apologise for it or further qualify it. Wring your hands elsewhere.

    Isaac. Your points boil down to "close enough = good enough." Sorry to burst your enormous, flimsy bubble but "close enough" is not scientific.

    Now, you sort of got something right in there: science does take temporary results and assumptions and try to improve them. In the past 2500 years, science has done precisely that with the "results" of Genesis and … wait for it … disproved every last one of them. Totally & without question. The theories that exist today which explain the laws by which the universe operates, the development of this planet and the species that live on it are many orders of magnitude removed from Genesis' accounts. In other words, they are the best explanation we have today and Genesis is flat wrong.

    If somebody wants to offer a Master's or a goddam PhD in Creationism, by all means let them offer it as part of a philosophy or comparitive religion or theology course – but Creationism IS NOT SCIENCE and therefore should not ever form part of a science curriculum.

    My final comment on your final comment: scientists afford as much respect to other peoples' insights as those insights deserve. If somebody advances a "theory" that a Great Galactic Squid ejaculated the universe from his inc sac in response to a Super-Galactic Sperm Whale attack, he either gets to work and damn well shows the evidence for his insight or he gets ignored. If his insights all end with "the Squid moves in mysterious waters and cannot be perceived by we bony ones" then noone takes him seriously and rightly so. On the same tack, Biblical Creationism and its attendant parthenon of deities & devils are no more deserving of a place in science education than any other creation myth. There's a place for holy scripture and it's not on the non-fiction shelf.

    Niklaus, thank you for understanding. Thanks to Erich as well – as a Missouran he had as much right as anyone to be offended and chose not to be.

  13. Hank says:

    Just to qualify, Isaac: science is not in the business of teaching what people USED TO think was true. Science is about finding the best CURRENT explanation possible for our observations. Evolution has been that explanation for 150 years and hasn't faced any serious challenges. There have been challenges, but the emphasis is on the word "serious".

    Just get over Genesis already. It's wrong. It's as wrong as the Rainbow Serpent "theory" of the Australian Aborigines or the Vikings' Ragnarok "insight". It's always been wrong, no matter how much you think you can twist it to fit the facts.

  14. grumpypilgrim says:

    Isaac mentioned the book of Genesis. He might enjoy reading my thoughts on that subject: http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/12/gods-….

  15. I agree that recieving a masters of 'science' degree based on the study of the bible is pretty ridiculous. A doctoral degree in theology from a bible college is more appropriate, but if you focused your studies on creation, the studies wouldn't be summed up: Education: God did it.

    Research: it says in the Bible that God did it.

    Thesis: the Bible says God did it; the Bible is always right because God wrote it; God is always right; the evidence for this is in the Bible which God wrote; my conclusion is that God did it (and is always right, just like the book He wrote). I can be amused by fallacy humor, but that circular arguement is old and so often used as an example of christian ignorance, that even us toothless cud gumming moonshine swilling bible thumping hillfolk don't still use it. Alot of people(if not most)are prejudice, it is not the best we can feel towards others. You might believe we have evolved with prejudice because it has a purpose. Of course, the bible has a different stance on this, most are probably familiar with love your neighbor as you would yourself. It is something higher to strive towards. This is one example, for many the bible is a rich and rewarding source of study, the meaning deeper as you study.

    On the subject of science and creationism, although the bible is not meant to be a scientific text, I wanted to point out that modern science confirms that Genesis 1 presents the proper sequence of events. The first mentioned is that light was created, the last that man was created. The creation of plants, animals etc. are mentioned in between in the exact order that scientists now believe they evolved. The belief that light probably came first and man was last are recent theories. I found this online awhile back and saved it…

    Moses or whoever else you believe composed the text of Genesis 1, 3300 years ago, somehow found the ONE true sequence of the 14 events mentioned there out of over 87,178,291,200 possible sequences! A human author of Genesis 1 would have had to beat odds of around 87 billion to one (14 factorial) to have magically selected (guessed) the sequence presented in Genesis back then. It seems pretty impossible. If I was faking a religious document, I would write that man was created first as a witness to it all, as we are pretty self-important creatures. So, science and Genesis are in agreement here, except if you read the KJV, where birds are created before the creeping creatures. This version is translated from Greek, Aramaic and then Latin translations and is a watered down source… But, the Hebrews have their own translation of the original text, which is called Bereshit. The Bereshit text for Genesis 1, Specifically, Verse 21 reads:

    21. God created the great sea monsters, and all the living creatures of every kind that creep, which the waters brought forth in swarms; and all the winged birds of every kind. And God saw that this was good.

    The Jewish text therefore indicates a sequence where sea creatures were first, THEN creeping creatures, and THEN the birds. So, that is pretty much in a nutshell the order of it, as science believes.

  16. Hank says:

    OK, so what is your point exactly? That some versions of scripture are, in a hugely vague way, more-or-less correct in their description of the order of the evolution of species and some actually aren't? At all? This stuff is meant to be dictated by God, the least the different versions could do is agree with each other about the specific order of the creation of the universe if people expect them to be taken seriously. It shouldn't matter which version of what book people consult.

    Unfortunately, however, it does. Which necessarily calls the whole body of text – including every variation and translation, for as I understand it noone actually has a first-generation copy of anything – and everything that's built upon it into question.

    My point of view is this: whether you're going to base your life on it, start a religion around it or give people degrees based on it, any text which claims to contain any wisdom or knowledge or just plain information has to be consistent the whole way through, whichever way you read it, whatever language it's in, whatever version you're holding in your hand.

    The Bible is no such document. My evidence? Two thousand years later, people are still freaking arguing about which bits are to be taken literally and which are "just metaphor". The big three still argue about which of God's prophets is the most awesome – often fatally – and there's no actual way to tell who's right. Muslims disagree amongst themselves, as do Jews and Christians. If there is indeed one book that contains everything we're meant to need, it'd be nice for its author to show up and set everyone straight. I won't hold my breath though.

Leave a Reply