Nature of God is it Defined by Humans?

Jason Rosenhouse over at Evolutionblog has a very interesting post up regarding theistic evolution. I highly recommend that you read it. I'm not going to summarize it here. I am really only interested in his money-quote:

People like Ayala, Miller and Conway Morris are surely among the best theistic evolution has to offer, yet their arguments represent the crassest sort of desperation and special pleading. Ayala's argument for why evolution resolves the problem of evil is afflicted with obvious holes. (Lest you think that the Times article was too short for him to develop his argument seriously, let me assure you this is not the case. I have read his book, and he does not provide any additional illumination there.) Miller's argument is based on an obviously false premise, and even taken it at face value does not explain why Darwinian evolution specifically had to be the mechanism through which God created. Conway Morris' argument is almost certainly false biologically, but even leaving that aside it leaves us in no better position theologically than the ID folks. If we can not explain why God directly creates nasty creatures, we also can not
explain why he sets in motion a process that inevitably leads to nasty creatures. [Again, read Rosenhouse's article for this quote's context]

The tangent he presents here is what I am interested in. I rarely discuss theology here (I prefer the cold hard testimony found in the bible as the basis for my philosophical discussions and reasons to not believe in God.) But theology here is what is in question, and I think it is a very interesting question. The question is all about the nature of God. From the bible we are privy to many human-filtered aspects of God's nature; He is all-powerful, all-knowing, loving, jealous, vengeful, just, and above all perfectly moral (but only because he is defined that way -- or should I say that morality is solely defined against the background of what God considers moral). Thus when we come across passages in the bible such as this: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." [Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)]

If we define God to be all good and all moral, then it must be moral for God to create evil. This is the loophole that is used by all theistic evolutionists which Rosenhouse is discussing. He nails the root of the problem that whether God directly created nasty and vile things, or just set up the process which would lead to nasty and vile things is no different. In a weak analogy, it would be like a car designer actively causing a cars brakes to fail by cutting the brake lines, or passively causing the brakes to fail by designing the brakes to eventually wear out, but do nothing to inform the car-owner of this defect. In both cases the brakes fail and the driver is injured.

So what we really have here is a question about the nature of God. We have the creationists on one side who claim god created everything exactly as it is, and on the other we have theistic evolutionists who claim that God set in motion a process which would lead to humans and nasty and vile things. But both have the clear problem that God created evil and sin and nastiness and suffering. This was Rosenhouse's point.

I would like to build on that and step ever-so-lightly into the realm of theology. Clearly the bible and Christianity define the nature of God. Those are our only sources for what the nature of God is. We certainly cannot determine the nature of God from independent sources. Nature and our (humanity's) own personal experiences cannot ascertain God's nature, because of the simple fact that we can never intersect with God. The only way to know the nature of God is what He intentionally reveals to us through super-natural interactions. The only problem with this, is the we (humanity) and nature have no means with which to filter this information, for we have no access to the supernatural; we have no knowledge of the rules and "nature" of the supernatural. All we have is nature itself.

This leads inevitably to two possible conclusions. The first is that religion (Christianity) must, by default, re-interpret the nature of God via the nature of humanity. Thus God is defined by human terms and given human characteristics. The second is that if the supernatural is undefinable because its rules and nature are by definition, unknowable, then it cannot be determined in any sense to be real or imagined. That is the exact definition of agnosticism. (As a side note, then atheism would be defined as saying that anything that is unknowable is not real until it can be shown to be real -- in other words atheism is the simple rejection of the existence of anything that cannot be proven real.)

I am interested solely in the first proposition. That God is supernatural and His nature is defined in the only way possible, via human terms and knowledge and experience. Thus any conception of God is a product of the incomplete knowledge and experience of humanity. I think it is then obvious to say that God can only exist in the natural realm because of humans. Humans place upon god their very own qualities and characteristics. Humanity knows of power, knowledge, justice, compassion, hatred, violence, meekness, and fealty. Thus those are the very qualities that humanity bestows upon their god. Humanity's god(s) is (are) simply super-sized expressions of humanity's own characteristics. In fact there are no qualities bestowed upon God (any god) which are completely non-present within humanity.

This, to me, is the most fascinating (and shall I say, damning) aspect of God; either God is severely limiting only to humanistic qualities, or there exists no qualities beyond the grasp of humanity. In other words, God is nothing but a "super-sized" human. God's qualities are all the perfections of all human characteristics. God can kill in a more perfect way than humanity, God can save in a more perfect way than humans. god is more powerful, more knowing, etc. But then have we not defined just what the supernatural is?

If the supernatural realm in which God resides is simply a drastic expansion of the qualities of the natural, then we are left with a clear theological problem. The supernatural realm cannot possess qualities with which we have counterpart. For example, time must be drastically expanded in the supernatural. But this leads to a real problem. Just like the problem of God being all good, but by default God has to allow evil to exist, God is all-powerful, but he does not have the power to simple will the devil out of existence. There is a limit to God's infinite powers. There must also be a limit to time. Again, this is all because we have seen that everything in the natural realm is greatly expanded in the supernatural realm if there is to be a supernatural realm at all. Also there can be nothing in the supernatural which isn't also represented in the natural realm, because we would be helpless to grasp it at all. Thus time itself must exist in the supernatural. And like power and goodness, it has its limits as well.

This means one thing. Time had to begin in the supernatural just as it did in the natural. It also means that God is a slave to time just as we are.

Thus: If we attribute to God qualities which we have as humans, and we have to limit those powers of God because if the powers of God were unlimited, then the natural world would not look like it does (and that is our only possible evidence at all). Then all attributes we give over to God must be similarly limited. But this means God is also a slave to time as well. God cannot be infinitely old. God had to have a beginning. This is certainly true in the same way other qualities of God are so limited. But if God had a beginning, then he had a cause too. Maybe that is the super-supernatural realm. I.e. the god that God worships.

But here is the crux. God by godly-constraint, has to allow evil and nasty things to exist, and He had to create them because He is the creator of all. God had to do this because he had to give humans free-will to choose between good and evil. They could not have free will if there was no choice to make. Thus God is responsible directly and absolutely for all the nastiness and evil and vile things. This is the blight on the supernatural chacter of God. For that is not all-good. The alternative is that humans do not have free will. Then the case is that either all humans go to heaven becuase they had no freedom of will to do evil, or those that did evil were specifically designed by God to be evil humans condemned to eternity in hell. In the second case God is a monster who deserves no respect and is completely deviod of even the most basic morals of humanity. In the first case, God created beings who are irrelevant, their lives have no meaning whether they are mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler.

If God created evil and allows free will, then the morality of the will is dependant on humanity, not on God, because God is just as limited and flawed as all humanity, just on a magnified scale.

See how confusing that all is when you want to bring the supernatural into the natural, especially when you can only claim to know about the supernatural those things which you already know about the natural.

Isn't it all much simpler when you only pay attention to those things which you can know and determine? That being the purely natural world. And that world has no god.

[Update:] As an analogy, suppose you are an American. You live by all the rules of America. You are well informed of the culture and livelihood of America. Now you come across an obvious foreigner. That person also abides by all the rules and laws of America. You also learn that that person has lived in America since their onset of adulthood. But you are unconvinced. You want to research that person. You find that that person has never been arrested, and in fact, has been a part of catching the bad guys in America. You would judge that person to be just and moral by the rules and laws of America. But heres the thing, you do not know his country of origin, you do not know if that person is a criminal in that country at all. You have no idea what the laws and morality of that country is, so you has no means to judge or determine the goodness of that person based on the rules and laws of his country of origin. You only have the powers and knowledge of your own country. That is God. We can only judge him and evaluate him based on our own knowledge and experience. And that means that we have an independent means and method with which to judge God. Thus god is subject to our rules and knowledge and experience. Not the other way around. That means we have no need for a God in the first place. So not only do we have no way of knowing if he really exists, we do not need him in the first place.

Noah's Ark Challenge

You know what I would like to see? I would like to see some creationists/biblical fundamentalists do some actual research for once. Conduct a scientific experiment which is designed to test their theory that the world is only 6,000 years old and that the bible is literally true. One such test would not be hard to set up, would not be overly expensive, would not be difficult to conduct, and its results would go a long way to proving the literal truth of the bible. It would be unique in this way, as it is one of the few instances found in the bible of something required for a young earth, and that we can test today. I am of course, referring to the great flood and Noah's Ark. The Bible gave specifics as to the design of the ark, its purpose, its precise contents, and its length of use. This little experiment would be something right up the alley of "scientific" creationist groups such as Answers in Genesis. (read their current article.)

The experiment I refer to is this: build a ark, sail it for a year, and come out with all occupants alive and ready to breed. It is simple enough, the bible gives precise details as to the shape, size and construction of the ark. So it can be reproduced. Simple, neat, and evidenciary.

I call it a challenge, because of the obvious: No bible literalist would ever actually do it. Take AiG for example, they would much rather talk about what could have happened and never test it so that if it were, God Forbid, to fail then they would not have to explain how the bible could be wrong.

But let us set up this experiment and see what we have. First let us look at the construction of the ark: (Genesis 6:13-22 NKJV)

13 And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. 15 And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above; and set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. 18 But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark—you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21 And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.” 22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did.

Thus we have the basic plan. Build an ark of dimensions 300x50x30 cubits, with only one window and one door. The outside and inside shall be pitched and its occupants will consist of 8 humans and pairs of every animal type ("kind"). First, the dimensions of the ark, in more modern terms is 438 feet long by 73 feet wide by 46 feet high. That gives us a specific volume, 1,470,804 cubic feet. Certainly plenty of room to work with, but not so big that it cannot be built using modest funds. As for the gopherwood, well, I think it would be allowable to use another type of wood as a substitute; just not the treated wood we use to build houses, etc. Treating wood to be resistant to water, fungi, barnicles, etc. is expressly forbidden.



So now we have the basics of our experiment, a boat made of some natural wood, with pre-specified dimensions and only one window and one door. The next step is to fill it. We already have the need for 8 humans, and that will easily be supplied by some God-fearing Christians the AiG supplies. The animals that will populate the ark seems to be the next logical step. Since we no longer have dinosaurs or many of the other species ("kinds" as AiG prefers) due to extinction, it would only be fair to allow a generous substitution of of "kinds". I certainly would be agreeable to that easing on the restraints.

[Update:] One issue I neglected to address was the nature of the great flood itself. From a purely mechanical physics point of view, the flood waters would have to have been very violent, much more so than today's harshest hurricanes. In addition, the temperature of the floodwaters due only to the kinetic energy released from the deluge would raise the temperature of the water to boiling. The ark was, according to the bible, covered in pitch. Pitch in boiling water becomes very gooey and much more likely to bead up. This would have the effect of greatly reducing its ability to make the ark watertight.

I think that given the nature of today's animal kingdom, endangered and threatened species and all that, that we could further limit the varying "kinds" put on this neo-ark. We will allow only non-threatened species on board. The only real concern is that there be a fair representation of both carnivores and herbivores on board as well as parasitic species. Providing adequate food and water for everyone will be up to the decisions of the AiG and the 8 volunteers. AiG as well as many other Creationist organizations have written extensively on how this could have been done, so I will allow them their expertise on that matter. My only constraint is that the ark be fully self-contained, and only have one window and one door.



Since it is spelled out in the Bible, that this ark was completely self-sustaining for one year, this experiment must also be completely self-sustaining for one year. Here are some other issues which I think need be addressed and are vital for the success (or failure) of this experiment.

1. Since the Bible does not specify the number of "kinds" of animals, and is unclear as to whether there were just pairs of all animals, of pairs of all unclean animals except birds, and the clean animals and birds went in pairs of 7 males and females, then the best estimates of the Aig and other creationist sources be used for this number. Some estimates range from over 6,000 "kinds" to under 3,000 "kinds". I will happily accept the lower number for this experiment, as long as a representative number of carnivore and herbivores are present (along with parasitic species). For example, only two earthworms are allowed on board (unless they are also stored solely as food and not as a preservatory "kind").

2. Creationists speculate that that many, if not all, of the "kinds" brought on board were young and not adult animals. This is allowable.

3. Since many species are now extinct, substitute species are clearly acceptable.

4. Since many species alive still today are endangered or threatened, substitute species are again acceptable.

5. Again, since we do not know exactly how many, or exactly what 'kinds' of species were on board the ark, it is acceptable for the AiG to make their best guess, and use surrigate species in their places. This does mean that carnivore be replaced by carnivore, and herbivore be replaced by herbivore. This seems more than fair and adequately scientific for the purposes of this experiment, since the inhabitants of this neo-ark will not need to repopulate the planet after their fantastic voyage.

[Update II:] 6. Regarding aquatic animals, the conditions of the flood would cause all aquatic animals to die as well (also as God intended, since He did say all living things on earth), since both the PH and the saline content would be radically altered, then it seems that aquatic animals would need to be placed on the ark as well. This includes the bottom dwellers too.

As for technology and the internal workings of this neo-ark; again it will be left to the AiG to set up. I think the rules for this should be both simple and honest:
1. No modern technology be used in regards to the care and feeding of the animals, only technology available to Noah during his time is allowable. However, the AiG can determine what this technology is, given that they state it before the experiment begins.

2. Because the experiment is to last a year (as according to the Bible, Noah's voyage lasted) and due to modern nautical regulations, some emergency equipment should be placed on this neo-ark: An emergency radio.

3. If the occupants get sick or need emergency attention the experiment shall be deemed a failure. If there is a massive problem with their precious cargo, then the experiment should be called off, and deemed a failure.

4. This experiment can be repeated as many times as needed until AiG is convinced that Noah's ark is a myth.


I look forward to learning the results of this scientific experiment to prove the validity of Noah's ark and the vindication of AiG soon, as I know, as do you all, that AiG is really a science outfit and not simply a Christian apologetics evangelical operation.

Please allow me to put this in my own terms. I, as a scientist, see just how difficult it would be to design and build a spaceship to keep just 8 humans alive for the journey to mars and back. That craft would certainly have to be self sustaining, providing not just its own food, but oxygen and water as well. This type of endeavor is beyond our capabilities even today. Yet somehow, I'm supposed to believe that not only was this done thousands of years ago, it was done including the precursors ('kinds') of every single species on earth, living and long since extinct. And yet AiG would have all you believe that I'm the one who is unscientific and wrong. It just boggles the mind. All you fundamentalist Christians out there: put your beliefs where your mouth is, build the thing and prove yourselves right. It is not my responsibility to accept your outrageous claims without one shred of proof. Science provides proof for its claims on a regular, everyday, basis. Isn't it about time you did the same?

[Update Sept 13]: I found this interesting web site. Apparently they are building an "exact" replica of Noah's ark as a building. Unfortunately though, it requires concrete and steel. Not exactly materials you'd find thousands of years ago. P.S. I have no idea if this is real or a hoax, but it is funny nontheless.

The absolute last update: I make a few closing comments here.

Some Home State Humor

What can I say? Well It is centered around the great state of Tennessee...



I just wonder how many years will pass before Ken Ham in considered the next Joseph Smith? Well Anyway, as a native Tennessean, I was amused by the TN state flag backdrop. Maybe there is some down home blasphemy left in my home state after all.

Gay Bashing, The New Creationism

I have a question for you, if you are a conservative evangelical/fundamental Christian what is more important to you, educating your own children in Christianity, or bashing gays?

Apparently, if you are a Southern Baptist, teaching your children is a clear second. Beating down gays and not allowing them their humanity (not to mention American rights) is of the utmost importance. Forget all that nonsense about "being a celebant gay" hogwash they used to push in the media. No, today's fundamental Christians don't even like gays who try to be (their twisted strain of) Christian.

So the next time you run across a fundamental Christian who (lies and) says that they have no problems with gays, as long as they don't act on their sinful impulses, remind them of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Mercer College.

Convention members were disturbed last year by a National Coming Out Day program on campus -- called the Mercer Triangle Symposium -- sponsored by a gay student group and supported by faculty and staff.

"The waters had been troubled for some time over a number of issues, but that seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back," said Wayne Robertson, chairman of the convention's administration committee and pastor at Morningside Baptist Church in Valdosta, Georgia.

Isn't it about time these Christians just came clean, and stated plainly what they really want to do; round up all gays, put them in Concentration Camps, and...

Brownshirts do still exist.


P.S. In case you're wondering about the title; here's the story. For so long now, those who took up the mantle of creationism pretended to like/be scientists. But as the years wore on, this became harder and harder to do, so now we have groups like Coral Ridge, Answers in Genesis, and the Discovery Institute who just flat out hate real science, and call all that is science nothing but the dogma of atheism. Also, as we have been witnessing in the last years/decade or so, homosexuality is being proven by scientists to be more genetically linked than ever thought before, placing homosexuality in the exact same realms of science that evolution has long since been a member.

Cameron's Creationism

I just don't know if I can let this go without some more snark...

Creationism in all its forms (Intelligent Design, Old Earth Creationism, and Young Earth Creationism) has as its main weapon a certain intuitiveness to it. In that I mean it is simple, straightforward and clearcut. It requires no knowledge of the Earth, biology, chemistry or physics. In fact, it requires a certain ignorance on its main source, Genesis of the Bible. No matter what "big" words you add to it, it is always nothing more than the notion that "well God did it, and that is all that you need to know."

Creationism does no science, it does no medicine, it does no research into how the world operates on a day-to-day and eon-to-eon basis. Creationism, absent of science, would still lay claim to a flat earth that has a small golden disk arc over it in the heavens which only extends up so far, and then begins God's house. Creationism would still use leeches as a medical tool against most diseases, and would never have gotten around to investigating germs or the spread of disease. Instead Creationism would still lay claim to demons as the source of many diseases (that couldn't be cured by leeches).

Why? Because this is what the Bible says is true of the human condition. The Bible never speaks of germ theory, viruses, or genetic mutations (or recessive genetic traits) causing inheritable diseases. If no science had ever bucked the "God does it and we are powerless to understand it" tact of the Bible, then no breakthroughs in medicine would have ever occurred. This is not to say that medicine was done by heretics or atheists, rather it was done by people who had the audacity to question what was once beyond question -- God's plan.

Today, creationism is the last holdout of that failed worldview. Medicine, physics, astronomy and biology have all proven themselves to be not just valid and useful, but right -- and by right, I mean True with a capital "T". Creationism clings to that view that we cannot, by definition, ascertain how organisms change over time because God simply created them the way they are today. Oh sure, most, if not all, creationists agree that "microevolution" happens; even though they fail to get involved in any of that research, simply relying on real science to do that for them. But they all believe that there is some inherant "stop sign" in the genetic code, or wherever, that prevents all those accumulated micro changes from adding up to a species change. "A dog has never given birth to a cat" is their plea. But that is not what evolution says, not even close. Evolution can be more accurately (even though this simplification is not entirely correct either) described as a pre-dog gives birth to another pre-dog who gives birth to another pre-dog (and so on) and then after thousands of generations, that last pre-dog is nothing like the first pre-dog, it is now a pre-cat. Furthermore, other pre-dogs (identical to that first pre-dog) did the same thing through the generations and arrived at a pre-dog that is now nothing like the first pre-dog, but is more like today's dogs. Each step is a micro change, and each step led to two different lineages, one for today's dogs and one for today's cats. As proof evolution does not do this, creationists argue that two floors of a building are seperated by 10 feet. No creature has legs ten feet long, and thus no creature can step from one floor to the next. But build a staircase, and suddenly one step at a time you can get from the first to the second floor with considerably shorter legs. Creationists argue that the staircase is impossible because God said it was. Intuitive, indeed.

So let's apply all this to Ron Comfort who appears in Kirk Cameron's video. First I would like to make clear the two main points of this five minute section of that video.
1) Creationism makes sense intuitively, just look at how supportive the banana is for human consumption.
2) Because of this simplicity much less faith is required for believing creationism than for believing evolutionism (and by default, atheism).

The intuitive problem has already shown to be not just useless, but counter-productive, as intuitive views of the world and its origins leads to Biblical creationism and a "God did it" mentality. Once you accept that "God did it", then investigating how it works is pointless. Why investigate how bacteria mutate, or how viruses can jump from one species to another, if you accept that God made them exactly what they are, and any investigation is encroaching upon God's sole knowledge (which is unknowable to us mere humans). Why bother? Why not simply do what the Bible says and pray for the demons to be excercized, or use the "laying on of hands" to cure? The answer is those things do not work, the first scientists recognized this and began to look for themselves into the causes. The cures came afterwards. If the Bible worked there would never have been any reason whatsoever to look towards more naturalistic causes.

Sure the Bible's account in Genesis is simple and easy to understand. It was written almost three thousand years ago! Those simple goat herders had no knowledge of physics or biology from which to draw their stories of creation from. So they made up the simplest and easiest story they could. They came up with: "God Did It!" It takes very little faith or knowledge to accept that. But their severely limited knowledge of the world, and the universe, shows through in today's defenders of their creation story. They use only the simplest and most convenient examples to prove it. Ron and Kirk chose the banana. It was compared to a soda can. (I would have chosen something more nourishing and healthy than soda, but then again I am not a creationist.) The banana is easily held in the hand! The banana has an easy to open top! The banana has peels which make access convenient! It is all so clear and simple. Much more so than that ubercomplicated evolution. But what about coconuts? They possess none of those properties. They must be cracked open forceably, their access is inconvenient and difficult, there is no easy way to hold and eat it. What about potatoes? They must be dug up out of the ground, sliced into thin strips and fried in oil (peanut or vegetable). [Yes I am referring to french fries here...] Ron's simple claims of creationism look ridiculous when one thinks of how the real world operates. His is the simple faith that fails to match the real complexities of the world all humans actually live in.

This leads us into the second claim of Ron and Kirk. The amount of faith needed for creationism versus evolution. First let us consider what faith is. In the epistle to the Hebrews, faith is described as: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" [Hebrews 11:1 NKJV]. Hebrews 11:2,3 further describe those "things not seen".

I would like to open this rebuttal with this statement: "I do not now, nor have I ever, had any faith that 2 + 2 = 4." There is no need for faith to make that statement true. Faith in mathematics is useless. The same goes for gravity. I do not have faith that gravity will continue to keep me firmly attached to the surface of the earth. Faith is useless in this context as well. The same for the sun rising (i.e. the earth rotating), or the moon orbiting the earth. Faith is not a factor in these.

But suddenly when it comes to evolution, out of nowhere, creationists claim evolution is all about faith, and so much faith in fact, that it is far greater than the amount of faith necessary to be a Christian. I will point the reader to the New Testament and Paul's epistles to discern that faith is the only currency Christians have. Faith in Jesus is the path to heaven -- the ONLY path to heaven. And we know that faith is the substance of things hoped for. Not things known to be true, like 2 + 2 = 4. The point is that Christianity is founded on the idea of faith, this hope that things unseen are real. But what of evolution? Is it also based on faith? I have never seen one single article, book, essay, or manuscript that described evolution in terms of faith. In fact, the opposite is true of all the literature of evolution. Evolution is based solely on evidence, the things seen.

Thus there is a duplicitousness to the statement that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does creationism. There is no evidence, the things seen, to back up creationism, whereas there are mountains of evidence backing up evolution. Thus the only real comparison of faith in evolution versus creationism comes down to what you trust more, evidence of things unknowable or that of things knowable (and already known). If taking things known is to be called faith, then you inevitably come up with having to claim that it must be taken on faith that 2 + 2 = 4, because it is knowable and known in exactly the same way that genetics and fossils are known.

Finally, how much must Christians (and Christianity) cheapen the foundation of their religion, if they are going to claim that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does creationism (and Christianity). They are essentially saying that the bedrock of their religion -- faith -- is so tiny, when compared to the mountain of faith required to believe that 2 + 2 = 4 or that evolution leads to concrete results that they themselves use in their everyday lives (e.g. disinfectants to kill germs to protect from disease, new anti-bacterial medications). How can faith in Christianity be so small, when it is the entire makeup of the religion. How can it be less than "faith" in evolution. Wouldn't that make the Bible's definition of faith proof that evolution is real, since evolution requires "more faith" than Christianity, according to Christian doctrine, if Christianity is to be based solely on faith?

That Christians would be so willing to cheapen their own faith into non-consequence just to destroy evolution must tell you how little of substance there really is to Christianity.

And for the record: It takes zero faith to be an atheist. Atheists base their "religion" on what is known, that is, what is seen. If God is by definition, unseen, as Hebrews would have you believe, then there can be no faith to atheism, it is by Biblical proclamation totally faith-free. An atheist says merely that, "I see no evidence of God, therefore I don't believe in God." If the evidence changes, then the belief of the atheist changes, pure and simple observation. So far, that has not occurred.

End Note:
At least for the time being, the best and the brightest of Christian apologetics can point to the Kirk Cameron video showing Ron Comfort holding a phalic banana in one hand and poking it into his other hand (closed into the shape of a vagina) and saying this is the best evidence of creationism -- EVER! Certainly evolution is doomed after this intellectual display...

Kirk Cameron and Creationism

It never ceases to amaze me just how silly Creationists are. Kirk Cameron made this video to defend creationism. Watch the first five minutes of it. You will love the part about the almighty banana.

My thought on this: If the banana were such a perfect demonstration of why Biblical creationism is true; then what the heck is up with the watermelon? Certainly Gallager's smash-o-matic cannot be God's ingenius plan???

Thanks to Crooks & Liars (and all the other sites this clip showed up on!)


Update: I have written a new post here which points out the silliness of Kirk's video even more clearly.

Why Creationism Really Matters: Part III

One of my usual blogging stops is Jason Rosenhouse at EvolutionBlog. Today he digs up this piece which nicely proves what I have been writing about concerning original sin.

You either believe the Genesis story is true or you don’t. I believe the story that God created man and woman for one another. I believe man fell because Adam and Eve ate of forbidden fruit, making all humans sinners and in need of salvation, available through Jesus Christ. If that story isn’t true, then the Bible — from the first to the 66th book — isn’t the literal, infallible word of God.

Attacks against creation casts doubt on scriptural authority. If we question the Bible’s account of creation, what does that say about the existence of original sin? What does it say about Jesus Christ, the risen savior, and man’s need to be saved?

This was exactly my point. Evolution is a direct threat to fundamentalists because it threatens their notion of original sin, and Jesus' conquering of said sin. For fundamentalists, Jesus wiped away original sin; for liberals, Jesus became the sinless path to heaven.

Update: For the record, I am an agnostic atheist; I think both liberal and conservative Christians are wrong on matters of theology, its just that liberal Christians are much closer on philosophical matters than any other Christians. I give liberal Christians credit for this, is all.

Why Creationism Really Matters Part II

Last time we considered why it is that fundamentalist Christians fight so fiercely over evolution and came to the conclusion that the reason had nothing to do with facts and reality, rather it represented a direct attack at the heart of Christianity; original sin and the Bible's insistence that it is the sole reason for death and sin. We culled two posibilities out of that; that original sin occurred first and death and sin are its result, or that death occurred first and original sin was a later literary construct to explain it and defend the Bible writer's view of God.

Special note: I want to state up front that this does not in any way equate to a "theism vs. atheism" argument. For there are many sects of Christianity that accept both evolution and God/Jesus. I am not arguing against their beliefs, as their doctrines do not contradict the points I will be making. They simply possess a doctrine that allows for death prior to original sin, and consider interpreting the Bible as such perfectly acceptable theologically.

One thing both sides agree on is that death happens, and has happened since the first organisms existed. It is crucial to note that this fact proves nothing for either case. Thus, while interesting in itself, it is not useful to us in this investigation. What we can take from this is because it is a universal observable fact, it inevitably works its way into any formulation of theology, no matter how simplistic or complex, primitive or modern. Therefore we have our first pointer to the truth, all theology must, incorporate within its most basic structure the nature of death as a factor in life. So, let us now dig into the fundamentalist argument; that original sin caused death. What evidence do they have in support of it? They have the Genesis account (actually there are two distinct accounts and a third indistinct account in Genesis). This account speaks of Adam and Eve, the original sin, the spread of sin and death to the point where a flood was necessary to attempt to wipe out sin, a story of arrogance of humanity that resulted in the creation of all the world's languages, and finally the tale of Moses.

The basic tenet of fundamentalism is that the Bible is the literal word of God and historically accurate in every detail. Now I will not get into that discussion, instead I wish to merely state that with this method of interpreting the Bible, it becomes the lynchpin of Christianity. Without original sin and its bringing in death and degradation to all organisms then Jesus' purpose is pointless. Again Note: liberal Christians do not suffer this problem because they tie Jesus to redemption and thus the problem of a literal original sin is not relevant.

This is why fundamentalism is so concerned with creationism; it enabled death and original sin. So what then is the factual basis for this?

Well the only answer is 'the Bible'. They say the bible is factual ('true' in their parlance) because it is the word of God. They back that up by claiming the word of God is 'true' because the Bible says it is. It is this impenetrable circle of logic that fuels their claim. They really have no need for any other facts, but you will find some apologists who try to bolster this with 'scientific' facts. here for a list of topics-- these are some good examples). Kent 'Dr Dino' Hovind is another. I will not discuss the refutations here, they can be found at TalkOrigins (see here for a thermodynamics scientific response).

Let us now consider the second option; that death occurred first and original sin was a later literary construct to explain it and defend the Bible writer's view of God.

I will not attack Christianity here, for there are millions of 'liberal' Christians who accept evolution, and thus death before human's original sin. They, too, understand that Genesis is a myth written by simple nomadic herders to explain their origins, and their views on their god. (where I differ from these Christians is that take it to be only a myth, whereas they take it to impart deeper truths about God wrapped in easy-to-understand stories given by God.) I will not go into the theological underpinnings of original sin for them other than to say it is implicitly tied into the gift of free will. I will say that for these Christians original sin is not the main reason (cause) of Jesus' sacrifice, rather it is to provide a path via free will for believers to choose good over evil and receive heaven as their reward.

It is important to say that this view does not conflict in any way with the deeper truths of the Bible, as these Christians understand them (I do not agree with this, but that is not relevant here). Thus it not a theological problem for these Christians to accept the facts and reality of science that gives rise to evolution, geology, physics, cosmology, etc. And more importantly to the creationism debate, science does not conflict with faith or theology. To look at all the facts in one convenient place, I again point you to TalkOrigins.

This point of view explains many things logically and accounts for all known facts. The original authors of the Bible, specifically Genesis, did not understand death and illness, and tried to explain them in the context of divine wrath. They observed death and illness and sinfulness and wanted to explain them, exactly as we still do today, but didn't know enough of the natural world to incorporate the facts; thus they used the only tools they had, their grasp of the divine, and their god. So they created a story to explain these things; the product being creationism of Genesis.

What we have learned from all this is why evolution is such a threat to fundamental Christianity and not a problem at all for the interpretive, liberal Christians.

Simply put, for fundamentalists:
1) The Bible is the literal word of God
2) Jesus died to conquer original sin which was a stain on humanity that humanity could not wash away, thus allowing humans into heaven.
3) Death could not have preceded original sin, since death was its punishment.
4) Original sin had to be a choice made by man and not a by-product of God's gift of free will in order to make Jesus' sacrifice meaningful.

For liberal Christians:
1) The creation account was only a story devised by a simple people who did not possess the vast scientific body of knowledge we have today to explain the observations of death, disease and sin. This was woven with their divine beliefs of their god.
2) The Bible is meant to impart deeper theological truths; the nature of God, worship, and morality. It is not a literal history book.
3) Original sin is more of a free will to choose evil, and no one can always choose only good, and choose it for godly reasons not humanly ones.
4) Jesus died not to wipe away the stain of original sin, but to provide a new path to heaven through him, who alone was human and sin free.

Why Creationism Really Matters to Fundamentalists

Fundamentalist Christians in this country are locked in battle to remake this great country into a "Christian Nation." This has been an especially fierce battle since President Bush took office, and religious conservatives effectively gained total control of our entire government. What they want is to restructure our culture into one that obeys and abides by all the laws as set out by modern (conservative) Christian theologians. Probably the single largest barrier to this goal is science. While science says nothing at all concerning theology or even morality, what it does do is present facts and the reality of physical world we live in. It is this aspect of science that is the biggest threat to the faith required for fundamental Christianity. The reason is simple, faith tells the believer that the world should behave in one way (according to the tenets of the Bible), yet fact and reality prove the world actually operates quite differently. The only possible course of action for those of faith is to reject reality, and replace it with the faith threatened. This means that science must be thrown out. Since not all science can simply be thrown out by these believers, they focus on the most "offensive"; i.e. the most destructive to their faith. In a nutshell this is simply evolution, as it threatens the foundation of their faith, creationism; the direct link of Creator God to his creation.

The problem, though, is that for both sides, this is not the actual war, it is merely the only battle being continually fought. The war, ironically enough, is one that science says nothing about, theology. And more importantly, the root of theology, good and evil. Thus, science has never been able to win the battle, because it is not fighting the same war. Science is fighting the war on fact and reality, and fundamentalist Christianity is fighting the war of good versus evil. It just so happens that the two wars merge on the battlefield of evolution.

If science is not fighting (and can not fight) the war the fundamentalist Christians are, then how can the battle of evolution possibly be won? It cannot. That is why the reality of what we see today exists: stalemate at best. That is why the focus needs to change, but to do that, we must leave behind science, and enter philosophy. Fortunately we can still use all the most powerful tools of science; rational thought, fact gathering, observation, and testing hypotheses.

Next, then, is determining where this new battlefield is, and how to present our side. So let's take a look at why evolution is so strongly singled out, if the war the fundamentalist Christians are fighting is really "good v. evil". Then we can plan a new approach.

So, if creationism is not actually a battle over science, then what is it? If we look at the points that are made by the creationists, we begin to understand what they are truly concerned about. This was most recently pointed out in a posthumous article by creationist Henry Morris, "Insufficient Design". In this, Morris explains that creationism as told in Genesis explains why there is sin and death in the world.

That is it, the plain and simple reason why creationism is so crucial to fundamental Christianity, because it is the only way to explain why evil exists in the world and why organisms die. It also fixes the problem of a sadistic creator, placing the blame for sin and death on the creation (man) and not the creator for making man that way.

The logic of their argument is straightforward: God exists -> God created -> The account of creation is recorded in the Bible -> The Bible is the word of God -> The word of God (and thus God) is good -> Goodness proves God exists. Christian theology requires that there be a reason for Jesus and that reason is God's response to original sin. So, in the logic of fundamentalists, evolution is an attack on creation, which is an attack on original sin and thus an attack on Jesus.

What we are left with when this is boiled down are two possible statements:
1) Original sin occurred bringing death and sin into the world (imperfection), as recounted in the Bible.
2) Death and sin were observed in the world and was explained away later by the concept of original sin.

It is easy to see why the first statement is so important to fundamentalists, and why evolution is such a threat. It states that sin came first and death was the result. But evolution says simply that death came long before there were even humans to sin. Then if original sin is not the cause of death, that breaks the circle of logic which is the foundation of the Bible, and the sole reason for the act of redemption of Jesus, atonement for original sin.

In my next post, I will examine these two statements and how the facts behind them can be used to push back on creationists so that evolution can once again be separated from faith and religion.