Is God Selfish and Vindictive?

There aren't many people I can count on more to dodge questions or commit fallacies than Answers in Genesis. Their most recent newsletter asks this title question and their full article does little to answer it. They first quote Richard Dawkins as saying,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

I agree with pretty much all of this statement. But instead of trying to refute each (or any) of these statements, they merely shift the subject like so:

Since Dawkins is so adamant in his atheism, perhaps he could explain why any of these things are wrong from an evolutionary point of view. After all, if his philosophical naturalistic beliefs are correct, then there is no such thing as right or wrong. Hence, there would be nothing bad about any of these attributes he assigns to the God of the Bible. Only the Bible provides the basis for morality, so it is hypocritical and illogical for Dawkins or other atheists to appeal to morality while attacking Scripture.

First, why does morality have to have anything to do with evolution? Why is there no such thing as right and wrong if there's no god? Why can only a god can provide a basis for morality? None of these questions are answered - just assumed to be true in the text. I don't want to go into too much detail about morality here because I've already done so somewhat before and probably will again soon. Suffice to say that judging God by common morality (agreed upon by pretty much all civilized societies), Yahweh is one of the most evil people in all of fiction for the reasons Dawkins describes. Even if it were true that somehow, we could never discern right and wrong without appealing to a higher power defined as good, Yahweh does not pass his own moral test. One cannot exclaim killing/murder (depending on what translation you read) to be wrong and command genocide. But more on that later.

First, since God is the Creator of all things, He gets to set the rules.

Be a little more clear. It would be true, in some sense, that he sets the rules in what we are and are not capable of, physically and mentally. But he has no power over morality in that he cannot simply define good as being "like his nature" any more than any other god could. Christians, if you found out one day that your God had been defeated by a more powerful super-God that Yahweh forgot to mention and he declared that, because he is in power, it is morally required to kill every one of your family members and drink their blood, would you consider that "good"? After all, the one with the biggest stick makes the rules! What... you don't agree? The obviously you don't consider the ruler to be the definition of morality - you just attribute it to him because you perhaps cannot think of any other reason we should be good or have any definition of morality without him. And that is unfortunate, but doesn't make it true.

Second, God is perfectly just and must judge sin.

How do you know he is just? Surely you must just be taking his word. Because if I told you that I sent everyone who didn't like me into the torture chamber to be beaten and burned until they die - simply for the fact they didn't accept me for who I was - you'd call me anything but just.

Third, all have sinned (Romans 3:23) and deserve death (Romans 6:23). The fact that God allows us to live at all demonstrates His mercy.

Right, because allowing us to live is so merciful, considering that there are all kinds of other merciful things that he could be doing, like: developing a cure for cancer, eradicating AIDS, solving world hunger, getting rid of Satan once and for all, or making Justin Beiber's voice finally change. The only person who thinks we should all die because we've done at least one wrong thing (or been born with a 'sin nature') is God, and it's already obvious to me and most other clear thinkers that he's not that just to begin with.

With that in mind, is it fair to call God selfish, demanding, and vindictive? Absolutely not! God created a perfect world and gave man dominion over it.

There's no way God created a perfect world. A perfect world, by definition, could never become imperfect. Obviously this world is less than perfect and that's a reflection on the thing who made it, if such a maker exists. You don't blame the plumber for faulty pipe manufacturing. And dominion? Explain T. rexes, grizzlies, and mountains.

If there were no eternal consequences for sin, then people would know they could act however they wanted, and the world would become even worse.

People always can act however they want. That isn't the point. The argument being made here is that if there is no eternal punishment, anyone can and should do whatever they want (terrible, evil, selfish things - I infer that this is what most Christians would do upon learning God doesn't exist). Compelling argument. You should try it sometime and tell me what your friends, family, neighbors, the cops, and the media think about your mental state.

God’s laws are not overbearing, but were given to protect us from others and from ourselves.

That's exactly what I think when I remember that the penalty for a child's disobedience to his parents was stoning. It's a shame that we aren't still practicing this today!

In the book of Joshua, God commands the Israelites to conquer several cities throughout the Promised Land and to kill every person in some of these towns. How can anyone possibly think of God as loving in light of these commands?

Please, do tell.

Approximately 400 years before these battles, God had given the land to Abraham and his descendants (through Isaac and Jacob). However, God also told Abraham that his descendants would serve the Egyptians for 400 years before taking possession of the land. The reason for this delay is that “the iniquity (sin) of the Amorites [was] not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16). God graciously gave the people dwelling in the Promised Land 400 years to turn from their sinful ways. When they did not, He used the Israelites as an instrument of judgment.

Oh, ok. God promised the Israelites land that was already occupied because instead of just giving them an easy passageway to a land uninhabited, he thought it would be more fun to have them fight and kill their way through men, women, children and babies. Make no mistake, they had 400 years to change their ways. But they didn't, and the best, most humane, and most enlightened way to deal with it was to slaughter everyone. Sounds very Christian of them.

Second, in many of these battles, the people were commanded to first make an offer of peace (Deuteronomy 20:10–12). It is only in the cases where the people of the land were exceedingly wicked that the Israelites were commanded to utterly destroy them (Deuteronomy 20:16–18).

Does it really make sense that every nation they come up against to conquer would want to make peace with them, especially when the Israelites are instructed to keep those people as slaves if they agree? What would you do if some Muslim extremists came over here and told us to fight them or become slaves? I feel like I shouldn't even have to spell these things out. No, any nation with an army capable of fighting and enough brains to realize what slavery is would immediately reject such an offer. And in most cases, God instructs his people to wipe out everything that lived in the land. This includes all innocent beings like children and babies, not to mention innocent non-children. Some Christians/Jews will object and say, "There is no one innocent!" or "God has the right to give the death penalty to whomever he chooses!"

Response to #1: If you think you're just as guilty as anyone in one of those nations, perhaps you should consider killing yourself so that you receive just as much pure justice doled out by God as they did.
Response to #2: Power does not equal right. If it's wrong for Hitler to kill a million Jews, it's wrong for God to kill a million Canaanites/Amalekites/Hittites/Perizzites/Jebusites/Hivites.

However, in every single case, God provided the means of salvation for those who would trust Him.

"Convert or we'll kill you!" - Always a convincing argument.

Were we created in the image of God?

This week's AiG newsletter talks about angels, something I don't care too much about, but I'd like to highlight a few things I find interesting.

Mankind has a unique spiritual aspect, and this spirit is uniquely made in the image of God. We should expect this image to have certain aspects of God’s characteristics since God is spirit (John 4:24).

The word "spirit" or "spiritual" is meaningless. What is a spirit and what makes someone spiritual? It's a vague and vacuous concept used by people of all religions (and even non-religions) and it never means the same thing to two different people. How does it help me to realize that God is spirit? Does that just mean that he isn't physical? I can think of a lot of things that aren't physical but don't fall under most peoples' definitions of spiritual - math, anger, logical absolutes, etc. Does it describe those things that have life? Does that mean that animals and plants are spiritual as well? In most cases I think it's just synonymous with "religious."

Often Christians describe the image of God as superior intellectual ability, such as reason and abstract thought, worship of God, language and communication with God, ability to make decisions, creative expression, immortality, emotions such as love, sadness, anger, and so on. These attributes show how separate man is from beasts and other physical entities...

That's funny, because animals are capable of most things on that list. Many animals can reason (at least rudimentarily), communicate with each other (through what some would call languages), make decisions (part of reasoning), creatively express themselves, and contain various emotions like the ones mentioned. The only attributes I can see non-human animals having is the ability to worship gods (and in that aspect, perhaps they are better off) and abstract thought (though it'd be tough to know if extremely intelligent animals such as dolphins are capable of this). And the jury is still out on immortality.

I suppose the moral of the story is this: contrary to what the creationists would like to believe, we're just not that much different from the rest of the animals. We're just a bit smarter and better suited for general purposes. If I was created specially by a god, I would expect nothing less than the ability to shoot lasers out of my eyes.

Conservatives and Gay Marriage in America

The newsletter that Answers in Genesis sent me today didn't have much content in it, but it linked me back to their site for chapter 15 of The New Answers Book 2, entitled How Should a Christian Respond to "Gay Marriage"? (Yes, they did put gay marriage in quotes.) It's somewhat lengthy, so I won't attempt to respond to every claim they make but instead generally to each topic they bring up. This is probably the longest post I've done yet, so don't feel like you have to read all of it. I've underlined the headings they used in their chapter so you can skip around to the more interesting bits if you like. And if you agree or disagree with what I've said, please leave a comment and let me know what you think.

An Atheist on a Talk Show

 Ken Ham recalls having a conversation with an atheist on some kind of talk show, which I'm sure he didn't make up.

Caller: “I’m an atheist, and I want to tell you Christians that if you believe Cain married his sister, then that’s immoral.”

AiG: “If you’re an atheist, then that means you don’t believe in any personal God, right?”

Caller: “Correct!”

AiG: “Then if you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe there’s such a thing as an absolute authority. Therefore, you believe everyone has a right to their own opinions—to make their own rules about life if they can get away with it, correct?”

Caller: “Yes, you’re right.”

AiG: “Then, sir, you can’t call me immoral; after all, you’re an atheist, who doesn’t believe in any absolute authority.”

I would first point out that there's nothing innately immoral about marrying your sister from an atheist perspective, it's just a culture taboo. Not that it wouldn't be weird or creepy, but it would be difficult for me to argue that it's wrong to do so. However, according to the biblical commandments, incest is a sin and that's exactly what was required for Adam and Eve's children (if they were literal people) to do if they were to populate the earth. Instead of dealing with this issue, Ken turns the tables on the atheist and accuses him of not having any morals. A while back, I covered the issue of the divine command theory (otherwise known as "God commanded it, it's moral") and why it is irrelevant to morals. I would disagree with the atheist's last statement here, however, as while people can have their own opinions, it isn't about what they can get away with. It's about what is and isn't good for society and other people. Morals can, unfortunately, be a complicated issue and no one book (including the bible) has the answers to all tough questions. I know of places where the bible has good advice and I know where it contains bad advice. I think most Christians know how to weed out the good from the bad, highlighting their own sense of non-biblical morality.

AiG: “Do you believe all humans evolved from apelike ancestors?”

Caller: “Yes, I certainly believe evolution is fact.”

AiG: “Then, sir, from your perspective on life, if man is just some sort of animal who evolved, and if there’s no absolute authority, then marriage is whatever you want to define it to be—if you can get away with it in the culture you live in.

“It could be two men, two women or one man and ten women; in fact, it doesn’t even have to be a man with another human—it could be a man with an animal.

“I’m sorry, sir, that you think Christians have a problem. I think it’s you who has the problem. Without an absolute authority, marriage, or any other aspect of how to live in society, is determined on the basis of opinion and ultimately could be anything one decides—if the culture as a whole will allow you to get away with this. You have the problem, not me.”

Um, no. First, our origins have nothing to do with our morals. What isn't important is how we got here. What is important is how we treat each other now that we're here. Incidentally, most animals do operate under some sense of morals despite the fact that they too are, well... animals and don't have brains as developed as ours. They don't have the bible or any other book to tell them what's right and wrong, yet some animals have an especially strong sense of community. And about bestiality, I'm not sure where Ken Ham is pulling this logic from. You can't jump from two consenting adults to an adult and an animal who couldn't consent or even attempt to understand what that means. Now of course Ken doesn't let the atheist respond, or at least doesn't quote him here. I wouldn't let anyone get away with saying something like that without attempting a rebuttal, even if what was said was so stupid it almost refutes itself.


The “Pragmatics” Aspect of Opposing Gay Marriage—Some Cautions

Even though such problems as the spread of HIV might be shown to be a sound argument in this issue, ultimately it’s not a good basis for stating that one man for one woman must be the rule. It may be a sound argument based on the pragmatics of wanting to maintain a healthy physical body, but why should one or more human beings have the right to dictate to others what they can or can’t do in sexual relationships? After all, another person might decide that the relationship between one man and woman in marriage might cause psychological problems and use that as the basis for the argument.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. Yes, it is about giving two consenting adults the right to marry who they want, even if there are consequences (limited to the two in the act) because giving them the right wouldn't infringe on anyone else's rights to choose as well. The answer is staring you right in the face, but I don't think you quite see it. In fact, I'm quite sure, since you continue on for another 3/4 of a chapter.

Allowing the Killing of a Newborn?

Ultimately, it comes down to this: How does a culture determine what is right and what is wrong? If the majority agrees on a set of standards, what happens when that majority is replaced by a different majority?

We attempt to determine what is right and wrong by coming together and reasoning it out. I realize that logic seems to evade those hard-line creationists, so I understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp. But let's look at America today. Take socialized healthcare. Some people believe that it's the "right" thing to do, others believe it's the "wrong" thing. Could it be a moral question? Is is right to withhold care from those who can't afford it? Is it right to charge disinterested third parties to care for another? These are morals questions and there are people on both sides of the issue who think they take the moral high ground. Incidentally, both sides have tried to claim that theirs is the position supported by the bible, though there's no clear command from Jesus pertaining to the government's role in it.

If a different majority comes in and replaces the standards/law, then that's the new law. If you don't like it, then try to change it. You'll have to convince people that you're correct and your reasoning is better than the current reasoning. That's why a democracy is a good thing. Instead of having one man decide the laws (no matter how good a person he may be), we can have the votes of many and attempt to determine where most people stand. I know the objection here is "but what if everyone is wrong?" Tough. If you think we have the wrong standard, don't follow the standard. To date, I've never seen any example of the horrible things that could happen if we all were somehow creating our own standards (which we have been for millenia).

Some might say that there is no way Western culture would allow pedophilia. Fifty years ago, however, most people probably would not have dreamed that America or Britain would ever allow gay marriage. Where does one draw the line? And who determines who draws that line? What’s the answer?

Just as with bestiality, it comes down to consent. Now as I understand, Mary (wife of Joseph) was, according to what I learned in church, a young woman, perhaps even girl, at the age of about 12 when she was betrothed and the angel visited her. Obviously, the church can't consider this to be pedophilia since that would bring charges to Joseph and God that most people wouldn't want to deal with. The question then is, at what age is a person old an mentally ready enough to consent to a relationship? Certainly not at 5. Perhaps at 12. It's kind of fuzzy, really, because peoples' maturity can vary so widely. I think that's partly why we have it at 18 in most place in America. It's a nice safe age where no one can accuse you of being too young.

Does the Church Have the Answer?

One Christian leader was interviewed on MSNBC-TV and was asked about the gay marriage issue. The interview went something like this:

TV host: “Did Jesus deal directly with the gay marriage issue?”

Christian leader: “No, but then Jesus didn’t deal directly with the abortion issue or many other issues. . . .”

This is such a disappointing response. A proper response could have been such a powerful witness—not only to the interviewer but to the potential millions of viewers watching the news program, so people could understand why this Christian leader opposed gay marriage.

Perhaps a disappointing response for you, but an honest answer nonetheless. I think later you'll attempt to twist the meaning of a Jesus-quote to support your views but we'll get there eventually.

The same Christian leader appeared on CNN-TV doing an interview that, in part, went something like the following:

Interviewer: “Why are you against gay marriage?”

Christian leader: “Because down through the ages, culture after culture has taught that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

We believe this kind of answer actually opens the door to gay marriage! How? Because it basically says that marriage is determined by law or opinion.

Really? Because this seems to be the most oft-cited defense of traditional marriage. By throwing this out, what argument do you have left? ...Oh right, the Bible. *Sigh*

So, why is it that we don’t see many Christian leaders giving the right sorts of answers? I think it’s because the majority of them have compromised with the idea of millions of years of history, as well as evolutionary beliefs in astronomy, geology, and so on. As a result, the Bible’s authority has been undermined, and it’s no longer understood to be the absolute authority.

Wow, I've seen creationists confuse the ideas of evolution, cosmology, and abiogenesis, but this is something new. Apparently the people at AiG confuse evolutionary biology, astronomy, and geology with marriage. And willfully and honestly, at that. Wow. Now certainly, science conflicts with the most literal reading of Genesis, but most Christians aren't as conservative as you and don't take the biblical account to be anything other than metaphorical or allegorical.

Gay Marriage—Is Evolution the Cause?

To respond to this heading, don't be stupid. But I think Ken would like to clarify:

It is accurate to say that the increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior and gay marriage has gone hand in hand with the popularity and acceptance of millions of years and evolutionary ideas. But this does not mean that every person who believes in millions of years/evolution accepts gay marriage or condones homosexual behavior.

Ok, well "hand-in-hand" is open to interpretation, I suppose, but nonetheless, they're two completely separate topics that do not overlap. And that's why your last sentence is correct. Another correct sentence is "Not every person who enjoys Kit Kat bars thinks that we need to spend money on NASA's space exploration program." Their claim is bordering on a non sequitur.

Cultures in the West were once pervaded by a primarily Christian worldview because the majority of people at least respected the Bible as the authority on morality. It needs to be clearly understood that over the past 200 years the Bible’s authority has been increasingly undermined, as much of the Church has compromised with the idea of millions of years (this began before Darwin) and has thus begun reinterpreting Genesis. When those outside the Church saw Church leaders rejecting Genesis as literal history, one can understand why they would have quickly lost respect for all of the Bible. If the Church doesn’t even believe this Book to be true, then why should the world build its morality on a fallible work that modern science supposedly has shown to be inaccurate in its science and history?

Maybe the problem for people rejecting the Bible as an authority on morality was when we abolished slavery in America. Another problem could have been our progress toward giving women equal rights. Both go against what the Bible preaches (and we're better off for it) so I suppose I understand what Ken's saying. As a side note, from what I understand, AiG's position on a literal Adam & Eve is a relatively new movement in Christianity. Many of the old saints did not believe in such a literal reading of scripture. And now for possibly the dumbest image AiG has ever produced:

Yes, that's right, churches accepting evolution and millions of years result in abortions, euthanasia, porn, racism, and gay sex. Only one picture can describe my reaction to this stunning display of stupidity.

Mocking the Bible

The author then, mockingly, wrote, “Ah, Genesis. Heaven and earth created in six days, a serpent that talks, and a 600-year-old man building an ark. Just the guide we need to set rational policy.”

 Actually, I think that sums it up perfectly. Props to AiG for doing my work for me!

Were Homosexuals Created That Way?

Human sexuality is very complex, and the arguments will long rage as to the causes of homosexual behavior. In this fallen world, most behaviors are a complex mix of one’s personal choices superimposed on a platform of predisposition. This can come both from one’s genetic makeup and one’s environment (for example, one’s upbringing). Few students of human nature would doubt the proposition that some personalities are much more predisposed to alcoholism and/or wife beating, for instance. But would anyone argue that this would make wife beating acceptable?

No, they wouldn't. And shouldn't. But boy, aren't you having a tough time with the concept of "consent" today, Ken? Wife-beating victimizes one party, leaving her with physical and emotional scars. Gay marriage is the agreement between two people that they both actively wish to participate in the act. Totally. Different.

The case for a “homosexual gene” has evaporated, but let’s say that researchers really were able to identify such a gene. After all, mutations in a cursed, fallen world can cause all sorts of abnormalities and malfunctions. For one thing, that would be a result of the Curse, not creation. And would knowledge of such a gene make right what Scripture clearly says is wrong? Absolute right and wrong exist independent of any secondary causative agencies.

And yet in the previous quote you admit that a person's "genetic makeup" helps determine the sexual identity of a person. However, if you don't agree that genetics (or at least biology) affects sexuality, you might do some reading on the subject. If you don't like Wikipedia, feel free to peruse the 86+ references they cite.

In fact, it is quite possible that a contributing factor to at least some cases of homosexuality is a dysfunctional upbringing right at the time when the child is gaining crucial environmental input regarding his or her own sexual identity. (Notice the importance the Bible places on bringing up children, the family unit, and so on.) But if anything, this highlights one of the huge risks of “married” gay people bringing up adopted children, namely the vulnerability of the children to confused messages about their own sexual identity. To put it simply, if one’s environment contributes to homosexuality, gay marriage will tend to increase the likelihood of the next generation being gay.

Oh no, Mommy and Daddy are fighting again! Also, I like boys now...

I want to link that facepalm picture again, but I feel it would lose some of its effect on repeated appearances. Anyway, when you talk about "huge risks" for sending "confused messages" to children when they're determining their own sexuality, you assume beforehand that it's a bad thing to be gay. As we know, growing up in a mostly-heterosexual society doesn't make you straight. Why should we conclude that growing up in a society accepting of gays would lead to more gays? It's more complicated than that, and it's not as though we can just plug a child into a formula and determine their sexuality before they do.

Also, I'm confused by this image:

Are we saying that men with little mutated elbow stubs need to find physically scarred women with giant gaps in their sides? That it's possible for two differently-mutated people to come together but they won't be happy? That the man and woman on the left are incompatible because their parts don't match? That two men shouldn't be together if their legs are egregiously different sizes? I feel this needs more explaining...

Gay Marriage — What Is the Answer?

In the Bible in Judges 17:6, we read this statement: “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes” (NAS95). In other words, when there is no absolute authority to decide right and wrong, everyone has his or her own opinion about what to do.

Ok... so you're saying a King can decide right and wrong? But isn't a king still a person? Why does he have the authority to tell me what is and isn't moral? Why does God have that authority? What if their decision is obviously wrong? What if a king or God told me to murder my firstborn son? Shouldn't I refuse?

So how could the Christian leader whose interviews were quoted earlier in this chapter have responded differently? Well, consider this answer:

First of all, Jesus (who created us and therefore owns us and has the authority to determine right and wrong), as the God-man, did deal directly with the gay marriage issue, in the Bible’s New Testament, in Matthew 19:4–6: “And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?” So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’ ”

 Wait, why does creating someone give you the right to dictate morality? Does this mean that, because I created my child, I can tell him in no uncertain terms what right and wrong is? Or does it only count if you create the matter from nothing? I don't recall a matter-creation clause in the Morality Dictation Handbook.

But even if Jesus did have that authority, he doesn't talk about homosexuality in Matthew. His point was not that only man and woman should come together, but rather that they should not be separated. Notice the "therefore" in his conclusion. He could have used the example of two men or two woman and his conclusion could have been the same. No doubt AiG disagrees, but the question asked to him (left out of their quotation) was “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Notice the question was already posed concerning a man and a woman to begin with.

Because Genesis is real history (as can be confirmed by observational science, incidentally), Jesus dealt quite directly with the gay marriage issue when he explained the doctrine of marriage.

Um, no. All observational science we know of disagrees with the concept of a 6-year creation 6000 years ago where animals were made fully-formed and the original woman was made from a man's rib. The Answers in Genesis website disagrees, but it is also a haven of ignorance, lies, and pseudoscience. So I don't think they count.

Therefore, in Leviticus 18:22, Jesus deals directly with the homosexual issue, and thus the gay marriage issue.

So does Jesus also deal with clothing and cattle in Leviticus 19:19?

"You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material."

According to Jesus, we can't have homosexual marriage, wear polyester, or allow farmers to grow more than one crop. God sure seems to care a lot about petty details of our lives. Doesn't he have anything better to do, like prevent tsunamis or earthquakes from killing innocent people?

Even in a secular context, the only answer a Christian should offer is this:

The Bible is the Word of our Creator, and Genesis is literal history. Its science and history can be trusted. Therefore, we have an absolute authority that determines marriage.

God made the first man and woman—the first marriage. Thus, marriage can only be a man and a woman because we are accountable to the One who made marriage in the first place.

And don’t forget—according to Scripture, one of the primary reasons for marriage is to produce godly offspring. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply, but there’s no way a gay marriage can fulfill this command!

And unfortunately for them, we don't base our laws on any religious texts. And I'm not sure how that logic works up in your first paragraph. If I write an accurate book on science and history, can I be an absolute authority determining marriage as well? And what about artificial insemination? Won't that allow us to fulfill this command while still having gay marriage? And what about adoption? Do conservatives really think these are good objections to gay marriage? It seems like they're grasping at every straw they can find, but it also seems like they realize their only real reason is the Bible. So it all but seems like a lost cause. The only things preventing homosexual marriage are the bigotries and homophobia of the right. I hope we can all grow up a little and accept the fact that we're smart enough to make our own decisions without relying on the advice of mostly ignorant nomads who lived thousands of years ago.

Can creationists be “real” scientists?

I'll let your answer to that question be the same as the answer to this one: "Can flat-earthers be "real" scientists?" AiG never attempts to answer that question in their newsletter, so I'll do that for them. On to their words.

A: Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? Not at all.

Only partially correct. Evolutionists (read: scientists) interpret the evidence in light of the current best theories but have to explain how they do or don't fit in with the theory and why or why not. Science, as a process, would work whether or not evolution by natural selection was a fact or not. Your first two items in that list are indeed mostly irrelevant, but the third is an outright lie. Our understanding of "molecules-to-man" evolution directly affects what we know about how plants and animals function and you know it. Almost all of our biological and medical research has benefited from understanding evolution.

In fact, the PhD cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton has stated, “The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”

Dr. Menton, you must be either incredibly inadequately educated or an outright liar. Perhaps, in light of your ignorant or deceitful quote, you would be well-advised to do some reading or just a little thinking. If you like to have things narrated to you while looking at pretty pictures in hi-res, you might enjoy C0nc0rdance's 3-part series, The light of evolution: What would be lost. He breaks things up into 8 parts:

1. Pathogen evolution and the Red Queen
2. Human genetic disease, SNPs, and forensics
3. Conservation genetics
4. Agriculture
5. Cladistics and reconstructive phylogenies
6. Discovering genes and regulatory regions
7. Understanding the past
8. Beyond biology

If you don't want to spend 30 minutes educating yourself on the topic (thought it would be time well-spent), I'll just say that understanding evolution allows us to understand how things change. How we change. It allows us to make better medicine because we understand how bacteria and viruses can evolve. You may look at these and say "that's only micro-evolution," but that's not a real objection. The only difference between micro- and macro-evolution is scales of time and biologists don't think within these narrow spaces. There is a real value to having knowledge and even if it were somehow true that it didn't benefit us in any way in the present to understand the effects of science, would that mean we should abandon it for something that helps us understand things even less? (I'm looking at you, Special Creation.)

The rise of technology is not due to a belief in evolution, either. Computers, cellular phones, and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics, which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible.

The rise of understanding of biological processes and technological mechanisms stem from the same thing - the scientific method. Evolution, like all natural processes, operates on the laws of physics and chemistry, just like cellphones and DVD players. But no one ever said that technology was due to a belief in evolution and it doesn't even make sense that you would assert that. Science seeks to tell us about the world we live in and provide us with solutions to life's problems as well as endow us with all kinds of things that many people would deem luxuries. You readily accept the luxuries it gives while criticizing it for things you apparently don't understand. The alternative would be that you, Answers in Genesis, are willfully lying to the scientific illiterate who will buy your propaganda hook, line, and sinker. And that's just despicable.

Is there intelligent life in outer space?

This post brought to you by the great minds at the Answers in Genesis newsletter team. Also by the letter C, the number 6, and the word "ego."

A: A number of leading evolutionists, like the late Dr. Carl Sagan, have popularized the idea that there must be intelligent life in outer space. From an evolutionary perspective, it would make sense to suggest such a possibility. People who believe this possibility contend that, if life evolved on earth by natural processes, intelligent life must exist somewhere else in the far reaches of space, given the size of the universe and the millions of possible planets.

I've probably already said this, but the term "evolutionist" is about as helpful when describing scientists as "atomist" or "gravitist." Yes, scientists accept evolution because it's an amazing theory, not because they were choosing them out of a hat and happened to pick cell theory, germ theory, and... uh... creationism. Carl Sagan was an astronomer and cosmologist, so it's strange to assign this term to someone in his field (as opposed to biololgy), but I think you're just trying to single him out as "not one of us." It would, however, make sense to postulate the high probability of life existing somewhere else in the universe because of the massive amounts of planets, each with differing heat cycles, atmospheres, dominant elements, and so on. No one is saying that there is definitely, for sure life out there. But it's hard to say there definitely isn't either.

One can postulate endlessly about possibilities of intelligent life in outer space, but I believe a Christian worldview, built on the Bible, rejects such a possibility. Here is why.

Ah, forget science, the search for life, or any possible concrete confirmations we might have in the future. You've got the answer because your books tells you so... or at least you interpret it to tell you so.

During the six days of creation in Genesis 1, we learn that God created the earth first. On day four He made the sun and the moon for the earth, and then “He made the stars also” (Genesis 1:16).
From these passages of Scripture it would seem that the earth is very special—it is center stage. Everything else was made for purposes relating to the earth. For instance, the sun, moon, and stars were made “for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years” (Genesis 1:14).

...And that's how you end it. Well, you seem to have let your logic go unsaid and assume that we will just "get" what you're trying to say. And what I think that is would be "everything in this universe revolves around the earth" (metaphorically... or a few hundred years ago, literally - thanks Galileo!). We as humans are just so important that everything in the universe was made for us and our enjoyment. All of those beautiful galaxies billions of light years away and the billions more that we'll never see, yes, all for our ocular enjoyment. Forget the fact that they are all pretty much meaningless if we are only here because Yahweh wanted to make us, they are for US! US ONLY!

...'MERICA!


As the creationists would have you believe, because we are so important, there is no need for any other planet to be inhabited by aliens because frankly, God wouldn't care about them. He'd be so concerned with us, meeting our needs, answering our prayers, and sacrificing humans for us that he'd probably just forget about the Klingons. And because of original sin, they'd be sentenced to eternal torture as soon as they're born and they'd have no Klingon-Jesus to save them. So obviously, the best solution would be to just leave the planets dry and lifeless. It's a stretch to believe, but they can do it. I mean, they are creationists.

In case that last statement was too controversial, I'd like to slightly clarify. There are two types of creationists. Those that don't really know much about science but believe in creationism because their pastors tell them they have to and those that do know about science but continue to lie through their teeth and distort facts because this is what they want to believe. And a large majority probably fall into the first category, so it's hard to blame them. I just hope that one day our educational institutions will be able to adequately cover scientific explanations for basic principles, such as evolution. If we had that, I think we could cut TalkOrigins' Index to Creationist Claims in half.

Are you just a “monkey’s uncle”?

If I were a monkey's uncle, I would imagine that I would have a brother who gave birth to a monkey. This seems like what a Creationist might think evolution works like, but hopefully AiG has a better grasp on science than that. I was laying in bed last night, all excited for the newsletter they would send me today, and it does not fail to disappoint.

A: Perhaps the most bitter pill to swallow for any Christian who attempts to “make peace” with Darwin is the presumed ape ancestry of man. Even many Christians who uncritically accept evolution as “God’s way of creating” try to somehow elevate the origin of man, or at least his soul, above that of the beasts.

Why do Creationists have an obsession with Charles Darwin? He was indeed a smart man and contributed much to the science of biology, but we have come much farther in the last 150 years than he probably ever even dreamed. I think they like to pick on him because he provides a nice punching bag that can never retaliate (since he's dead). Or maybe he looks just a little bit too much like the image of Yahweh they have in their heads. In any case, it's funny that they accuse some Christians of "uncritically accepting" evolution, because that's EXACTLY how Creationism works. The easiest way to be a Creationist is to ignore all of modern science, claim that radioactive dating doesn't work, quote a few frauds that nobody bought, claim that we don't have any transitional fossils, and quote Genesis like it's the unadulterated literal truth. People like myself who decided that they could think and look at the facts for themselves with an open mind came to realize that by deciding so, it's inevitable that you stop being a Creationist. But this is too much for some people - thinking openly like that could almost be seen as blasphemy by some believers.

God tells us that on the same day He made all animals that walk on the earth (the sixth day), He created man separately in His own image with the intent that man would have dominion over every other living thing on earth (Genesis 1:26–28). From this it is clear that there is no animal that is man’s equal, and certainly none his ancestor.

Did he have dominion over crocodiles, elephants, rhinos, and... oh yeah... dinosaurs? I'm sure he would have liked to have think so. One can only wonder what would have happened the first time Adam tried to steal food right out from under a T-rex's nose. This passage certainly makes more sense when you understand that it was written long after dinosaurs died out and the writers had no idea that they ever existed and assumed that man could just dominate everything. Those pompous goat-herders.

Thus, when God paraded the animals by Adam for him to name, He observed that “for Adam there was not found an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:20). Jesus confirmed this uniqueness of men and women when He declared that marriage is to be between a man and a woman because “from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). This leaves no room for prehumans or for billions of years of cosmic evolution prior to man’s appearance on the earth. Adam chose the very name “Eve” for his wife because he recognized that she would be “the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20).

Well, according to Genesis 2:18, in the beginning God just created them male - as it pertains to Adam. Because he (or they in 1:26?) forgot to make a pal for him in the beginning, God conjured up a woman from one of his ribs and a bit of special sauce he had laying around from when he forgot to use all of it on his most absent-minded work, the platypus. It is kind of interesting that God paraded all of the animals to Adam, considering that there are billions of different species (or hundreds/thousands/whatever of however you define "kinds"), many of which wouldn't have been able to come to him. What about polar bears, kangaroos, and koalas? Each of these would have been on different continents, not to mention ALL of marine life. Though I would like to personally thank him for the name of "llama." That's always a fun one to spell, and it even looks like the animal itself. How clever!

The apostle Paul stated clearly that man is not an animal: “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (1 Corinthians 15:39).

This is exactly why people at AiG don't understand science. It's because they give a man who lived in 1st century Rome (supposedly as a pharisee) a soapbox for talking about science and it just doesn't make sense. Do all beasts have the same flesh? Are there only four fleshes? In context, Paul was talking about how flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Which is interesting, because didn't Elijah ascend into heaven in his physical body?

Actually, never mind that question, it's not important. What we godless heathens should realize is that there are really two ways of acquiring knowledge about our universe. One is with sound reason, evidence, testing, and peer review, and the other is with one hand on the bible while the other reaches toward the sky. Or, if our hands aren't in that position, they'll probably be in our ears, chanting bible verses until the evidence goes away. But that's OK, because then you'll know that, once you can forget the science that challenges your worldview, you can go back to believing in Creationism, having thoroughly investigated the evidence while not relying on supernatural presuppositions that only find their basis in one book in all of history. Right?

Why are we punished for Adam’s sin?

This is a big question to pose for a loving God, so I'm surprised that AiG decided to tackle it in under 200 words. Well... not really tackle. More like brush-by-so-that-its-shirt-barely-ruffles.

A: When Adam sinned, his punishment was death (Genesis 2:17). Because of Adam’s sin, death came upon all men. Some have said that it is harsh for God to punish all of Adam’s descendants for something Adam did. But is it?

If it is true that we are punished for what he did, then that is extremely harsh. (But to be sure, we're not punished for what she did, even though she did it first, because women weren't as important. Or something equally as stupid.) Parents, I know that disciplining your child can be a hassle sometimes, but just imagine doing it the bible's way. If your firstborn is a complete rebel and gets all into trouble, you are to punish him. Then, when your next child is born, you are to punish him for his brother's crime. Your next daughter? Punish her for it too. You will repeat this for as long as you have children. It's about as fair as what we have in Genesis which comes from the perfect book, so I would see no conflict there

The answer is simple—we are without excuse since we sin too (Romans 3:23; 5:12), and we all deserve death before a perfect Holy God. To assume Adam’s descendants are innocent is a false assumption. Due to the sin nature received from Adam, death is coming for all since all have sinned (Romans 3:23).

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

But I thought the theological reasoning for us all sinning was because we have a sin nature, not the other way around. If that's so, and our sin nature causes us to sin, and we all have sin natures against our will, then this is just circular reasoning. I'd imagine, according to what I was brought up learning, that if I never had a sin nature, I'd never sin. Then I'd never need punishment. But because God gave me and all of you sin natures, we don't have a choice and we're all doomed. Thanks big guy!

It is illogical to think that two imperfect people could produce perfect offspring. Since Adam and Eve had both sinned and been cursed then it would be impossible for their children to be perfectly free from sin. So the real question is: why would God permit sin nature to pass along to Adam’s descendants?

In what sense do you mean "imperfect?" If physically, then I would probably agree. But when it comes to invisible non-tangible spiritual things I wouldn't know. Are sin natures passed down in the genes when a baby is formed so that it has its own brand-spanking-new sinful nature? Or is God planting it there and hoping we won't blame him for it? Or is it somehow duplicating from its parents and spiritually attaching itself to the child while God sits back and calls it good? I don't know, but the logic here is very suspect. Without the sin nature, I think it would be safe to say that yes, Adam and Eve's children could have been perfectly free from sin. Besides, "nothing is impossible with God," so couldn't he just remove it with a snap of his fingers? It would be a good starting point.

But thank you for asking a question and then not answering it. I'm guessing you most likely don't have a good response and want to leave it up to the reader to decide. I'm going to deduce it's because the idea of original sin is full of holes and doesn't match up with the attributes of the Judeo-Christian god. No, you never answered the original question. God "permitting" sin nature to progress is still a punishment no matter how you play with the semantics. The God of the bible isn't perfectly loving, fair, just, merciful, powerful, or knowing, despite what your bible may tell you.

I'm not expecting believers to look at this blog post and say, "yeah, now I see his point of view!" But hopefully this will act as a starting point for doubt. If you can look at an issue like this and not be challenged by it, you either have far too much faith or simply aren't being honest with yourself. Try looking at this from an outsider's perspective and try to rationalize Yahweh with the word "fair."

Can we "stand on the promises" logically?‏

This week, Answers in Genesis released a slightly shorter but oh-so-sweet email newsletter. It's such a privilege to be on this mailing list because it's really become the highlight of my week. I feel like I barely have to comment on it at all. Any rational person will just stare and laugh. Nonetheless, let's begin the breakdown.

When explaining their beliefs, Christians often feel they must first prove the Bible or prove the existence of God. This approach reveals that they do not yet understand the Bible’s approach, known as presuppositional apologetics.

If I recall correctly, the creationist Eric Hovind likes to talk a lot about "evolutionists'" presuppositions about the theory, stating that they start off assuming that it's true and look for evidence to support it. (We all know that's not the case and that's not how science works, but let's not focus on that now.) It's actually funny how AiG is now trying to turn the tables on us and tell us that this is how Christian apologetics are supposed to work. However, this wouldn't be the first time that two Christian ministries tell us completely opposite things.

Presuppositions are simply beliefs that everyone has that affect how they think, view the world, interpret evidence, and read the Bible. Apologetics is a reasoned defense of beliefs. So presuppositional apologetics is a reasoned defense of Christian beliefs based on recognizing our presuppositions.

Presuppositions are not merely beliefs, they are beliefs that rest upon assumptions. Clearly, if this is how far back Christian apologetics has been set back - that they must now rely on assumptions - the surely, they must be a dying cause. However, it's difficult for me to tell what sense of assumption they're talking about here, so I'll have to give them some benefit of the doubt. If they perhaps mean that the presuppositions are things that people believe prior to engaging in a discussion, then I can accept that as somewhat reasonable.

For instance, our presupposition is that God exists and He has given us His Word (the Bible) that is absolute truth. So we use the Bible as the basis for how to think, interpret evidence, explain the world around us, and read the Bible. An atheist’s presupposition will most likely be that there is no God and that truth is relative. An atheist believes that man decides truth, and so he thinks, interprets evidence, and views the world and Bible accordingly.

Whoa, whoa now. Slow down. Why start throwing out falsities right at the end of your letter? I already had enough to deal with here. If you're a Christian trying to dialogue with a non-believer, you simply can't rely on your presuppositions to be convincing. Maybe Christians don't understand this - after all, I get quoted plenty of Bible verses that claim I'm wrong and am destined to an eternal hell, but why should I care? If you're a Christian, my quoting the Koran or Vedas to you won't be any kind of effective. Why do you think it will be any different in my case? It may be tough, but you have to dig deeper until you can arrive at something upon which to debate that does not rely upon mutually conflicting presuppositions. You just won't get anywhere otherwise.

But really, why do butcher the atheist's position so terribly? Most atheists don't believe there is no god, they just lack beliefs in any. There's a difference (though it's probably irrelevant to you). I don't know of any atheist that think the truth is relative, but if one ever did say that, I'd ask him, "Is that statement absolutely or only relatively true?" That's a self-defeating statement. I believe the difference between Christianity and atheism is the idea that we can attain absolute truth. Simply because it exists does not mean we can always know it, and the fact that we don't know everything about anything means that we probably never do. What I think is truth is based on empirical evidence confirmed by other unbiased sources - not the books of the Bible which were written in a time of mass ignorance. (Though I don't mean to imply that the Bible is totally ignorant on all issues, because it's not. There are good things to be found in it, to be sure, but there are also many bad and incorrect things.)

I don't believe that man decides truth any more than rocks define it. Truth is "what is," and what is, is, independent of us wanting to believe it (or being able to know or even understand the concept of any arbitrarily chosen truth). No, Christians are the ones that rely on man to decide truth. Men wrote the bible and men are responsible for what is inside it, in every way. Slapping the label "divinely inspired" on the cover and calling it inerrant and forever true (no matter what the opposition) is a novel idea, but doesn't make it any more true than a documentary with Michael Moore's signature on it.

Are your morals against the law?

Oh Answers in Genesis, how I love your emails. They're as entertaining as the majority of TV shows that get poor ratings. You've titled this letter "Are your morals against the law?" and I get the feeling the answer I'm supposed to be inferring is 'yes'. Insulting, but let's move on, hm?

A: There’s no doubt America was founded on Christian principles based on the Bible. In fact, just two generations ago, the majority of Americans supported prayer, Scripture readings, and Bible instruction in public schools. Britain’s Common Law also was founded on biblical authority. In both countries, people also supported displaying nativity scenes, crosses, and the Ten Commandments in public places. Gay marriage and abortion were outlawed.

I find room for doubt. I don't have to be any kind of historical scholar to reason that "just two generations ago" is not the same as "two hundred years ago." Don't pull that crap on me. And what does the Britain Common Law have to do with the way America was founded? BS. Name me one "Christian principle" that America was founded on that is uniquely Christian in nature. (Hint: freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not in the bible - in fact, they are spoken against. boom! roasted.) It's not even that I don't support the display of nativity scenes, crosses, or the Ten Commandments in public places, because I don't care. I just don't think they should be displayed on government property because that violates the separation. The Ten Commandments are largely unrelated to US laws at all, except for the "don't kill" and "don't steal" ones. And of course there is absolutely no place in a government building for "no other gods except for Yahweh." If you want to put up your plaques on private property, go ahead. But not in state-owned buildings. Oh, and interracial marriages were also illegal. Does your bible support the ban on black/white or white/asian love?

Today, however, it is very obvious that the population as a whole does not see the Bible as the absolute authority it once did. For instance, pollster George Barna found that in the United States, “A minority of born-again adults (44 percent) and an even smaller proportion of born-again teenagers (9 percent) are certain of the existence of absolute moral truth.” Similar surveys in the United Kingdom reveal even lower percentages.

Wait - you're equivocating "lack of certainty of absolute moral truth" with "the Bible is not the absolute authority"? I swear AiG, you just love equivocation. I don't find the Bible a source of "absolute moral truth" because it isn't one. It's full of stories about god-approved/-commanded genocide, rape, slavery, torture, polygamy, and dishonesty. If there is such a thing as absolute moral truth, it won't be found here.

So what has happened? Why the dramatic change? Why is the moral position of previous generations being outlawed more and more? What has driven this moral collapse? Why is this war going on?

Wait, is not supporting prayer in public schools a mark of moral collapse? Aren't crime rates lower now than they were "just two generations ago"? Maybe, in this age of easily accessible knowledge and free speech, it's easier than ever to check religious claims against fact and find them wanting.

Whereas Christian thinking once permeated the public education system, today the Christian God, prayer, Bible study, and biblical creation have all but been excluded from the system. Now, generations (including the majority of students from church homes) are being trained in a secular (anti-God) religion. They are being indoctrinated to believe that the universe—and all that exists within it—can be explained without God.

That's because it can. The Christian God, prayer, and Bible study have no place in "the system" except for in religion class. Because that's what it is. You wouldn't have it any other way if this were somehow a "Muslim" or "Mormon" nation. And don't get me started on biblical creation. It's not science. It never has been. To teach it as such is a disgrace to real science and to pretend that there's some kind of discord among scientists (as you would preach) is simply dishonest. Because there isn't. And you aren't scientists. You're propagandists. You pretend to be an authority on a subject and permeate religious fundamentalist circles with your disinformation. You are either ignorant or knowingly deceitful. So no, I won't give you my money.

And to answer your initial question ("are my morals against the law?"), no. And neither are christian morals. There's a difference in a belief in right and wrong behavior and the belief that your religion should be spread all over our government. And the latter is what should be illegal.