Creationism is bad religion

By Phil Plait | March 27, 2009 7:00 am

It’s dead obvious that creationism isn’t science, or even bad science. It’s nonsense. But I’ve long stated it’s also bad religion, because it doesn’t just take faith, it also takes a phenomenal disregard of reality. Moderate Christians should distance themselves from such garbage, as it is a clear distortion of the Bible. The creation story in Genesis has two self-contradicting versions!

That’s why this video pleased me. It’s from a moderate man, a religious one, but one who sees what folly young-Earth creationism is. I recommend watching it. He even points out he disagrees with atheists on things, but in this case he knows creationism is a crock. And with what’s going on Texas right now, what he says is more important than ever.

I receive email and comments on my blog from religious people saying I hate Christians. I find that funny, and ironic, given what Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount contrasted with the commentor’s obvious attitude toward me. Still, that claim is ridiculous. I don’t hate Christians, nor do I ever say that people cannot believe whatever they want. You can believe what you want, including the grossly ridiculous idea that the Earth is 6000 years old. That’s your right.

But that right stops when you try to make laws based on your belief, and when you try to tell an entire country how your religion should be the only thing taught in science class, and when your belief system affects people’s health, welfare, and well-being. Creationism and fundamentalism do just that.

I will not sway from my stance that I will not allow laws in this country to be based on a narrow sect’s belief system, whether it aligns with reality or not (and in the case of creationists, it’s way way not). I will continue to be vocal, I will continue to fight, and I will do what I can to make sure this country stays free.

Comments (204)

  1. IVAN3MAN

    It not infrequently happens that something about the Earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the Sun and Moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

    De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408].

  2. Thanks Phil! I agree with your stance that people can believe what they want but they have no right to force it on others in society. I was raised a fundie and really only “came out” about my true beliefs (and disbeliefs) about four years ago, so it’s still tough for me to be tolerant at times, even of my own family and friends who still cling to these silly myths. When it comes to basing laws around them I will stand with you and hopefully many others who put their faith not in mystical beings but in logic and reason. Thanks for all you do Phil!

  3. Julian

    I’ve been subscribing to that guy for a almost a year now. You should check out his other videos (especially the Refuting Way of the Master). He’s not exactly a skeptic (he does believe in ghosts and the afterlife for obvious reasons) but at least he gets that crap science is crap science, no excuses allowed.

  4. IVAN3MAN

    ADDENDUM: The above quote is from St. Augustine of Hippo.

  5. Brian Schlosser, Lurker

    “it’s also bad religion, because it doesn’t just take faith”. EXACTLY.

    Its one thing to have faith in things that are, by their nature, unprovable and unknowable. God, Heaven, Nirvana, etc. But its quite another to insist that actual, verifable, cold, hard reality is wrong just because it contradicts what your interpretation of a 4000 year old book says.

    Thankfully, I do think that the majority of Christians do not subscribe to young earth creationist twaddle. The largest demonination sure doesn’t, which is good for a few bonus points in my book (not enough to counteract the whole “no birth control” thing, but its a start…)

    BUT… that minority is loud, well funded and politically savvy. We can not rest, we can not falter, we can not let them get any footholds. The future is very much at stake.

  6. Otavio

    This creationists, ultimately, give big excuses to life itself… Thats a weack point of view.
    Maybe the problem relies on basics education..(?)

  7. As a person who has been going to Church for a while, I firmly believe that it is possible to believe in all things sciencey while still maintaining a religious outlook on life. I think it depends on the type of Christianity honestly. The Church I was introduced to actually talks about the Universe, galaxies, and seems to be extremely pro-science. They actually had a science week for the kids. While I didn’t see what they taught, I know I have heard various pastors mention evolution in a positive, scientific sense.

    I do feel that there are skeptics and scientists alike that are anti-religion, so I see where some people come from thinking that the two can not get along. I for one disagree with that sentiment, but to each his own. I believe that evolution is real and that science is full of awesome, but I also believe that Christianity is something worth believing (for the most part).

  8. Daniel J. Andrews

    Very right, Phil, and well said. Even without the science and reality-conflict Creationism is bad because it is based on a very poor understanding of Genesis. It is just poor exe- and isogesis that completely ignores cultural context.

    One nitpick: There are not two self-contradictory stories in Genesis. That is one of those myths that everyone repeats but seldom checks for themselves. Read within context there is no contradiction.

    But that’s not really relevant considering that by going with a literal creation Creationists are contradicting the entire purpose of the book of Genesis, not to mention setting themselves up to read all the other parts wrong. The biogeographer in me shudders when I hear stories about how the animals dispersed from Noah’s Ark to their present places.

    Recently, I discovered that one of the fathers of modern day fundamentalism, who wrote some of the tracts called The Fundamentals around 1900s, said of the Darwin’s evolutionary theory ‘I see nothing in it that conflicts with the Bible’, or words similar.

    Incidentally, how does the Creationism affect peoples’ health? The majority of creationists do not eschew medical aid, unless they’re Jehovah’s Witnesses, or from a small cultish sect or sectish cult. Maybe Bible Belt creationists are a different breed than the ones we have in the north, eh? ;)

  9. “But that right stops when you try to make laws based on your belief, and when you try to tell an entire country how your religion should be the only thing taught in science class, and when your belief system affects people’s health, welfare, and well-being. Creationism and fundamentalism do just that.”

    But then, so does Science. And if Christians continue to view Science as just another belief system, which as far as I can tell they do, then they think your (and my) view on the situation is equal to theirs, and that they deserve equal representation.

    The key is to convince them that it’s not a belief system, but a factual system. The hard part of that is that they think their religion is factual too.

    It’s an endless cycle.

  10. Brian

    I still don’t understand how anyone who understands the scientific method can still believe in untestable theories that aren’t supported by emperical data. In the video, he mocks creationists for rejecting evolution, regardless of the mounds of emperical data, yet it is clear he believes in God. Isn’t that a little hypocritical?

  11. Well put, Phil!
    And when (as they inevitably will) the YECs say they just want equal time in science class in the interest of fairness, we must all remind them of this:
    Science is not a democracy. Science is a meritocracy. Only ideas of merit are allowed in science class.

  12. A big problem that I have with Young Earth Creationism (beyond the whole “trying to get religious beliefs taught as science” stuff) is the view they seem to have of God. They claim that God put a ton of “Old Earth” evidence in place, gave us brains that can figure out the evidence, but then insisted that we not use those brains nor look at that evidence if we want to go to heaven.

    This goes beyond a “trickster god” in my book right to a “maliciously deceptive god.” I refuse to believe in a god who deliberately deceives millions of people by planting evidence and punishing people who fell for the evidence he planted. If any human authority figure was caught planting evidence, he’d be arrested. But if god does it we’re supposed to thank him for “testing” us?

    Sorry, but I’d much rather believe in a God that just wants people to be good to one another. I’d like to think that, if God tests us, it is by seeing how we act morally when we find ourselves in difficult situations. (e.g. When angered by someone, did he punch the guy or just walk away?)

  13. @ TechyDad:

    I refuse to believe in a god who deliberately deceives millions of people by planting evidence and punishing people who fell for the evidence he planted.

    But this is perfectly consistent with Yaweh, the god of the Old Testament. Yahweh is not some new-agey, lovey-dovey god. He is vain, jealous, violent, spiteful, petty, and incredibly edibly bloodthirsty.

    I would like to ask any of the Texas school board members who voted for this latest round of creationist nonsense, how they feel about the treatment of American prisoners of war? Because Yaweh has very clear views on how they should be treated. Hint: it involves knives.

    And what about corporal punishment? If they are willing to use public schools to further their “scientific” agenda, why not use them to shape up their kids, too?

    “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” — Deuteronomy 21:18-21

    That’ll learn the little rebellious bastards.

  14. Maria

    I find myself agreeing more and more with skeptics than with my fellow Catholics/Christians…. The zealots are going way overboard with the creationist crap *sigh*. This video is fantastic……

  15. And if Christians continue to view Science as just another belief system

    Right, and creationists will believe otherwise when scientists can *honestly* tell them that whatever consensus of opinion that you might be on about, would not be different if the “consensus” was comprised mainly of hard right winged fundamentalists, instead of the left winged fanatics who currently rule science.

    Can scientists do that?… I didn’ think so.

  16. I have to say: young-earth creationists are why I am not a Christian today. Left to myself, I was content to accept both Christianity and science, until I was cornered by a family member, and told “You cannot believe in evolution AND be a Christian.” After I thought about this for a while, I concluded, “OK, then I won’t be a Christian!”

  17. And now they are exporting the stupid…

    http://www.thelocal.de/society/20090326-18267.html

    “Many Evangelical Americans might consider Europe a godless place, but as David Wroe reports, questioning the theory of evolution and teaching Creationism is on the rise in Germany.”

    The article cites a Swiss group who want to set up a European Creation Museum…

  18. rowdy

    Was it John Stewart who suggested that the creationists might want to look to–oh, I don’t know–the actual writers of Genesis as to whether or not that text should be understood literally. Yeah, the Jews. Is there any sect of Judaism that reads the Torah as a science manual?

    Besides, Jesus talked in parables. If Jesus=God, they most likely communicated in a similar fashion.

  19. GregB

    >Sorry, but I’d much rather believe in a God that just wants people to be good to one another. I’d like to think that, if God tests us, it is by seeing how we act morally when we find ourselves in difficult situations. (e.g. When angered by someone, did he punch the guy or just walk away?)

    And yet, I can come to exactly the same morality without invoking God at all. I simply feel empathy for other human beings and act morally because of it.

    I think the morality question comes down to something Christopher Hitchens said: “Is there any moral act or moral statement that a religious person can make that a non-religioius person cannot? I have yet to have any reverend, pastor or preacher provide an answer to that question. However, not one of us has any problem thinking of an immoral act that could only be done in the name of religion.”

  20. Loki

    @ Brian
    Is there any empirical data that God doesn’t exist? Unless the answer is yes, it isn’t hypocritical.

    I’m personally tired of the Science vs Religion argument. You shouldn’t use religion to argue about science and you shouldn’t use science to argue about religion. I also find it sort of sadly humorous that they are trying to make public schools teach creationism, given that I went to a Catholic school that taught us about a ~4 billion year old earth and evolution.

  21. Hypatia

    Since almost every one who post a comment agreed with Phil, I state a quest for all of us…We all need to think what can we do, right here, right now, to stop this nonsense in Texas from happening and prevent it from happening in any other place

    Phil is doing all he can do, so we must do the same because it will affect the education in generations to come

  22. OsakaGuy

    Actually if you read the comments in DonExodus2’s latest video “Thoughts on Creationism” you will find out he is no longer a Christian.

    Guess we’ll have to stick with Ken Miller now!

  23. @ righteousliberals:

    Right, and creationists will believe otherwise when scientists can *honestly* tell them that whatever consensus of opinion that you might be on about, would not be different if the “consensus” was comprised mainly of hard right winged fundamentalists, instead of the left winged fanatics who currently rule science.

    You know that makes no grammatical sense, right?

    I kan speaks troll!

  24. Pete

    @ Brian.
    I wouldn’t say it was hypocritical. Evolution is directly opposed to creationism, and evolution has a vast amount of supporting evidence, while creationism has close to nothing. Therefore you could say evolution disproves creationism. There is no well proven theory that disproves the existence of a God, just a lack of evidence supporting God’s existence.
    Believing in a God would take faith, when believing in Creationism would take faith as well as an incredible amount of ignorance, and as Phil said, a phenomenal disregard of reality.

  25. ccpetersen

    Kuhnigget, re righteousliberals comment: yeah, like you, I was kinda shaking my head over that one, too. Was there.. like.. a point in all that codswallop? If so, it’s not obvious at all…

  26. MarkW

    RighteousLiberals Says:

    Right, and creationists will believe otherwise when scientists can *honestly* tell them that whatever consensus of opinion that you might be on about, would not be different if the “consensus” was comprised mainly of hard right winged fundamentalists, instead of the left winged fanatics who currently rule science.

    What? What does that even mean?

    The practice of science and the politics of its practitioners are unrelated. Even if one were to grant (for the sake of argument) that “left winged fanatics […] currently rule science” why does that affect the validity of scientific findings?

  27. Off topic (sorry but real quick) – Earth Hour 2009 is this weekend. 84 countries are involved this year. Lights out from Paris to Chicago for one hour to promote environmental awareness.

    Basically symbolic and some think it’s useless but I think it’s kind of cool.

  28. MarkW

    (I was ninja’d by kuhnigget and ccpetersen.)

  29. Danorock

    It seems absurd that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God would allow for such a fundamental difference in belief about his/her own existence and the existence of our “3rd rock” if being saved DEPENDED on aligning your beliefs to a “correct” vision. If there is only one way into heaven, then the other place will be full of very dedicated, pious people who live righteous lives but hold different beliefs. Now that would be a sorry state of affairs.

  30. If your religion disagrees with objective reality, then you should probably get another religion.

  31. I kan speaks troll!

    Too bad that you don’t know the definition of “troll”… but I can’t help notice that you can’t address the point.

  32. The practice of science and the politics of its practitioners are unrelated.

    LOL

  33. Yeah. There’s a big difference between a troll and someone who just doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about. Learn the definitions, people.

  34. @Daniel J. Andrews
    One nitpick: There are not two self-contradictory stories in Genesis. That is one of those myths that everyone repeats but seldom checks for themselves. Read within context there is no contradiction.

    I’m not sure by what you mean when you say “Read within context” but there are definitely contradictions between the two accounts of Genesis.

    http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/contra_list.html

  35. Nigel Depledge

    Righteous liberals said:

    Right, and creationists will believe otherwise when scientists can *honestly* tell them that whatever consensus of opinion

    Tautology.

    Any consensus is made up of opinion, by definition.

    that you might be on about, would not be different if the “consensus” was comprised mainly of

    “Comprised of” is a common mistake – the “of” is superfluous. To comprise is to be made up of. “Comprise” has no auxiliary. I think you meant “comprising”.

    hard right winged fundamentalists, instead of the left winged fanatics who currently rule science.

    Can scientists do that?… I didn’ think so.

    Well, now, why should any international collaborative enterprise wish to comprise solely right-wing fundies?

    Science contains people from pretty much all backgrounds, and with all political views. In science, none of that matters in comparison with evidence.

    So, scientists can and do honestly claim that the consensus is formed by scientists who are convinced by the evidence.

    Do you have any evidence that science is dominated by “left winged fanatics”?

  36. @righteousliberals : Not even wrong.

  37. What exactly is your point anyways, RL? Are you saying that science is currently being subjugated by “left wing fanatics? If that is true (which it most assuredly is not) then it would tell me one of two things: 1) Right wing fanatics aren’t smart enough to do real science OR 2) Good scientists are too smart to be right wingers. I suppose it could be a combination of the two. Someone should do a study on this.

  38. If I recall correctly, one of the reason Darwin liked evolution was because of his faith. It bothered him that a deterministic God would, for example, create a species of wasp that would paralyze a caterpillar so its young could eat it alive. But a more distant God who set the universe going, for good or ill, was more acceptable to him.

  39. Do you have any evidence that science is dominated by “left winged fanatics”?

    Objective, empirical, peer-reviewed science disagrees with his very strongly held religious and political beliefs, therefore science is controlled by “left wing fanatics”. Duh!

  40. Troll sez:

    but I can’t help notice that you can’t address the point.

    MarkW refutes:

    The practice of science and the politics of its practitioners are unrelated. Even if one were to grant (for the sake of argument) that “left winged fanatics […] currently rule science” why does that affect the validity of scientific findings?

    Troll replies:

    LOL

    I’m sorry, but are you under the impression that you’re somehow not a troll? I can see your error, given your fallacious post hoc ergo propter hoc understanding of the relationship between the political leanings of scientists and their conclusions, but I must point out that a non-troll, after reading a counter-claim, would reposnd with more than mere derision. If you’ve already married to the conclusion you’ve claimed and are unwilling to respond reasonable to counter-claims, then I’d suggest you go find yourself a bridge and either live under it or jump off.

    As for the liberal leanings of many scientists, you’ve got it backwards, moron. Many scientists are left-leaning because that political stance is more in line with the evidence than the converse. Try reading the mountains of literature regarding the efficiency, cost, and effectiveness of private health care systems vs. public. health care.

  41. Well, now, why should any international collaborative enterprise wish to comprise solely right-wing fundies?

    I didn’t say that. How convenient that you can’t even read.

    Do you have any evidence that science is dominated by “left winged fanatics”?

    Hey, what happened to the term “solely”?… and after all of that grammatical nit-picking that has nothing to do with the subject. Which is too typical of liberal fanatics who think that this is some kind of rebuttal to the point just because the group-think grunts in agreement.

    Lame.

    It’s been fun.

  42. ‘reposnd’, ‘unwilling to respond reasonable to counter-claims’, ‘private health care systems vs. public. health care’

    Wow. I’ve been infected with trollish aphasia.

  43. As for the liberal leanings of many scientists, you’ve got it backwards, moron. Many scientists are left-leaning because that political stance is more in line with the evidence than the converse.

    HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

    Sorry, I couldn’t resist one last laugh…

  44. Dennis

    “But that right stops when you try to make laws based on your belief, and when you try to tell an entire country how your religion should be the only thing taught in science class, and when your belief system affects people’s health, welfare, and well-being. Creationism and fundamentalism do just that.”

    Basing laws and curriculum on bad science is equally bad. Make sure that your stance isn’t simply one against religious influence.

    I’m a Christian, and I have faith in my Creator. Objecting to science as a rational means to investigate our world (to me) is ridiculous. Using science to rationalize Christian faith is just as ridiculous. Faith in God, and faith in science are based from two completely separate axioms, neither of which at this time can prove ‘truth’.

    I’m tired of Christians refuting scientific evidence based on their faith. I’m also equally tired of the false assurance that the scientific community projects when it comes to matters of origin. In the end, we are but left with our OWN interpretation of the information set before us.

  45. Brian, I’m going to take a stab at answering you, even though it’s an argument that’s played out many times before and we’ll probably end up agreeing to disagree.

    I’m a Christian. I believe in God. I do not “believe” in evolution any more than I “believe” in gravity, because it does not take anything approaching a leap of faith to accept both as true. It just takes basic reasoning skills.

    And that right there is the difference between believing in God and believing the world is 6,000 years old. There is a mountain of evidence showing that the world is not 6,000 years old. Another mountain–a whole range, even–behind natural selection and evolution. Ignoring those mountains has tangible costs, aside from just being foolish. To insist that children be taught to ignore those mountains is to insist that they be taught not to think critically and question assumptions. That devalues their diplomas, for starters, and has a whole range of other obvious detrimental affects, right on up to endangering democratic governance.

    Believing in God, whether or not God exists, does none of these things, in itself. One can have entirely emotional and unscientific reasons for believing in God while still understanding that it’s ridiculous to allow those reasons to color scientific discourse. One can believe in God without thinking other people are foolish for disagreeing with you. Without wanting to codify your unscientific beliefs into laws that will limit other people’s freedoms. Without possessing any desire to impose one’s emotional and unscientific conclusions on other people’s medical choices, marriages, and family plans. You can even believe in God without encouraging your children to do so just because you, your community, or some book tells them to.

    I don’t know if it’s possible to be a creationist without doing those things, but I’ve yet to encounter a creationist who doesn’t.

    Basically, it’s not hypocritical to deride creationists while believing in God unless one is trying to insist that one’s belief in God is scientific, and that a secular government should treat one’s belief as if it were equal in standing with scientific reasoning.

  46. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

    Sorry, I couldn’t resist one last laugh…

    Wow. Insightful. Thought-provoking. And here I thought religious conservatives had nothing to offer to political discourse.

    And yet with such meaningful and content-laden ideas, it’s a real wonder we’re against people like you having a say in science curriculi.

  47. Todd W.

    I call Poe’s Law.

  48. Oh, do forgive me, RL, I don’t know how I ever could have mistaken you for a troll.

    I must have been fooled by the shaggy beard.

  49. Consider that one of the primary reasons that cdesign proponentists do not want to accept Evolution is simple Pride (good thing it’s not a Deadly Sin, eh?). They feel that by being connected through Evolution, Man is ‘just another animal’, but their Pride does not allow that, they MUST be ‘special’ (and, using Special Olympics/Special Education definition, they are closer than they’d ever admit*), and cannot have any relationship to other life on Earth.
    This ties nicely into the belief in Life After Death… where the ‘soul’ is eternal (note: Eternal actually implies ‘outside of Time’, not existing from one point in Time and forever afterward) and will continue after their body dies. [One could note that since there is no creation or destruction of matter/energy in Physics, the mass/energy DOES go on after death, but the patterns that could be called Ego or Self are no longer in existence]. This ‘soul’, if existing outside of time, obviously is not the Consciousness ane is NOT ‘eternal’, since [except for those who support reincarnation and ‘past life regression’] no one can give personal memories from before their birth, which would be the case if their ‘soul’ were their consciousness. In fact, this allows us to derive from the Egotism of the belief that they must have Humans as fundamentally different from other animals because of this ‘soul’.
    The belief that ‘soul’ equals consciousness leads to the fear of God, the existence of random acts being defined as ‘sin’ and the controlling of ‘believers’ with a set of punishments and rewards for ‘proper behavior’ (not unlike Politics), with these rewards and punishments coming ONLY after Death, and no expectations of anything while still alive. Of course, since the only way one could experience these rewards/punishments is if one is conscious, thus the ‘soul’ must be equivalent to consciousness, otherwise they would have as much concern about the posthumous results of behavior/belief as they do about how they will feel while anesthetized while undergoing an operation.
    Also, with the concept of Humans being ‘special’ allows the believers to ignore the Biblical admonition that Man is a ‘caretaker’ of all Nature on Earth, and instead push the ‘dominion’ aspect, with the misunderstanding of what that means is to damage/destroy all that is Natural (and since their focus is super-Natural, they show no concern over what humans have done to damage the Earth).
    I’ve previously posted that most Xians (as opposed to Christians – Xian being the fundamentalist/creationist [YEC specifically] sects, Christians being the generous, volunteering believers) claim to ‘know’ the Bible (and, using various Traditions outside the Bible, e.g. the Rapture), thus know The Mind Of God, yet they make statements that are not in the Bible, or are twisted versions of Traditions rather than actual Biblical stories. I have considered doing a book of the entire Bible (KJV, since the Apocrypha are not accepted by some sects – which would, in their view, make these teachings irrelevant) and pointing out various errors in the ‘pop’ version of the Bible.

    *My use of ‘special’ as meaning ‘learning impaired’ is not intended as a slam, like use of the term ‘retard’ or variations. I have a ‘cousin’ who is best described as a ‘slow learner’ (does not immediately ‘get’ various information), and have never considered ‘retard’ as a viable term, though musically there is a similar term that means ‘slow down’.

    J/P=?

    OT: LHC as Black Hole Generator
    Odd that those who say the LHC will create a Black Hole and swallow the Earth are using the SAME mathematics that say any mini-BH (see: Steven Hawking) would evaporate, but only take the math to the BH part

    J/P/P=?

  50. Dan I.

    @Righteous Liberal

    The politics of scientists do not usually effect objective results

    1 + 1 = 2 for right wing and left wing

    Hydrogen has one proton and one electron for right wing and left wing

  51. I call Poe’s Law.

    Nope. He was also on TFN’s website yesterday being an idiot. If I didn’t know better I would say that it’s Don McLeroy himself.

  52. *Everyone* was a creationist until Darwin came along. I really can’t believe that Genesis was taken as “metaphor” before the 19th century. Some adjusted their views in the face of overwhelming evidence. Some didn’t, and we now call these human anachronisms “creationists”.

    And this may be obvious, but I really can’t figure it out: If the Genesis stories are “metaphor”, then what da heck is Christian theology based on? Why should I believe in Original Sin? What did Christ die for?

  53. Sam Ley

    The reason science and creationism aren’t on “equal footing” as “both just belief systems” is because science modifies its stance based on changing evidence, while creationism does not. In fact, a commonly used definition of “faith” is, believing in opposition to the evidence.

    The other issue I have with RL’s stance is that no one (at least, no one reasonable) is claiming that science is right simply because more people believe in it. Science does not respond to majority views (well, sometimes it does due to fragile human nature, but over time, it does not), it responds to views that are best aligned with the evidence, and as the evidence changes, so to does the view. Many of the scientific views we hold now were at one time extreme minorities, to the point that perhaps only three or four people on earth had that viewpoint, because the evidence was still being integrated into the collective understanding. Those views are now majorities, hundreds of years later, because we have fully tested and integrated the ideas.

    If young earth creationism fit the evidence best, but was unpopular and a minority, I would fully support it, and expect that, with time, all scientists would hold the view as they examined the evidence, compared it with the idea, and found it to be the best fit. The reason scientists don’t believe in young earth creationism isn’t because they are in the majority, so they “win”, it is because it doesn’t fit the evidence, so will not be integrated.

    Many scientists are right-leaning, and many are Christian. Many are even “old earth” creationists, who believe in the metaphorical “day”, and a god as the originator of the universe and the initiator of an evolutionary system that would ultimately produce humans. There isn’t anything in this view that contradicts evidence, so it really is a matter of faith. Many of these good christians are frustrated with the young earth creationists, who have taken a very new stance (young earth creationism is a new belief, not an ancient one), gotten very hard-line about it, and get very judgmental about everyone, even other christians. It disappoints people to see a splinter group get so fired up about a single little issue that they begin to forget the real reasons everyone thought the religion was valuable in the first place.

  54. Canadian Astronomy

    The burrito-in-VCR line actually had me laughing out loud. It’s rare that I “LOL” but I did at that quip. What a great analogy!

  55. DrFlimmer

    Moderate Christians should distance themselves from such garbage, as it is a clear distortion of the Bible.

    I do.

  56. Oh, did RL leave?

    His dogma wrote checks incredibly fast
    But his evidence didn’t have the cash
    I laughed out loud to my total dismay
    He ain’t a troll, he just looks that way!

  57. Allen Miller

    “But that right stops when you try to make laws based on your belief, and when you try to tell an entire country how your religion should be the only thing taught in science class, and when your belief system affects people’s health, welfare, and well-being. Creationism and fundamentalism do just that.

    I will not sway from my stance that I will not allow laws in this country to be based on a narrow sect’s belief system, whether it aligns with reality or not (and in the case of creationists, it’s way way not). I will continue to be vocal, I will continue to fight, and I will do what I can to make sure this country stays free.”

    I find it funny to hear you say such things. Its been bugging me since I read your site and tweets since the Texas decision. But you’re a Science Fascist. Unless that is you agree that the above applies to you as well as me. I’ve been reading your content for quite a while, and I’m just depressed that you have no room in your heart or brain for those who think different. You make no allowances at all.

    How can we talk, how can we enjoy each others company when this is what you say.

  58. @OsakaGuy: All he said was “I’m not a Christian” — he could have been claiming to be a different denomination. Granted, it’s been a while since his last video, and he could have had a recent change of heart, but he seems to have some antipathy toward atheists in the majority of his other videos. Doesn’t make his points any less valid, not by a long shot — DonExodus is one of my favorite debaters, and if I had to get my butt handed to me in a debate by anyone arguing for God, it’d be him, hands down, bar none, then I’d buy him a beer afterward.

  59. QUASAR

    Don’t you find it weird that the 21st century is plagued by 3 desert dogmas, you know which ones don’t you? People in the past century thought that the 21st century will be a century of science, reason, logic and progress and what do we get?

  60. unquiet_mind

    Brian Schlosser, Lurker Says:
    “Thankfully, I do think that the majority of Christians do not subscribe to young earth creationist twaddle. The largest demonination sure doesn’t, which is good for a few bonus points in my book (not enough to counteract the whole “no birth control” thing, but its a start…)”

    True that. The Catholic Church is many things (and many of them unfortunate); yet, despite an ugly history of being anti-science, it’s traditions in that arena at least have thankfully ‘evolved’ ;-)

    I suppose one blessing of having been subjected to Catholic schools for 12 years is that at least their educational standards are high, and they are sound. (Well, in the US anyway, and in my own experience–I can’t claim any knowledge about Catholic education systems elsewhere.) I’m an agnostic myself, but I’ve got Italians on one side of the family, and Irish-Catholics on the other, the latter including 2 former-St. Joe’s-nuns who continue to work in Catholic education. I know, right?…

    And truth be told, until the political rise of all that ID crap, it never *occurred* to me that there might be people who flat-out rejected evolutionary theory, let alone so frakkin many of them. Because, that, would obviously be patently insane. And this 6,000-yo Earth faction?!? It would be frakkin hilarious if the consequences weren’t so frightening.
    (Actually, the idea is still frakkin hilarious, it’s the delusional believers that are terrifying.)

    People just make no sense to me sometimes. Make that a lot of people (and especially other Americans) a lot of the time…

  61. @ Abbie:

    *Everyone* was a creationist until Darwin came along. I really can’t believe that Genesis was taken as “metaphor” before the 19th century.

    True and not true.

    Probably amongst the hoi polloi of the western world, the majority of Christians took the bible stories at face value: truth, handily packaged in one easy to carry tote.

    However, this doesn’t change the fact that the majority of the world’s people (*everyone*) are and were not Christians, and until fairly recently, not even the triple-threat combo of Christian/Muslim/Jew – the big-3 monotheistic traditions coughed up by the Levant and its environs, could claim the majority as adherents.

    This fact is usually ignored by the fundies, or else they dismiss it with some sort of “yes, but my literal truth is truer than their literal truth” argument.

    Which just adds a layer of frosting to the preposterous cake they dish out.

  62. I wonder who he thinks he’s talking to.

    Creationists will dismiss what he has to say before they even listen to him if they know more or less what his subject is.

    If they don’t know in advance what the subject is they’ll dismiss what he has to say within a thirty seconds.

    Trying to educate creationists is pointless.

    Trying to get creationists to stop attempting to screw with our laws and education system is pointless.

    If we want a chance at things being right, never vote for a creationist. Once a creationist is in office they’re going to push their agenda no matter what.

  63. rbtroj

    Hate to generalize, and it’s nothing that hasn’t been said before, but zealotry (of any sort) seems to be inversely proportional to level of education.

    Also, if anyone from either side of the fence, and with an open mind, here is a link to a book you might find interesting:

    http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238176500&sr=8-1

  64. Anne V

    I’d like to point out that the official Roman Catholic position supports evolution going back to 1950 and Pope Pius XII. JP II made it even clearer in 1996: “Today… new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory…The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation…”

    So, there’s plenty of evidence that the physical body of man has evolved over time. The only thing RCs want to insert is that God created the “soul” and that can’t be timed by physical evidence.

    Unfortunately, there are plenty of RCs who don’t understand this and will hop up and down when I teach evolution in science class. Sigh.

    http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

  65. Mike

    Good video. I laughed, I cried, I facepalmed. (Is facepalm a verb yet?)

  66. @rowdy

    As a Jew who once frequented an Orthodox temple, I can tell you that there *are* sects of Judaism that take the Torah literally. I had to sit through many sermons biting my tongue because the rabbi was going on and on about how “science knows nothing” and is always changing its story while the Torah (as interpreted by him, of course) revealed everything. (I only stayed in the Temple because I was living with my parents at the time and as such got free membership. Plus, it was a good opportunity to study that kind of mindset up close and personal.)

    However, there are plenty of rabbis who interpret the Torah as metaphorical and only intending to teach moral lessons, not science lessons. To give an example, an old rabbi whom I respected very much (Holocaust survivor who had more knowledge in his pinky than that other rabbi) once pointed out a contradiction in Genesis. In one verse it says that Man was created in God’s image as the crowning moment of creation. In another, it says he was formed from mud. This rabbi’s interpretation was that everyone should walk around with two ideas in his mind. The first is “The world was created just for me.” The second is “I am nothing but mud.” The key is to balance those two in your mind (moderation).

    Taken this way, the creation story isn’t a literal story of how God formed the entire Universe as-is 6000 or so years ago, but a story to teach some moral lessons.

  67. @Allen Miller,

    He’s a “Science Fascist” because he wants anything taught in science class to have a good grounding in science? You can have differences of opinion in science, but teaching that the world was created 6,000 years ago isn’t a mere “difference of opinion.” It’s willfulness ignoring the facts, evidence and any semblance of scientific theory in order to try to shoehorn reality into your distorted world view. At best, Creationism could be taught in Philosophy or Religion class, but in science class it would be nice if the things taught were actual Science. Oops, I guess that makes me a “Science Fascist” too.

  68. I wonder how creationists will feel when wiccans, pagans, muslims, et al want their “theories” to be required teaching in the same public schools.

    ???

  69. Ah, it took that long for someone to Godwin one of my posts?

    Sorry, AllenMiller, but reality is kind of a stickler for details. It’s the ultimate fascist.

  70. tsig

    Or maybe a Fact Fascist? Reality Rigoroust?

  71. tsig

    Sorry Phil but fascism was an Italian term.

  72. vel

    I have yet to see one creationist who doesn’t lie to support their claim. They are also utter hypocrites since they happily accept all the conveniences that science brings but then decry it when it disproves their myths. The same science that allows criminal forensics, antibiotics, communications, etc also supports evolutionary theory and current cosmological theories.

    I do wish they’d just go live in little mud huts and pray to be healed from all sorts of nasty diseases that we have cured by that nasty-wasty science.

    Caffeenman is right, just watch the sparks fly when other creation myths can have the exact same legal right to be taught.

  73. “Science Fascist”. That is the funniest thing I have read all week. It clearly shows that the person who typed those words does not know the definition of “science” or “fascist”. Especially if he think teaching science in science class and keeping pseudoscience out is overly oppresive.

    I say you embrace this moniker though, Phil. It would be the coolest nickname for a scientist since “Darwin’s Bulldog”. Think of all the cool t-shirts and bumper stickers you could print out.

  74. Matt

    @Abbie:

    I really can’t believe that Genesis was taken as “metaphor” before the 19th century

    Check out the quote posted by IVAN3MAN (very first one). It comes from Augustine’s argument that Genesis is metaphorical.

  75. Bob from Easton

    I design exhibits for museums. I did one a few years back called the “Time Tower” It had 4500 fiber optic lights spiraling from the bottom of a 12 foot tall cylinder to the top. Each light represented a million years. As the lights spiraled up, a narration explained the history of the planet. All of human history is contained in the very last light that comes on and very little at that. When you watch it, the underling message is that compared to the life of the planet the human race insignificant. Compared to the Universe, microscopic.

    Creationists can’t handle that fact. To admit that humans are truly insignificant is heresy to them. They cannot accept the truth, because to do so will render their belief system false.

    I was born and raised in the Church. My Grandfather was our minister. My father an Elder and I was a Deacon at 18. Not once did anyone, especially my Grandfather ever make up lies to glorify God. Creationists are the worst of the worst. There beliefs exist because they think they are better then God. They think that only they understand that which is by it’s very nature unfathomable, God’s role in our creation. They place their beliefs on a higher plane then God’s wonderful universe. For that alone they don’t deserve one nanosecond of consideration.

  76. Chris

    Where on earth did the YT dude get the “69% of scientists believe in god” nonsense?

  77. Wayne

    @Chris,

    If you don’t have a source, how do you know it’s nonsense? That’s lazy, non-empirical thinking based on your own bias that scientists are mostly atheists. I am a scientist and I know lots of other scientists, and that number seems perfectly reasonable to me, although I wouldn’t accept (or reject) it without evidence.

    For the record, I completely agree with the above video, in fact, I wish I had made it myself.

  78. OsakaGuy

    @Jason Thibeault,
    Here are some more comments from DonExodus2 on his latest video:
    “Actually I’m agnostic, but I am certainly open to the idea of ‘something’ persisting after death, although it would be nice to just wink out :)”

    Replying to questions about what happened to his Christian faith:

    “Couldnt answer the question why Jesus over Zeus.” and “I changed my mind.”

    I’m a big DonExodus2 fan. He makes many fine videos. In fact I love how he is announcing his deconversion in this offhand manner like it’s no big deal. “I changed my mind”. Ha! Awesome. No long crisis of faith drama, just shrugged it off, no big deal! Especially after all the flak he took from atheists with his “Why I Believe in God” videos seven months ago. So I’m not surprised by the antipathy towards atheists you saw in his other videos. If you ever frequent atheist meetups, often the most heated arguments are not between believers and atheists, but agnostics and atheists. Go figure.

    Anyway I was a fan before his deconversion, and I’m still a fan now. I’m just saying hard-core creationists you point in his direction might think, “see how that Devil Darwin has led another victim to damnation!”.

  79. Josh Johnson

    Early in the video:
    “it makes all of us Christians look absolutely ridiculous”

    Would that be like what the Piltdown man was for Evolutionists???
    Oh wait, I forgot. We’re never supposed to talk about the mistakes of the evolutionists…

  80. WhyDoYouThinkThat?

    There has always been this arguement between religion and science. I say why can’t one hold up the other?

    I agree with phil and most of the posters here, but has anyone considered the idea of intelligent design? Just because the common religions have an obviously fantastical view of creation, to put it lightly, doesn’t mean that the idea that things were invented instead of happened has no merit at all.

    I won’t post again, in the hopes that one of my thoughts on the subject would only provoke serious and intellectual consideration of an idea. I don’t beleive in any religion, only the things I can see and that science has learned. Therefor I will leave it hanging for your discussion after making this simple statement:

    I beleive that evolution can prove there is a creator of some sort just as easily as it is usually used to disprove the existance of god.

  81. Chris

    Wayne says, “Back off, man! I’m a scientist! A religious scientist!”

    Well, unlike you, Wayne, I do my research before spouting off. Every few years a poll is published showing that the overwhelming majority of scientists don’t believe in left over Bronze Age tribal war gods or their illegitimate fruit.

    It’s not 69%, try 7%

    http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

    The results were as follows (figures in %):

    BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

    Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
    Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
    Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

    BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998

    Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
    Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
    Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3

    Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high.

    The authors elaborated on these figures:

    Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

  82. Isaac

    i feel that i can believe that creationism and evolution can both exist in the same place. The rationalization i have is that while god did create the planet and everything on it as it is described in the bible it happened at the pace as we currently understand it. that god put animals and plants on the earth as a basic form and wrote into the DNA of the animals the ability to change and evolve as they moved around and to fit the climate as so they could survive the new environment.

  83. Chris

    “…but has anyone considered the idea of intelligent design?”

    Dude, did you just arrive in a time machine from the last millennium?

    ID is just warmed over creationism.

    And like creationism, it too is done.

  84. Chris

    More stats:

    The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

    Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 “greater” scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].

    In 1996, we repeated Leuba’s 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba’s 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

    Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among “greater” scientists to their “superior knowledge, understanding, and experience” [3].

    Source: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

  85. Peter B

    Allen Miller said: “I’m just depressed that you have no room in your heart or brain for those who think different.”

    So how much provision should we make for those who think differently? For example, how many different explanations for creation should be taught to school children?

    Ultimately, what’s wrong with privileging reality over myth? Would you teach school kids that there’s magic which protects people from AIDS or bullets? Or would you teach them that there are people *who believe* there’s magic which protects them from AIDS or bullets, but which doesn’t seem to work.

  86. IVAN3MAN

    Chris:

    Where on earth did the YT dude get the “69% of scientists believe in god” nonsense?

    Wayne:

    If you don’t have a source, how do you know it’s nonsense? That’s lazy, non-empirical thinking based on your own bias that scientists are mostly atheists. I am a scientist and I know lots of other scientists, and that number seems perfectly reasonable to me, although I wouldn’t accept (or reject) it without evidence.

    I’m with Chris, and I also think that “dude” in the YouTube video has got his figures wrong. Also, I have evidence to back-up my assertion; according to the following abstract from this letter published in Nature, Vol. 394, #6691, p.313 (1998):

    Leading Scientists Still Reject God [PDF]

    Sir — The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

    Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 “greater” scientists within his sample. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively.

    In 1996, we repeated Leuba’s 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba’s 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

    […]

    Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.

    [See PDF file for Table 1]

    […]

    As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, “Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral”. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: “There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.” Our survey suggests otherwise.

    Edward J. Larson
    Department of History, University of Georgia,
    Athens, Georgia 30602-6012, USA

    Larry Witham
    3816 Lansdale Court, Burtonsville,
    Maryland 20866, USA


  87. LouieJ

    I agree with this post completely. I am a Christian and i think that too many people push the bar WAY too far. I completely am for the argument that creationism should be kept out of the public school system. I share the view of the man from the movie the article linked to, evolution is a perfectly acceptable scientific statement and trying to push creationism is counter-productive.

    Mainline christians focus far too much about the metaphor of creation (thats what it is, a metaphor) instead of what Jesus taught. Peace, love and tolerance of other people is what the bible is all about, but too many people take everything literally and that is not acceptable. Evolution is and will continue to be the dominant ideology and until the mainstream church accepts this fact, we will have to put up with the infighting. Hopefully this ends soon, because this constant bickering is starting to get on my nerves

  88. brian

    Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

    Oh well, I guess the new one will take a zillion trillion years too,

    especially if the majority of those who don’t believe in the new one

    decide the old one took a zillion trillion years.

    Makes sense I guess,

    at least if you don’t believe Jesus is coming back anyway,

    or rose from the dead,

    or was God,

    or died to forgive

    our rotten sins.

    But, since I believe Jesus died and forgave my rotten sins, and rose again, and will come back,

    I guess I can wait to see how long he takes to create the second earth

    before deciding how long he took to make the first, if it still seems to matter.

  89. Chris

    Well, it’s a sad day in history. The corrupt and spineless UN caved to pressure by a group of nations which can only be described as hellholes to outlaw the critiscism of religion.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/87z2v/defamation_of_religion_is_now_a_human_rights/

  90. Mount

    It doesn’t matter if my VCR can’t heat my burrito, all VCR’s are worthless regardless!

    Phil,

    I think I understand your extreme stance against creationism now. You’re looking several steps ahead and see this leading to increasing fundamentalist elements in our government. You’re afraid of those people being in control of your (and others) life and taking away things that you hold dear…. right?

    Well, though I’ve never looked at this situation that way, I would agree. I don’t believe in a young Earth, but I usually keep quiet when other Christians around me start talking about things like that.

    I have the same sort of fears when I look at liberals in government (among other things). I can see current trends leading to a time when my passions are restricted, my hobbies illegal, an my way of life harshly regulated. I’ve never thought about it, but now I can see that a fundamentalist society could lead to similar results as an extremely liberal one.

    I think you’re right to fight this, when I never really cared either way before.

    Good video.

    P.S. If I’m right about your feelings, then that proves I’m physic! Gimme my millions!

  91. True Believer

    To all the skeptics . . . “every knee shall bend and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the CHRIST!” All of us believers will help all of you disbelievers in the ext life. Good luck in this life. TB

  92. Maria, there is decent among Catholics. The only official statements from the Vatican are PRO evolution, not against. You should Google Kenneth R. Miller for a nice Catholic example of a scientist.

    In general, Catholics accept the Framework Interpretation (google this) of Genesis, and believe in theistic evolution (what science can discover about evolution, with a “first cause” or guidance of God).

    Yes there are Catholics out there that still believe YEC, and even geocentrism, don’t let that sway you, it’s not required belief, it’s not pushed by the vatican, and it’s not common.

  93. IVAN3MAN

    Hmm… I now see above that Chris has done his own research, as I have done. Well, good man, I also see that our results concur. :-)

  94. garrett

    I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school through 2 grad programs. My first biology teacher was a Nun, Sister Chacetti, who had a poster of Darwin in her classroom and gave me my first E.O. Wilson book. My high school physic teacher was a Christian Brother who got us into Fermi lab. I learned a deep and abiding respect for scientific inquiry. The questioning spirit was always a part of my education.

    That’s why creationism is so anathema to me, such a repudiation of basic observation and logic. It’s an entrenched, ugly, reactionary mindset. The people who espouse it and want to shove it on the public are so quavering in their own faith the only way the can sustain it is by manipulating others.

    My education was always about asking a deeper question, not trying to shove my beliefs down anyone’s throat.

    I’m a Unitarian, and our congregation is made up of agnostics, seekers, and even Atheists. We’re as appalled by these attempts to manipulate education. It’s shameful.

    Phil, I’ve been reading for ages. We might disagree on some things, but I think you’re a great communicator and your wisdom on science and society always makes for fine reading.

    A priest told me once “A closed mind is of no use.” So yes, I could be wrong about my beliefs, so I keep questioning.

    -Garrett Dwyer

  95. IVAN3MAN

    Goddamnit! I’ve just stepped in some “True Believer” troll crap. Now I’m gonna have to burn my shoes!

  96. AE

    let’s revert to the basics…

    Notice: Science = facts & truths, Religion = beliefs & practices.

    sci⋅ence
       /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
    –noun
    1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
    2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
    3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
    4. systematized knowledge in general.
    5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
    6. a particular branch of knowledge.
    7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

    re⋅li⋅gion
       /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
    –noun
    1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
    3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
    4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
    5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
    6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

    (Thanks Dictionary.com)

  97. TheWayTheTruth.com
    TheOriginOfEverything.co.cc
    FreeHovind.com/watch
    ChristianAnswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html
    Youtube.com/watch?v=6qsK7wd_84k
    Youtube.com/watch?v=GBwXFBBXcS0
    Youtube.com/watch?v=JZR022_GbzU
    Youtube.com/watch?v=p88cM7xdkXY

    Scientifically proves Intelligent Design and Creationism.
    Scientifically disproves Atheism and Evolutionism.
    Easily.

    That is only the tip of the iceberg, too.

    Using logic, reasoning, and science I can prove Intelligent Design right now to anyone with an open mind and thinks rationally.

    There are only 2 choices:

    Either…

    A) Everything came from nothing

    or

    B) Everything came from something that must have always existed (eternal)

    There are no other choices.

    Let me address A.

    It is a scientific fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So, already option “A” is impossible. But I will further explain. Only nothing can come from nothing. Nothing cannot create anything because nothing is NOTHING. Let me put this in another perspective. Imagine you have a box and you want to make a birdhouse using only the items inside of the box. If there are no items inside of the box can you make a birdhouse? No. Therefore option “A” is impossible.

    Let me address B.

    This is actually the only option since option “A” was proven impossible. But what is this “something” that always existed?

    Now there are 2 new options:

    Either

    B1) The universe (matter, time, & space) always existed

    or

    B2) Something that created the universe (matter, time, & space) always existed

    Let me address B1.

    The properties of the universe are matter, time, and space. Matter is something that takes up space, time is the measure of change in matter, and space is the distance between matter. All of these things coexist with each other, meaning one cannot exist without the other.

    So matter, time, and space all have to have always existed (be eternal) in order for option “B1″ to be possible. There is actually a problem with all of these properties to have always existed, because it is impossible. Let me explain to you how exactly it is impossible.

    The main problem is with time. Time cannot have always existed because there cannot be an infinite amount of time before right now because this moment in time would have never occurred. There is a principle that states that you cannot have an infinite amount of finite things. The universe changes, and time is the measure of change. How many changes have happened before right now? If you claim an infinite number of changes (which is impossible because you cannot have an infinite amount of finite things), it is a logically impossible to conclude we could ever have reached this moment in time. In a world of cause and effect (which we live in), there cannot be an infinite regress (an infinite amount of cause and effect reactions to get to a certain cause).

    This proves that time cannot have always existed. And since matter, time, and space coexist with each other that means that it is impossible for all three of those things to have always existed. And since the properties of the universe are matter, time, and space that means that the universe cannot have always existed. And since the universe cannot have always existed that means that it was created. So option “B1″ is impossible.

    Let me address B2.

    Well, since option “B1″ is impossible that leaves “B2″ to be the only possible option left. Now, in order for something to create the universe it has to exist outside of it. You may be thinking how that is possible? How can something exist outside of time, matter, and space? Well these are actually properties of God, because the Jewish and Christian God exists outside of time, matter, and space. In the Bible, God tells about the future and the past. He is able to do this because He exists outside of time. The properties of God are immaterial, omnipotent, and omnipresent. We know this because of multiple of reasons. Let me give you some. We know God is immaterial because He is a spirit, just as the Bible says. We know He is omnipotent (all-powerful) because He is God and would not be God if He wasn’t. He isn’t bound by the laws of our universe. He walked on water. He also is the only being to ever create something from nothing. He is omnipresent because he is omnipotent and exists outside of time.

    “Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.”

    Jeremiah 23:23,24

    We are bound to the laws of the universe. God is not. If He was, He would not be God.

  98. Chris

    Quoting Brian:

    Makes sense I guess,

    at least if you don’t believe Jesus is coming back anyway,

    or rose from the dead,

    or was God,

    or died to forgive

    our rotten sins.

    —-

    How can this not make your brain hurt? By the second grade at a religious school, myself and half the class were thinking “this has to be the biggest load of malarkey” ever concocted by anyone. Realizing that I was losing my religion (cue REM!), I started looking for something credible outside of the bible to corroborate its claims and found NOTHING.

    NOTHING!

    Let me give you just one of many examples: it’s a bit suspicious how the Egyptians don’t know anything about the Exodus. Never heard of it. Or the Chinese. Moreover, there is no archealogical record of anyone wondering about in the desert for 40 years.

    The same holds true for basically every story in the bible. (Don’t even get me started on the farcical tale of the flood, but do go watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMnThZgN-PM .)

    The only way you can continue to believe it is if you have a really strong pathological need to believe that you are born a depraved and evil being who deserves nothing but eternal torture. What a sick twisted idea to brainwash children with. (Go here and watch the final 2 minutes where this child is sitting on a bench crying over her “evilness and depravity” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XduMIK4u65s&eurl=) Brainwashing children into believing that they are evil is the real evil.

    While I no longer believe in this nonsense, I will stop here to remind believers of a “fact” about their religion which they try to sweep under the rug–because they can’t face it.
    Namely, why is mankind born evil and depraved according to their religion? Answer: because old bible-god put the Curse of Original Sin on all humanity in perpetuity. In other words, he made us that way.

    Why?

    My guess is so that he could then be the hero who saves us. Sort of like the arsonist who sets a warehouse fire and then pulls the alarm.

  99. Chris

    The reference in my post above to China belongs in the paragraph about the biblical flood.

  100. dru007

    But creationism is a cornerstone of religion. Why not just abandon religion altogether? Isn’t reality much more compelling than absurd fairy tales?

  101. Chris

    Why are long posts moderated but not short ones?

  102. Danny

    In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. (period) Between that period and the Next sentence could have been a billion trillion years. The Bible doesnt say the earth is 6000 years old.. Just Man’s existence on it

  103. c scott

    It has been mathematically proven to be impossible that random formation of life on earth could have taken place. Therefore it is proven that a designer must have been involved. Call the designer what you want. Evolution is still a theory and always will be. The concept of creator or designer is therefore scientifically supported.

  104. Jeremy

    Phil. I have on occasion jumped in as the voice of the religious side here on your blog I will again today. Let me just say…. Amen. I believe in my religion just as much as I do in science. If religion contradicts science, then for me that’s the way God wanted it. Ha ha ha. Unfortunately some of my fellow Christians don’t see the humor in that statement.

  105. Darth Robo

    Josh Johnson, can you explain to us exactly what the problem was were Piltdown Man was involved, and how this was a “problem” for “evolutionists”?

    (This is another one I should put on my endangered kitties list)

  106. James

    Well, Mr. Plait, if you have it all figured out than please explain to us the unified theory and inter-dimensional quantum mechanics. Because so far all you have is your own theory, and while I tend to lean more toward you than a fundamentalist, I know their side has more answers and when practiced properly, does more good for the world.

  107. Pappy

    I like this post, and agree with what you are saying! (For once)
    It’s just silly groups in America don’t want to teach Evolution.
    Why can’t they open there minds and workout how religion and science can fit together, rather than manipulating both sides’ facts into grotesque views that damage everyone.
    Continue to fight. Continue to be vocal. But please, remember to show the facts from both sides.
    And keep up the good work in general :)

  108. silencer

    NO scientist excludes the possibility of anything without evidence. Since all of your comments seem to forget this, you obviously are not a scientist. You seem rather fervent in your faith, so how about we leave out your extremes and the extreme beliefs of creationists and just stick with the facts?

    Your bizarre blog feels like reading some cult literature. It is hurting science.
    The rest of us should stick to proper scientific method and leave out your brand of fanaticism.

  109. Commentor

    If The Theory of Jesusism is true then people occasionally become zombies and rise from the dead. We have conducted this experiment billions of times. Why do we not see this phenomenon?

  110. Darth Robo

    silencer, you’re making a very generic claim there, that you don’t appear to be making much of a point at all. So Id like to ask, what “facts” are you referring to?

  111. José

    @Darth Robo
    So Id like to ask, what “facts” are you referring to?

    The facts are probably that silencer is a creationist pretending he’s not in a lame attempt to give his comment some legitimacy.

  112. silencer

    I recommend reading this instead. It isn’t full of self indulgent tripe.
    http://www.newscientist.com/

  113. Enlightened

    Protestant churches are just a bastard step-child of the Catholic church.

    The story of Jesus is nothing more than a rip-off of even older sun gods.

    Over 80% of all USA prisoners are Christian.

  114. silencer

    Re Jose and Darth: Scientific methodology is what I am referring to, rather than a blogger trying to sell books by acting as badly as the nutjobs he claims to be fighting in his ‘holy quest’.
    No, I am not a creationist – but it is clear that you pray to Phil Plait before you go to sleep at night.

    Fanaticism under the guise of science is still fanaticism. Yesterday this writer was claiming an age of the universe far younger than the observable.

    It disappoints me that people will cling to a blogger rather than picking up a science book. This is why cults and ‘scientific’ profiteers exist, mental laziness. Phil Plait should be pointing to research rather than pointing out thing he doesn’t like about people’s religions.
    What’s worse is you people should know the difference.

  115. Seungjin Kim

    Yet, people don’t say what they use for dating for artifacts past the C-14 dating technique limitations.

  116. SkepticalGal

    Hey Phil: Already said my bit on science as a form of faith on Digg (and yes, I’m well aware I’m using the argument from authority logical fallacy, but I CAN’T DO THE DAMN MATH) but I wanted to add one here. Why, oh why, does this subject always bring out the war of the flamers? Creationism makes me nuts. Rabid athiests make me nuts. People who dismiss opinion which is clearly stated as such because it’s “not researched” make me borderline homicidal. Can you put a “will provoke flamers” warning on your tweets so I no longer have the desire to jump through the computer and massacre a significant portion of the persons leaving comments? I don’t want to go to jail just yet. First I have to finish proving that there is no invisible teapot orbiting the sun.

  117. Adam

    hello everyone i couldn’t help but to put my theory here as well :) What the people who are like “right on, science, facts” is missing is the fact that belief in GOD or Christianity or any RELIGION for that matter doesn’t usually inlvolve physical, tangible, able to touch, see, smell, PROOF OR FACTS. it is based mostly on BLIND FAITH. A leap of faith if you will. You don’t know its necessarily true, but you believe what your GOD promises, as he is all powerful and knowing. you forsake your mind in its worldy (scientific) knowledge, to a spiritual (anything is possible through GOD) knowledge. now, i’ve personally never thought the world is only 6000 years old. i’ve always thought it much older. i guess my point with this post is that i BELIEVE that science cannot prove everything. i do believe that scientists have issues with the concept of an omnipotent, all-powerful, GOD simply because they cannot explain the phenomenon with science. so in reaction, the choose to disregard his being all together. cheers :D

  118. José

    @silencer
    No, I am not a creationist

    You’re a creationist troll. Why haven’t you attempted to back up any of your baseless claims? Explain how we’re failing to us proper scientific methodology regarding evolution?

    Fanaticism under the guise of science is still fanaticism.

    A creationist under the guise of a scientific thinker is a lying creationist.

    Yesterday this writer was claiming an age of the universe far younger than the observable.

    What are you talking about?

    It disappoints me that people will cling to a blogger rather than picking up a science book.

    What is this “book” thing of which you speak? Why would we need it when we can just pray to the Phil Plait for the answers?

    Phil Plait should be pointing to research rather than pointing out thing he doesn’t like about people’s religions.

    Did you read the post or watch the video?

    What’s worse is you people should know the difference.

    Don’t worry. I’m pretty sure I can tell the difference between someone who knows something about science, and someone who’s just pretending not to be a creationist.

  119. terow

    hey, this opinion is GARBAGE!!

  120. Ryan

    hahahahahaha…this guys is funny! Funny how he has the nerve to even mention the name of Jesus and then the sermon on the mount and then deny His infallible Word, hahaha. What did Paul say, something like “natural man does not receive trhe things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him…” Yeah, I think I went something like that. Although I think I prefer the words of David when he said, “the fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.'” That would include denying his divine work brotha. Hahahah, this guy’s pick and choose “Christianity” is so funny!!

  121. bloke

    u know believing that some dude was the actual son of god and walked on water and all that because its written in some book is the close to the same logical error as believing in creationism.

  122. Ron Murray

    @Josh Johnson:

    >Would that be like what the Piltdown man was for Evolutionists???
    > Oh wait, I forgot. We’re never supposed to talk about the mistakes
    > of the evolutionists…

    Yes, they made a mistake about Piltdown Man. I suspect that a good part of the reason for that mistake was that nobody expected the likelihood of a hoaxer — somebody lying in the name of science. Call them naive if you like, but there wasn’t any way of testing the evidence at the time.

    There is, however, a major difference here between science and religion masquerading as science (yes, even in your example): science changed its stance when new evidence came in. When science advanced enough to test the bones, sometime in the early fifties I think, the lie was laid bare for all to see. It was obvious that “Piltdown Man” didn’t play a part in Man’s ancestry, and it’s no longer considered such.

    Can you give us an example of how creationism (or even a small part of it) might be reconsidered (short of God dropping in for lunch, taking you aside, and telling you where you went wrong)? Any possibility that somebody might prove that the earth is far older than several thousand years? And would the rest of you change your beliefs if she did?

    I didn’t think so.

  123. Pantheist

    Great little video, great article… My favourite part:

    But that right stops when you try to make laws based on your belief, and when you try to tell an entire country how your religion should be the only thing taught in science class, and when your belief system affects people’s health, welfare, and well-being. Creationism and fundamentalism do just that.

  124. jdiggitty

    The biggest problem I have with Chritianity is that they seem to go to great lengths to hide their own history or just plain disregard it. Constantine is as much (or more) responsible for Christianity as Christ is. While Christians and Catholics view him as a saint, historically he’s a power hungry murderer who had enormous motivation to control the content of what was put in the Bible.

    Yet most Christians skirt the fact the New Testament wasn’t written by any of the Apostles, but hundreds of years later, then edited, modified or flat out recreated at the Council of Nicea, overseen by Constantine. This was an emperor who had great motivation to control an enormous population and solidify the seperation of his people from the Jewish faith.

    Though its not a scientific arguement, its easy to deduce that whatever Christianity was before Constantine, whatever it was intended to be, was far different before he got power over it.

    Personally, I can’t see how anyone could come to terms with that, but perhaps that’s what faith is.

  125. Daniel

    I am really sick of hearing this little fight that just continues. Creation or Evolution. Who cares! The fact is we just can’t agree.
    It really comes down to this. Is there an All Powerful God?

    Every couple of years scientists think they have it all worked out and then they “discover” something new. I am not saying they didn’t find something new, but the fact is they change their story everytime they find something.

    “Oh well what we didn’t understand…”
    “What you need to realize is….”
    “What has now become apparent….”

    Evolutionists like to tell the lovely story about how the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for his discoveries.

    So… what, they didn’t have scientists before him??? He was the only one who thought what he thought. The Catholic church AND THE WHOLE SCIENCE WORLD were all wrong.

    I am a christian, but lets face it, Galileo was right.

    All I am asking. Could the whole scientific world be wrong again?? Don’t say NO! You know you can’t. Not if you are really a scientist.

    IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, GO RIGHT AHEAD, BUT….. JUST MAKE SURE YOU GIVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE ALL POWERFUL GOD A CHANCE, OTHERWISE YOU MIGHT REGRET IT FOREVER!

  126. I appreciated this post. It probably isn’t said enough (and I’m not sure the comments on this blog are helping) but Intelligent Christianity isn’t a contradiction in terms. Just as much as Moral Atheist isn’t.

    As a Christian, I find that the same uber-literal approach that many other Christians take to Genesis applies to other parts of the Bible in unhealthy ways, such as the book of Revelation. Many of the people who heavily subscribe to YEC will also (in my experience) subscribe to a radical view of eschatology that usually involves some current day leader (Obama, for instance) being the antichrist and other far-reaching statements on reality.

    I just hope that these folks don’t speak for Christianity in general, I know they don’t speak for me…

  127. Chris

    Is there anyone out there who can explain the difference between a Person of Faith and a Person of Credulity?

    TIA!

  128. IVAN3MAN

    @ Ryan,

    Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

    Well, most scientists are agnostic/atheist and Science and Technology has provided the world with wonderful toys from telephones to the Internet, calculators to computers, cars to rockets and satellites; we are submerged in a sea of discoveries and inventions made possible by Science — such as Medicine, Electronics and Telecommunications.

    Whereas Christianity has given the world (well, Europe mainly) everything abominable from the Crusades (several of them!), the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!), the French Wars of Religion, the Salem witch trials (she’s a witch!), etc.

    Furthermore, there was order in Europe under the polytheistic Roman Empire, until Christianity came along and screwed (literally) things up!

    So, Ryan, who are the real fools, then?

  129. IVAN3MAN

    P.S. Creationists: “What have the [scientists] ever done for us?”

    Look at the world around you, you ignorant bastards!

  130. Chris

    Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

    This is a fine example of a Bronze Age cult mind-control tactic. The bible is sprinkled throughout with variations of this basic message that anyone who doesn’t join the flock is a fool and damned to eternal torture.

    What amazes me is that people are still manipulated by this transparent nonsense.

    It’s like threatening a toddler with, “If you don’t behave the boogeyman gonna git ya!”

  131. Jared Reeves

    The man has a point here about the young Earth, and “all-at-once” creation argument. I do not think science has ever contradicted the Bible. Rather, science has explained how some things happened in the Bible. In this case, reading Genesis chapter 1 about creation happening in seven days, at first one wonders “how long were these seven days when the sun wasn’t created yet to give 24 hour days?” Exactly, the original Hebrew word used actually means “period of time,” not “day” or 24 hour cycle.

    Given this understanding. Evolution understood as a shaping of the world, a process of change over periods of time (seven “days”…?) actually makes much more sense. The Bible does not conflict with this interpretation. If God created everything, and used what we know of as “evolution” to form creation into what it is now, then great.

    The idea of evolution however does not give an account for what started this change. The only thing scientists and other theorists can come up is that everything started from one loud bang. The problem with the theory rests in: “where did the power come to exert such a force as to create everything?” Again, I will add that this does not conflict with the Bible because the Bible explains that point already. God spoke and it happened. I’m sure when God spoke before existence was existence that a loud reverberation of His voice spoke time, matter, and energy all into existence.

    To someone who says: “Evolution or Jesus, pick one!” they are simply wrong. They have not realized that these are not diacritical oppositions. You can have both.

    Lastly I will add that science and Christianity are not enemies. Science has never contradicted the Bible. Science has been humans way of understanding the world we live in *to the best of our ability. Science is not infallible; example: For years we believed the Earth was the center of the universe. “But, it’s science!!!” is another instance of circular reasoning.

  132. Chris

    IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, GO RIGHT AHEAD, BUT….. JUST MAKE SURE YOU GIVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE ALL POWERFUL GOD A CHANCE, OTHERWISE YOU MIGHT REGRET IT FOREVER!

    Let me enlighten you.

    Almost every skeptic has given bible-god a chance. It’s only after giving the matter extensive time in terms of both research and thought, that they decided it was all a load of malarkey. A few others were just lucky enough to grow up in environments where your angry eye-in-the-sky was never an issue worth dwelling on.

    Ask yourself: what is the probability of there actually being a monsterously sadistic god who creates fragile ants in such a way that they are doomed to disappoint him and then torments them for all eternity?

    Even if such vile deity existed and you found yourself before him, would he not deserve a spit in the face in the same way that Hitler would?

    “If the Bible and my brain are both the work of the same Infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and my brain do not agree?” – Robert G. Ingersoll

  133. Chris

    Science has never contradicted the Bible.

    Never?

    Every field from anthropology to zoology is proving the bible to be nothing more than the product of ignorant Bronze Age minds.

  134. It’s important that religious moderates actively contradict the fundamentalists, and point out that what creationists say doesn’t make any sense, otherwise people who have no particular concern either way are not going to be made aware of what’s happening in science education. Apathy on this matter will allow traction to the creationist agenda.

    I didn’t think this was much of a problem in the UK, until I discovered a “Creation Museum” less than 10 miles from where I live.

  135. Chuck

    Chris—Ignorant Bronze Age minds?

    1) if they were so ignorant, then why are we talking about it today? Given what technology man had at the time, I would say that these men were not ignorant. You wouldn’t know what to do with yourself if you didn’t have a cell phone or computer to do things for you.

    2) Apparently you don’t think that Moses wrote the Torah/Pentateuch. Well, if we believe th first few chapters of Exodus, Moses wasn’t an idiot. He grew up in Pharoah’s court, so he was privileged for that time period. Not a a stretch to believe that he learned how to read and write both ancient Hebrew and Heiroglyphs. I suggest spending 25 bucks and buying “An Introduction to the Old Testament” by Tremper Longman and Raymond Dillard and reading the chapter concerning Genesis. It provides a quality Mosaic authorship argument of the first 5 books of the Bible.

    To all–
    I do believe the creation account in the Bible is true. Hopefully you don’t “discount” my argument as nonsense because I am apparently “dumber” than the rest of everyone who is led by science.

    If you don’t believe that Jesus the Christ died on the cross for your sins, then yes, you will go to hell. Your piety can not match God’s perfectness. Won’t matter what “creation” account you believe in.

    God is the husband of the church, and the church is constantly unfaithful to Him. Yet He still loves His people.

  136. Peter B

    Cody Bradley said: “How can something exist outside of time, matter, and space? Well these are actually properties of God, because the Jewish and Christian God exists outside of time, matter, and space. In the Bible, God tells about the future and the past. He is able to do this because He exists outside of time. The properties of God are immaterial, omnipotent, and omnipresent. We know this because of multiple of reasons. Let me give you some. We know God is immaterial because He is a spirit, just as the Bible says. We know He is omnipotent (all-powerful) because He is God and would not be God if He wasn’t. He isn’t bound by the laws of our universe. He walked on water. He also is the only being to ever create something from nothing. He is omnipresent because he is omnipotent and exists outside of time.”

    Assuming this is true, why does this make the Judeo-Christian version of the creation story the “correct” one? Many religions posit one or more immaterial, omnipotent and omnipresent deity(s). All you’ve done (and I don’t really think you’ve done it well) is prove the existence of a creator. You haven’t provided any proof that the Earth is only 6000 years old or that any part of Genesis Chapter 1 is literally correct. And incidentally, it provides no proof specific to the “correctness” of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter.

    In other words, I could accept the correctness of your argument (and I don’t, because the logic’s a bit shaky in places) without feeling the slightest requirement to go to a church (or any other religious establishment) or to worship this creator.

  137. # vel Says:
    Caffeenman is right, just watch the sparks fly when other creation myths can have the exact same legal right to be taught.

    One of the reasons I LOVE cartoons:

    Okay, bibble skolars, here’s a simple one for you (NOT!): Why were Adam and Eve kicked out of the Garden?
    Show your work.
    [obviously, then I’ll show why you’re wrong]

    J/P=?

  138. (Drat, the graphic messed up)
    http://members.cox.net/johnparadox/horsey.jpg

    BTW, I expect either
    1) no response from the bibblers
    2) the standard ‘that’s what I wuz learned’ answer/quote

    Also:
    jdiggitty Says:
    March 28th, 2009 at 8:46 am

    The biggest problem I have with Chritianity is that they seem to go to great lengths to hide their own history or just plain disregard it. Constantine is as much (or more) responsible for Christianity as Christ is.

    Suggested Reading:
    The Mythmaker [sorry, can’t find my copy for author, ISBN]
    Shows how Saul/Paul actually turned Yeshua’s teachings into religion.
    (sidebar: the best way to destroy any organization is to pretend to join it, ask any law enforcement that has to deal with Organized Crime)

    J/P=?

  139. Chris

    1) if they were so ignorant, then why are we talking about it today?

    Because we have so many stupid people who can’t shed their childhood brainwashing over this Bronze Age myth and, worse, insist that the rest of us believe too.

    As for Moses, there is no record of Jews living in Egypt at that time or of an Exodus.

    REPEAT: It’s an ugly tribal myth from the Bronze Age.

    Wake up.

  140. Chris

    Chuck said: If you don’t believe that Jesus the Christ died on the cross for your sins, then yes, you will go to hell.

    Yet He still loves His people.

    Bible-god’s message of love: Love me or I will torture you for eternity.

    Your ugly god comes across like a violent sadistic thug who beats his wife and warns her, “If you leave me, I will kill you.”

    Moreover, this repulsive Bronze Age deity doesn’t give a damn what kind of a person you were, he just wants you to be credulous and believe without and evidence.

    The myth is nothing but preposterous.

  141. Chris

    Okay, I stand corrected on the biblical flood, it did happen and here’s the proof.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT4bsbiReDU

  142. Chris

    Finally, some good news: American Christianity on the verge of collapse.
    http://oudaily.com/news/2009/mar/27/column-american-christianity-verge-collapse/

  143. Peter B

    Chuck said: “If you don’t believe that Jesus the Christ died on the cross for your sins, then yes, you will go to hell. Your piety can not match God’s perfectness. Won’t matter what “creation” account you believe in.”

    Okay, so I’m going to hell. At least I’ll have good company. According to you all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Bahais and followers of other religions will be there too. As will everyone who died before Jesus. As will everyone who lived after Jesus but never got a visit from a Christian missionary.

  144. Peter B

    Chuck said: “Given what technology man had at the time, I would say that these men were not ignorant. You wouldn’t know what to do with yourself if you didn’t have a cell phone or computer to do things for you.”

    I wonder if people said the same sorts of things back then: “I dunno, Samuel, you’re so in love with your fancy new *bronze* toys. If Yahweh dropped you back in the Stone Age, you wouldn’t know the first thing about flint knapping…” ;-)

    The point is that while these people had good skills for surviving, their ignorance about the natural processes of the world was colossal.

  145. Chris

    Peter, good point.

    By virtue of the fact that all evangelicals and fundies will be in heaven, it will be the de facto hell. Can you imagine spending eternity with these self-righteous, intolerant, busy-bodies?

    I shudder at the mere thought.

  146. IVAN3MAN

    RE: Christians in action @ Chris,

    ROFLMAO! :lol:

  147. Chris

    No one fights the Forces of Darkness like Pat Condell.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1czXvHSjDac

  148. Darth Robo

    Oh joy. Lots of preaching and appeals to Pascal’s wager. (yawn)

    Oh, and silencer, if one examines ancient religions (like say, oh I dunno, the Aztecs for example) and finds there isn’t a shred of evidence to back up their claims, then it stands to reason it should not be taken seriously anymore. Likewise Creationism. If one takes the Bible too literally and start denying reality as a result, it stands to reason that is a good idea not to take it seriously. After all, Noah’s Flood never happened, there were no talking donkeys and humans weren’t created out of a pile of dirt and a spare rib.

    If one however takes the Bible as more allegorical or metaphorical, and take away some ‘spiritual or moral wellbeing’ out of it, then good for them. However, Creationists (read: reality deniers) are currently engaging in immoral and illegal behaviour, attempting to place religious apologetics into public school science classes. They have been actively pursuing this for nearly a decade, and have done so on and off for nearly a century. And you think that by defending good science standards against these whacko’s is equivalent to “fanatacism”? I don’t know what planet you’re on, but it clearly isn’t planet Earth.

  149. BeinSilly

    there were no talking donkeys

    Really? That’s funny – I thought a lot of the Creationist fools are talking donkeys! ;-)

  150. BeinSilly

    Or at least speaking outta their ass! ;-)

  151. BeinSilly

    Chris Says:
    March 29th, 2009 at 10:23 am
    Peter, good point.

    By virtue of the fact that all evangelicals and fundies will be in heaven, it will be the de facto hell. Can you imagine spending eternity with these self-righteous, intolerant, busy-bodies?

    I shudder at the mere thought.

    Yep. The weather may be nicer in heaven but the company’s far better in
    hell! ;-)

  152. Petrolonfire

    Okay, bibble skolars, here’s a simple one for you (NOT!): Why were Adam and Eve kicked out of the Garden?

    (Not a bibble skolar but ..)

    1. Listening to a talking snake

    2. Eating an apple. (Or some other fruit.)

    3. Disobediance against Yahwah.

    Am I wrong?

  153. Ano N. E. Mouse

    Commentor Says: (March 27th, 2009 at 11:30 pm) :

    If The Theory of Jesusism is true then people occasionally become zombies and rise from the dead. We have conducted this experiment billions of times. Why do we not see this phenomenon?

    Only Jesus was resurrected because only He was – & still is – the Son of God.

    You cannot experiment on Christianity and what is supernatural because it transcends the natural.

  154. Jessica

    Thank you Phil for posting this (even with the inevitable can-factory of worms!) and also thanks to Annalee for phrasing my views on Christianity/science exactly.

    I am a Christian, and I have always had an interest in science, so I grew up knowing both “versions” of how the Earth came into being. I don’t think of either as “false”, but I think of evolution as “definitely true” – all the evidence in the world God created points to it! – and don’t particularly worry about how the Biblical version of creation fits into it.

    Ultimately, even if God did create the world 6000 years ago (being hypothetical here), it functions as if it’s billions of years old and we all evolved from microbes. So for all things dealing with science and the study of the natural world, we should still approach it as if the theory of evolution is correct.

    In summary: Evolution happened, but God did it. We can teach the Biblical creation story in Sunday school, but we should keep it out of the science classroom because it doesn’t apply.

  155. # Petrolonfire Says:
    (Not a bibble skolar but ..)
    1. Listening to a talking snake
    2. Eating an apple. (Or some other fruit.)
    3. Disobediance against Yahwah.
    Am I wrong?

    1: half-point, the snake (serpent, as usually translated) told them the truth
    2: the Knowledge of good and evil was the result of ‘eating the fruit’
    3: there’s another verse that gives the final reason why the Elohim kicked them out

    I’ll leave this for any more attempts, and look and see if you can find the verse I’m indirectly referring to.

    J/P=?

  156. Chris

    Only Jesus was resurrected because only He was – & still is – the Son of God.

    You cannot experiment on Christianity and what is supernatural because it transcends the natural.

    Is there even one shred of proof for any of these bizarre claims?

    Didn’t think so.

  157. Darth Robo

    >>>”Only Jesus was resurrected because only He was – & still is – the Son of God.

    You cannot experiment on Christianity and what is supernatural because it transcends the natural.”

    I’m glad we agree that we aren’t talking about science then. (shrug)

  158. MrPeach

    JP:

    Adam and Eve were tossed from the garden because God didn’t want them going and partaking of the fruit of the “Tree of life”, which would have placed them on a level with God, having already partaken of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

    You want answers about religion, ask an atheist.

  159. # MrPeach Says:
    JP:
    Adam and Eve were tossed from the garden because God didn’t want them going and partaking of the fruit of the “Tree of life”, which would have placed them on a level with God, having already partaken of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.
    You want answers about religion, ask an atheist.

    DINGDINGDINGDING, we have a winnah!

    Here’s the quote from the KJV:
    22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

    Also, I should have given the earlier post more points, since:
    1) referred to the ‘snake’ (technically ‘serpent’) rather than Satan
    2) referred to YHWH (usually Anglicanized as Yahweh) rather than “God”

    Hey, I got about 90 minutes sleep between watching a Gamera movie and waking back up and reading the previous post.

    J/P=?

  160. Petrolonfire

    John Paradox Says:

    # Petrolonfire Says:
    (Not a bibble skolar but ..)
    1. Listening to a talking snake
    2. Eating an apple. (Or some other fruit.)
    3. Disobediance against Yahwah.

    Am I wrong?

    1: half-point, the snake (serpent, as usually translated) told them the truth
    2: the Knowledge of good and evil was the result of ‘eating the fruit’
    3: there’s another verse that gives the final reason why the Elohim kicked them out

    I’ll leave this for any more attempts, and look and see if you can find the verse I’m indirectly referring to.

    &

    Also, I should have given the earlier post more points, since:
    1) referred to the ’snake’ (technically ’serpent’) rather than Satan
    2) referred to YHWH (usually Anglicanized as Yahweh) rather than “God”

    Hey, I got about 90 minutes sleep between watching a Gamera movie and waking back up and reading the previous post.

    Fair enough.

    So .. what I got half out of three or two and a half outta three? Just curious.

    (Oh & I’ve got a question for the literalists too – which of the two contradictory versions of genesis do you fools actually belive again? Yeah, I’m atheist too.)

    John Paradox Says:
    March 30th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
    # MrPeach Says:
    JP:
    Adam and Eve were tossed from the garden because God didn’t want them going and partaking of the fruit of the “Tree of life”, which would have placed them on a level with God, having already partaken of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.
    You want answers about religion, ask an atheist.

    DINGDINGDINGDING, we have a winnah!

    Ok , congrats, Mr Peach. I didn’t know that one.

    So .. lemme get this straight, in the Bible – according to itself – right at the very start; the so-called “prince of lies”, Satan, (a.k.a. Mr talking snake) actually told the truth & Yahwah lied!? Plus from then on we’re meant to have total and absolute faith in this Yahwah chap?! WTF??!

    (Even up to the point of killing our kiddies!? Ie the Abraham-Isaac deal.)

    PS. There’s also a much less well known OT story about a guy (Japtah? Something like that? In the “book of judges” section I’m pretty sure.) who actually does go ahead and sacrifices ( “murders” may be a better word) his own *daughter* for this Jewish-Christian-Muslim; Yahwah /Jehovah / Allah god. Before going into battle he promised god he’d kill the first living thing that greeted him when he got back – if he won. Funnily enough, that turned out to be his daughter – & he kept his promise. Oddly while *his* name is recorded in there, her’s ain’t. Nice imaginary friend y’all worship Religious fellas – NOT! :-(

    PS. Am Ithe only one tofind it irtonicv that gensis is is very nearly read as “Genes Sis?!” Now if it was really called the latter, that would almost be inspired! ;-)

  161. Petrolonfire

    FD’oh! That’s

    P.P.S. Am I the only one to find it ironic that ‘genesis’ is very nearly read as “Genes Sis?!”

    Now if it was really called the latter, that would almost be inspired! ;-)

  162. Ano N. E. Mouse

    @ Chris :

    Is there even one shred of proof for any of these bizarre claims?

    Yes, but the proof is FAITH. And also personal knowledge that comes from
    within the human heart & soul rather than any scientific lab or experiment.

    Seek & ye shall find Jesus is knocking on the door of your heart & He is Forgiving & loving to an extent surpassing all understanding.

    If you truly pray & truly ask Jesus will come into your life.
    I pray this reaches you & He does.

    Maybe you have hardened your heart against Him with your blasphemy .. But it is never too late – not until you die & face Eternal Judgement for your choices in your life and your failure or otherwise to repent of your sins anyway.

    Yet Jesus loves you and wants you to repent and find his Eternal Truth & Love. Always remember this.

    This applies to all here who have not yet accepted Christ into their own
    lives. Yes, God is real & He loves you! He may be beyond Science but make no mistake of this.

    PS. Jesus predicted lots of “mockers and scoffers” in his last age. So even as Richard Dawkins, Phil Plait and others of that godless “mocking &
    scoffing” ilk try to prove Him wrong they’re are fulfilling His very predictions!

  163. Chris

    Say “hello” to your imaginary friend, Ano.

  164. Chris

    PS. Jesus predicted lots of “mockers and scoffers” in his last age. So even as Richard Dawkins, Phil Plait and others of that godless “mocking &
    scoffing” ilk try to prove Him wrong they’re are fulfilling His very predictions!

    Funny how every cult makes this claim. It’s part of the brainwashing for the sheeple.

    DO YOU REALLY NOT SEE THROUGH THIS?!

  165. Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

    Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime.

    Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

    Jesus predicts the end of the world within the lifetime of his listeners.

    Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

    Jesus is a false prophet, since he predicts that the end of the world will come within the lifetimes of his disciples.

  166. Darth Robo

    >>>”Yes, but the proof is FAITH. And also personal knowledge that comes from
    within the human heart & soul rather than any scientific lab or experiment.”

    So it’s totally subjective and therefore has as much validity as every other religion that has ever been invented?

  167. Clearly, Reverend Freeley, you are misinterpreting those verses. Sheesh. Here, I’ll ‘splain it for you:

    Matthew 16:28 – the people who will not taste of death will not do so because they shall burneth their tongues on Mary Magdelene’s incredibly spicy felafel. Verifly, they shall not taste of anything.

    Matthew 23:26 – it’s a well known fact that “verily,” in Aramaic, means, “A snowball’s chance in Haifa.”

    Matthew 24:34 – see above, but also in this context “fulfilled” refers to the apostle’s tummies, which were in the process of being stuffed with felafel. Ref. Matthew 16:28.

    Now get with the program, heathen.

  168. Brooke

    As a Christian myself i do believe God created the world. I do not deny certain aspects of evolution theory. I believe God created evolution.
    The evolution I see sense in is an organism adapting to it’s surroundings in order to better survive. God had a plan for everything, and he knew that as time changed so would the world around organisms so he enabled them to better live in their surroundings. The world did take time to form and shape. A world as complex as ours took more time than 6000 years and most human history didn’t even take place in that amount of time. I believe God took billions of years to work on this earth so we would come to appreciate the beautiful planet he gave us.

    To me science is something God created. It is complex and intricate in all aspects and I glorify God for creating something so amazing and deep as science, even though, sadly (in my opinion) most scientists use science to disprove the God who loved them enough to give them science to enjoy.

  169. Chris

    PS. Jesus predicted lots of “mockers and scoffers” in his last age. So even as Richard Dawkins, Phil Plait and others of that godless “mocking &
    scoffing” ilk try to prove Him wrong they’re are fulfilling His very predictions!

    Isn’t this the same thing as a retarded kid saying, “I knew the other kids would call me a retard before they even did it! This mean’s I’m really a genius!”

  170. kris

    Some people on this blog seem to think that religion is a sickness and science is the cure, and that anyone who is religious is in someway developmentally disabled. If you subject this absurd generalisation to a bit of dispassionate study you’d see how badly it fits the facts.

    The big bang theory is often held up as a prime example of something that is rejected by religious people. But when you look into its history, the big bang theory is actually a prime example of religion and science coming together in harmony.

    The big bang theory (though it wasn’t called that name at the time) was first seriously proposed by a chap called Georges Lemaitre, who was both a professor of astronomy, professor of physics, an astrophysicist… and a catholic priest. He continued to be devoted to both religion and science throughout his entire life. He was advocating an expanding universe when Einstein was still rejecting it, and eventually Lemaitre’s view became the view of most astronomers today.

    In other words, someone who had devoted their life to a belief in god was also advocating an unpopular scientific view which is now held by the majority of mainstream astronomers. How on earth can that be possible if religious faith is supposed to prevent scientific aptitude? How was the priest right and Einstein (of all people) wrong? It’s because Lemaitre wasn’t just a priest, he was also a scientist, who used scientific methods when drawing conclusions from empirical evidence. He proved it was perfectly possible to have a foot in both camps.

    This isn’t an isolated case either, for example Newton wrote more about religion than he did about physics, yet this side of his work is very rarely mentioned when his memory is evoked as a founding father of modern physics.

    The trouble is, religious scientists are treated as non-existent oxymorons, destined to be edited or even airbrushed out by extremists on both sides of this artificial science-religion divide. Extremists want simple things to be true, want simple battle lines between “US” and “THEM”, so that insults can be hurled while ignoring the vast amount of collateral damage it does to all the moderates in the middle.

    We’ve got to stop seeing this as a war, it isn’t. Most of this conflict is extremely artificial and stirred up by hardcore extremists with axes to grind.

    It is perfectly possible to be deeply religious and have a distinguished career in empirical evidence-based physical science. That’s not an opinion or a hope, that’s a historical fact. Anyone who claims otherwise is out of touch with reality.

  171. Chris

    An anecdote does not constitute data. However, kudos to Georges Lemaitre for being able to put aside his religious lens in order to think scientifically.

  172. Petrolonfire

    Jephthah. That was the name of the Bible’s other less famous child sacrificer that I mentioned earlier. Funny how Jephthah despite going that extra mile & actually sacrificing his girl gets far less press than Abe -after all who’s herad of Jephthah before? Still he only killed a female child so clearly it doesn’t count as much with yahweh .. (sark) :roll:

  173. Petrolonfire

    I also meant to note the tales in Judges – 11.34

    Incidentally, the bibble notes that Jephthah’s sacrificed daughter – who doesn’t even get her name recorded – was apparently a virgin which is somehow meant to matter .. :roll:

    —–
    Duplicate comment you say computer? Huh? Why isn’t it appearing then? I’ve waited I’ve refreshed the page and still .. nada. Odd. Sorry if it does come through twice. Okay taken link out & trying again ..

  174. Petrolonfire

    Right – now the link! Click on my name here for a cute lego link to a very ugly biblical story.

    (THX to whoever first posted the lego bibble site on another thread. IVAN3MAN I think.)

  175. Petrolonfire

    Argh! Forgot the link there & then it won’t seem to let me post it. :-(

    Try :

    www (dot) thebricktestament (dot) com (slash)
    judges (slash) jephthah_kills_his_virgin_daughter (slash)
    jg11_34 (dot) html

  176. @Petrolonfire:

    Note carefully on reading the Abraham/Isaac story (Gen. 22) that when Abe comes down from the ‘sacrifice’ that there is NO mention of Isaac being with him…..

    J/P=?

  177. Chris

    Isaac met Jill and they went back up to fetch a pail of water.

  178. Darth Robo

    Brooke

    >>>”It is complex and intricate in all aspects and I glorify God for creating something so amazing and deep as science, even though, sadly (in my opinion) most scientists use science to disprove the God who loved them enough to give them science to enjoy.”

    Scientists are not trying to disprove God, because God is not scientific. Atheists have the opinion that He may not/does not exist, and that’s their perogative. However, the original point still stands, which is that creationism, as it sticks to a more literal interpretation of the Bible is bad religion as it attempts to deny reality for the sake of dogma.

  179. kao

    6000 years old in god years duh.

  180. Chris

    This is insane! Folks, please meet the Christian Chris Crocker!

    Here’s Chris:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc&feature=related

    Here’s Paul Washer
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t61uHOJnpvA

  181. Laura

    It takes faith to believe in creationism and faith to believe in evolution. Both are forms of religion whether evolutionists want to admit it or not. I advise everyone here to watch the move Expelled with Ben Stein. Evolutionists are so afraid of being proven wrong that they go to great lengths to shut people up as you will discover in the movie.

  182. Robert

    When the Rapture Comes, We’ll get Our Country Back!

    The following is to free your mind of ignorance and tyranny. I hope you gleam a small bit of useful information from the following passages. What role religion is playing in America today? We live in a rare time and country where the individual can choose for themselves how much or little Religion we want in our lives, but religion’s followers just don’t understand the word no! Not in my life not in my schools not in my government, NO! People have the right to decide for themselves what direction there lives take, and a woman’s choice to decide whether to get an abortion or not, or two people in love to marry no matter there sexual orientation, it is there choice. But sadly the followers of the Christian god or Jesus, or the many other religions’ want to make that decision for us all, embryonic stem cell research that could save millions if not more from disease pain and suffering have to take a back seat to these religions follower who influence our government time and time again, They are trying to convert the USA into a Christian state.

    First: religion is in no way real. The word religion or god is nothing more than an expression or product of human fear and weaknesses. The Bible, a collection of ancient myths and stories borrowed or stolen from many different cultures, which have no real value. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this for them. Religion, as an idea has been with us before recorded history from the caveman’s worshiping of fire to the catholic’s murder of the innocent throughout its history. Some folks caught in this complicated delusion crafted to take advantage of the powerless, weak minded, or fanatical. Want it to be real, because they have so much of there lives invested in it. They have fallen to the trap and are forever locked in its embrace. Religions coerced observance is how they operate; Worship Me or you will be tortured for all eternity. Signed, God! Coerced belief is Tyranny! Remember the Dark Age’s religion ruled in that dark distant past. It didn’t serve our ancestors well back then and it will not serve us well today.

    Second: religion no longer has a place in the real world. It is dividing us as a people to take sides to choose logic over ignorance to forsake the future for the past. With that in mind religion should not infringe in anyway a schools teaching of science, or the office of government, or used to consider new laws! This country was not founded on the rule of Christianity! The time for killing in the name of your god or the burning of witches, belief in a flat earth, or priest harming children or religions attempts at interfering with the progress of science, or its many other crimes against humanity is over. Point 1.14 Book of Knowledge Only a fool follows blindly and without question. Unfortunately there are too many powerless and weak minded people willing to give up there freedom, there hard earned money to fanatical charlatans spreading deceit. The servant of the Christian god said “Have faith in this book, the (Holy Bible) it was inspired by our god and you must follow its teachings or your soul is damned for eternity, elect only those who follow the bibles teaching, and denounce those who do not, donate your money to help us buy support for our cause, and when you die you will be shown the truth”. There is a sucker born every minute.

    Book of Knowledge

  183. Young Earth: God's Truth

    When we try to further our wisdom, even in the slightest amount, we are striving towards the glorification of God. It is, as Christians, the chief end of our lives. Glorifying God and enjoying the world that He has given us is important, however, some of the “wisdom” you are striving towards is faulty. Listening to this video, I see the claim that we Young Earth Creationists want to have our view, and ours only, taught in schools. This is false. How can we further our wisdom if our heads are in self made boxes? So right away, I see a faulty truth, or a lie. Second of all, if 99.98 percent of people in the world believe that the earth is a triangle, does this mean that it is true? Of coarse not! Even if the fact that 99.98 percent of scientists believe that evolution is true, it is not a valid point against Young Earth Creationists. Ah, and then I see those skulls. Observe that most are either so ape like that they could pass of for a monkey skull, or so human like that we can gather that it was most likely a human. We do not have a clear specimen that shows a monkey to human transformation. If evolution were true, we would still see humans becoming smarter and more advanced, however, I see that humans become more stupid as we learn more about the elements of earth. Next we see that the man talking attacks the Bible itself. He clearly says that even though the Bible is unfalable, the perfect God who wrote it knew nothing about geography. I find this funny because the guy says he believes the Bible, but doesn’t which is a self contradiction. After this, the man says that we are as very stupid people who know nothing about cars and then take out car to the shop and deny everyone else’s oppinion. I see a few problems with this. First of all is that we are not stupid! I have taken quite a few classes on both Creation and Evolution and decided that Creation is valid for many reasons. Second, God is a lot smarter, and I mean a lot smarter, than all those “car smart people.” He knows the earth He has made and clearly said in His Word that it was created in 6 days. I am clearly insaulted by the rest of the comparison. The bad car people are not good representatives of Christian Scientists. Many have gone farther than most evolutionists in their training. And, if you are a Christian, the Bible has everything to do with the world around us. There are points in history that many people have made a mistake before. This is one of them. Next point: Assuming that you evolutionists are right and all these educated creationists are wrong is the ultimate arogance. I think it works both ways. Expecially when you believe you are right when you believe someone is wrong.

    You have still not proven that we are wrong, yet you say we are off by millions.

    And here we have the old, “Because you do it and you say it is still wrong I won’t believe you.” Here is a comparison, a man who has taken drugs his whole life comes to his sons and daughters and says that they must never take drugs because it will ruin their lives. They won’t believe him because he has commited the act of taking drugs. So, they take drugs. Just so Evolutionists say, “Because Chreationists have sinned and formerly believed in evolution and now say it is wrong, we will sin and believe in evolution. I have run out of time, so I will say this. The truth will set you free, and the truth is in the Bible. Look and see.

  184. Cherry

    I’m not one for arguing, so I’ll simply ask 4 questions and then look forward to your intelligent answers:

    1. Exactly what do you understand ‘creationism’ to be?

    2. Where did the gasses come from that everything ‘created’ came from?

    3. Why are you able to form such intricate thoughts and questions – as opposed to an ape, for example?

    4. Why does every person on earth – past, present and future – have different fingerprints?

  185. Bethany B

    TechyDad- God is not a “trickster” who planted evidence to make us fail. He was the Intelligent Designer. We were created to love Him and to make Him famous. We do that by obeying Him. We fully choose to disobey God and in turn it separated us from Him. There had to be a consuquence to our decision. He still loves us just as much as He did before we sinned, but He wants us to realize that it was our fault. That is the whole point of Christianity to recognize our need for a Savior, Jesus Christ.

    Everything takes faith. When you believe what you are told in science that is faith. When you sit down you have faith that he chair will hold you up. If you look at the earth you can tell that it is not an accident. The Lord wants us to reason, He tells us so in His Word.

  186. The fact is the Bible is written in a different time and place that you might think. The story of creation is meant to be understood by the people at that time according to their understanding and culture but to say and there is some apparent contradictory stories. Nevertheless it does not hold to be true that it is false. Science i s a growing field when it at one says that the world is flat and later said that it is round. At one time said that the Pluto is a planet and now it is not. That the moon is barren and Apollo mission was there to testify it. Now it is not, and that water exists int he moon, and the Apollo mission was a hoax..was it? The fact is man not only science is slowly discovering bits and bits of creation. While creation can be presented in many ways according to the science of those days. Creation is not false as it is. Talking about evolution, it is true in a point that the bible says that man is created from the dust of the ground, though not negating someone who created the ground and doing the process of changing man from the dust of the ground.

  187. Clifford Dehrer
NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »