Tag Archive: Creationism

David Attenborough on the Irrationality of Creationists

creationism ken ham

David Attenborough, a naturalist and BBC broadcaster, had this to say about creationists:

Every society in the world has found it necessary to produce a story to account for the fact that humanity is on earth. The Australian Aboriginals think that the first humans were regurgitated by a great rainbow serpent in the sky, the people in Thailand think the beginning of the world was a huge pool of milk and a snake was pulled by demons, and the milk coagulated and that formed human beings and there was a time, two and a half to three thousand years ago, when people on the east end of the Mediterranean thought woman was made from the rib of the first man.

If somebody says to me I believe every word of the Bible is true, you can’t argue against that degree of irrationality…there is actually a way of looking at the natural world and seeing the evidence and it’s all there. And what’s more it’s the same evidence whether it’s in Australia or Northern Europe or wherever. It’s all the same—it all produces the same answer and you can all see the evidence—if you reject that then there’s nothing I can say.

Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, Dinosaurs, and the SIN of Smoking

Snark ahead.

Two years ago, our youngest son moved out and he left behind some trading cards for our grandson. He had hundreds of trading cards, including some from Answers in Genesis. I am not sure how old these card are, but I suspect they are at least 15 years old. I did not know these cards were in the box and my oldest son found them when he was going through them with our grandson.  We had a lot of fun with these cards, a reminder of what we once believed.  I thought you might “enjoy” the good science these cards teach, so I scanned a couple of them just for you!

ken ham propaganda

ken ham propaganda 2

I love the logic of this card. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are committed to a Fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of the Bible, except when it not convenient to do so. Since the inerrant, infallible, inspired creationist science textbook, AKA the Bible, doesn’t mention dinosaurs, and Ham and Co. know dinosaurs existed at one time, it is imperative that one of the animals mentioned in the Bible be a dinosaur. Kids love dinosaurs and  have lots of questions about them. Using his magic Bible word decoder ring, Ham determined that the behemoth in the book of Job is actually a dinosaur and that dragons are also dinosaurs.

ken ham propaganda 3

ken ham propaganda 4

I found this card interesting for a different reason. The card states emphatically that the Leviathan mentioned in the book of Job is actually a sea monster. No actually it is a Leviathan, right? We must not tamper with the inerrant, infallible, inspired creationist science textbook, AKA the Bible. But again, when a point needs to be made, Ham and Co. have no problem ignoring the hermeneutic they demand all other Christians use.

Forty years ago, I heard a sermon on Job 41:19-21, but it wasn’t about a sea monster. Oh no, this IFB preacher was quite novel and his sermon showed that you can make the Bible say almost anything. The text says:

Out of his mouth go burning lamps,and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke,as out of a seething pot or caldron.His breath kindleth coals,and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

Are you ready for it? Drum roll, please! According to this preacher, these verses are about SMOKING!  Surely you can see it:

  • Out of his mouth go burning lamps (the burning cigarette in the mouth)
  • Out of his nostrils goeth smoke
  • His breath smells bad

This is definite proof that smoking is a sin.

And now let us go to a Sunday service at Bible Baptist Church. It is manipulation time, time for the altar call:

Every head bowed, every eye closed. Is God convicting you of the sin of smoking? If so, with no one but God and me looking, please raise your hand so I can pray for you.

I see that hand, and that hand. Praise Jesus.

Dear baby Lord Jesus, I pray right now for those who have admitted they are sinful smokers. Please forgive them of their sin and give them the victory over Marlboro. And while you are at it Lord…please help them to see that the money they are saving by not buying cigarettes can be put in the offering plate so the church can continue to preach the gospel of no smoking.

In the name above all names, the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

A Summary of the Bill Nye Ken Ham Debate

how creationists view atheists

Early last year, Ken Ham debated Bill Nye on  creationism/evolution. Bill Cohen, writing for The Daily Banter, summed up the debate nicely:

Bill Nye: We don’t know how the universe came about, that’s why we do science.

Ken Ham: There’s a book (Bible) that explains it all!!

Bill Nye: We don’t know how or why consciousness arose, but we use science to try and understand it.

Ken Ham:  There’s a book that explains it all!!

Bill Nye: We know for a scientific fact that the world is older than 6000 years because of carbon dating, fossil records, genetics and the study of DNA etc etc.

Ken Ham: There’s a book that says otherwise!!

Video Link

Video Link

Al Mohler, the fundamentalist Southern Baptist president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, attended the debate. He posted his thoughts about the debate on his blog. (though it seems this post was written BEFORE the debate took place) Here is what Mohler had to say:

…As the debate began, it was clear that Ham and Nye do not even agree on definitions. The most friction on definition came when Nye rejected Ham’s distinction between “historical science” and “observational science” out of hand. Nye maintained his argument that science is a unitary method, without any distinction between historical and observational modes. Ham pressed his case that science cannot begin without making certain assumptions about the past, which cannot be observed. Furthermore, Ham rightly insisted that observational science generally does not require any specific commitment to a model of historical science. In other words, both evolutionists and creationists do similar experimental science, and sometimes even side-by-side.

Nye’s main presentation contained a clear rejection of biblical Christianity. At several points in the debate, he dismissed the Bible’s account of Noah and the ark as unbelievable. Oddly, he even made this a major point in his most lengthy argument. As any informed observer would have anticipated, Nye based his argument on the modern consensus and went to the customary lines of evidence, from fossils to ice rods. Ham argued back with fossil and geological arguments of his own. Those portions of the debate did not advance the arguments much past where they were left in the late nineteenth century, with both sides attempting to keep score by rocks and fossils…

…In this light, the debate proved both sides right on one central point: If you agreed with Bill Nye you would agree with his reading of the evidence. The same was equally true for those who entered the room agreeing with Ken Ham; they would agree with his interpretation of the evidence.

That’s because the argument was never really about ice rods and sediment layers. It was about the most basic of all intellectual presuppositions: How do we know anything at all? On what basis do we grant intellectual authority? Is the universe self-contained and self-explanatory? Is there a Creator, and can we know him?

On those questions, Ham and Nye were separated by infinite intellectual space. They shared the stage, but they do not live in the same intellectual world. Nye is truly committed to a materialistic and naturalistic worldview. Ham is an evangelical Christian committed to the authority of the Bible. The clash of ultimate worldview questions was vividly displayed for all to see.

When asked how matter came to exist and how consciousness arose, Nye responded simply and honestly: “I don’t know.” Responding to the same questions, Ham went straight to the Bible, pointing to the Genesis narrative as a full and singular answer to these questions. Nye went on the attack whenever Ham cited the Bible, referring to the implausibility of believing what he kept describing as “Ken Ham’s interpretation of a 3,000 year old book translated into American English.”

To Bill Nye, the idea of divine revelation is apparently nonsensical. He ridiculed the very idea.

This is where the debate was most important. Both men were asked if any evidence could ever force them to change their basic understanding. Ham said no, pointing to the authority of Scripture. Nye said that evidence for creation would change his mind. But Nye made clear that he was unconditionally committed to a naturalistic worldview, which would make such evidence impossible.  Neither man is actually willing to allow for any dispositive evidence to change his mind. Both operate in basically closed intellectual systems. The main problem is that Ken Ham knows this to be the case, but Bill Nye apparently does not. Ham was consistently bold in citing his confidence in God, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the full authority and divine inspiration of the Bible. He never pulled a punch or hid behind an argument. Nye seems to believe that he is genuinely open to any and all new information, but it is clear that his ultimate intellectual authority is the prevailing scientific consensus. More than once he asserted a virtually unblemished confidence in the ability of modern science to correct itself. He steadfastly refused to admit that any intellectual presuppositions color his own judgment.

But the single most defining moments in the debate came as Bill Nye repeatedly cited the “reasonable man” argument in his presentation and responses. He cited Adolphe Quetelet’s famed l’homme moyen—“a reasonable man”—as the measure of his intellectual authority. Writing in 1835, Quetelet, a French intellectual, made his “reasonable man” famous. The “reasonable man” is a man of intellect and education and knowledge who can judge evidence and arguments and function as an intellectual authority on his own two feet. The “reasonable man” is a truly modern man. Very quickly, jurists seized on the “reasonable man” to define the law and lawyers used him to make arguments before juries. A “reasonable man” would interpret the evidence and make a reasoned judgment, free from intellectual pressure.

Bill Nye repeatedly cited the reasonable man in making his arguments. He is a firm believer in autonomous human reason and the ability of the human intellect to solve the great problems of existence without any need of divine revelation. He spoke of modern science revealing “what we all can know” as it operates on the basis of natural laws. As Nye sees it, Ken Ham has a worldview, but Nye does not. He referred to “Ken Ham’s worldview,” but claimed that science merely provides knowledge. He sees himself as the quintessential “reasonable man,” and he repeatedly dismissed Christian arguments as “not reasonable.”…

…The ark is not the real problem; autonomous human reason is. Bill Nye is a true believer in human reason and the ability of modern science to deliver us. Humanity is just “one germ away” from extinction, he said. But science provides him with the joy of discovery and understanding…

…The problem with human reason is that it, along with every other aspect of our humanity, was corrupted by the fall. This is what theologians refer to as the “noetic effects of the fall.” We have not lost the ability to know all things, but we have lost the ability to know them on our own authority and power. We are completely dependent upon divine revelation for the answers to the most important questions of life. Our sin keeps us from seeing what is right before our eyes in nature. We are dependent upon the God who loves us enough to reveal himself to us—and to give us his Word.

As it turns out, the reality and authority of divine revelation, more than any other issue, was what the debate last night was all about…

..It was about the central worldview clash of our times, and of any time: the clash between the worldview of the self-declared “reasonable man” and the worldview of the sinner saved by grace…

I quite agree with Al Mohler. This indeed is a clash of worldviews. Where I disagree, of course, is that I believe the creationist/Christian worldview is outdated, inadequate, and often contrary to what we now know about the universe and our place in it. For Al Mohler and Ken Ham, their worldview begins and ends with Bible. Any fact, evidence, or truth that does not fit the Bible paradigm, which is really Mohler’s and Ham’s personal interpretation of the Bible, must be rejected.

proof of evolution

Questions for Evolutionists

Matt Stopera, a writer for Buzz Feed, attended the Ham on Nye debate last year. He asked 22 creationists to write a message/question for evolutionists. What follows is eight of these messages/questions. You can check out all 22 of them here. Please leave your thoughts about these messages/questions in the comment section.


creationist 2

creationist 3

creationist 4

creationist 5

creationist 6

creationist 7

creationist 8

Questions for Creationists

Matt Stopera, a writer for Buzz Feed, attended the Ham on Nye debate  last year. He asked 22 evolutionists to write a message/question for creationists. What follows is eight of these messages/questions. You can check out all 22 of them here. Please leave your thoughts about these messages/questions in the comment section.

questions for creationists

questions for creationists 2

questions for creationists 3

questions for creationists 4

questions for creationists 5

questions for creationists 6

questions for creationists 7

questions for creationists 8

Genesis 1-3: Who Was God Talking To?


The night before October 23, 4004 BC, God, you know, THE God, the one and only God, decided to create the universe. For the next six literal 24 hour days, God created the sun, moon, stars, planets, earth, animals, insects, fish,and plant life. Oh, and don’t forget God’s super-duper,special creation on day six:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Wait a minute…what’s this US thing all about? Do I detect polytheism? Whoever US is, they created a human man and woman in their image. (Genesis 2 says it was the LORD God that created Adam and Eve) After creating Adam and Eve, the God’s closed up their creation shop and went on vacation. This October 23rd we will celebrate the 6,019th anniversary of the first day of creation. Time for a new Hallmark card, yes?

Now I am being a bit silly here, but let me point out something very important. It is clear, based on Genesis 1:27, that there is more than one God involved in creating humans. Once we get to Genesis 3 we see that there is one God called LORD God. It is this LORD God that comes to the Garden of Eden to talk to Adam and Eve. It is this LORD God that tells Adam and Eve their punishment for eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. An interesting point here is that Adam and Eve can see God and talk to him, yet the Bible says that no man has seen God at any time.

After Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit their eyes were opened and both knew, for the first time, that the other was naked. While we don’t know how long the time span was between the creation of Adam and Eve and their act of disobedience, it’s hard to imagine that neither Adam or Eve paid any attention to their partners nakedness. Surely they were created with a sex drive. Sooooo, I don’t know about you, but I think I would notice that the only other living person, the person who snuggled up to me around the Camp Eden campfire, was naked.

The LORD God, being the prude that countless fundamentalist preachers have said he is, was quite disturbed over Adam and Eve’s nakedness. The LORD God took it upon himself to get some clothing for Adam and Eve. He spotted a bear or maybe a buffalo or mountain lion, and in the first act of violence on earth, the LORD God killed the animals so he could make Adam and Eve clothes to wear. Using a process that humans to this day have not discovered, the LORD God killed the animal (s), dried and tanned the skin, and sewed the skins into clothing quicker than a Chinese sweatshop worker sewing a shirt for Walmart.

The LORD God then had a conference call with the other Gods. He said, look, remember those two humans we created? Remember the one rule we gave them? Yeah…those dumb asses picked fruit off the tree and ate it. Now they are like us, knowing good and evil. We need to do something immediately lest they eat from the Tree of Life. We don’t want them to do that, right? If they do, they will live forever, just like us. Can’t have humans living forever.

So the LORD God, acting on behalf of the other Gods, evicted Adam and Even from the Garden of Eden. Of course, they didn’t want to go. After all, they only had one set of clothes. But, the LORD God was insistent and he drove them out of the Garden of Eden. To make sure that Adam and Eve could not eat from the Tree of Life, the LORD God put a flaming sword that turned every which way near the tree.

Reading Genesis 1-3 without importing Trinitarian theology into it presents a very different creation story than what countless Evangelicals have been told. Go back to the text and read it for yourself. Is what I have written here plausible? On what basis do we say there was just one God? Is it not just as plausible to say that there were more than one God, a LORD God and other Gods that were perhaps subservient to him/her?

But Bruce, in the first five days of creation the Bible say God (singular) created. True, but since humans weren’t created until day 6, who was God talking to on the first five days when the Bible says, and God said? Was he talking to himself? Perhaps he was talking to the other Gods, just like he did in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22?

And I am just getting started. Go back to the text, take off your Trinitarian, orthodox Christian glasses, and read it again. Is my story any less plausible than the one Evangelical children are taught in Sunday school?


There is textual evidence for God creating Eve AFTER the six days of creation in the second creation story found in Genesis 2. This conflicts with the first creation story in Genesis 1.

Fundy World Tales Part 4

bruce gerencser findlay ohio 1970

Bruce Gerencser, Findlay Ohio, 1970, Eighth Grade

I attended Trinity Baptist Church in Findlay, Ohio at a very crucial and foundational point in my life. It was during my time at Trinity, from the ages of thirteen to seventeen, that the core doctrines that would guide me for the next two decades were drilled into my head.

I heard preaching three times a week. I also went to Sunday school and youth group meetings.  I attended every Bible conference, mission conference, youth rally, and revival. I went to summer youth camp and I even skipped school so I could attend the Ohio Baptist Bible Fellowship preacher’s meeting that was held one year at Trinity.

From listening to the preaching, I  began to develop a core set of beliefs. The beliefs of the preacher’s I heard became my beliefs. In Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church, parishioners are presented with one viewpoint, God’s, and are expected to believe this viewpoint without dissent or disagreement.  Actually, God’s viewpoint is the preacher’s viewpoint, but as anyone raised in the IFB church movement will tell you, the preacher’s viewpoint, as a man ordained and called by God, is the equivalent of hearing directly from God. As long as what the preacher was saying could be proved from the Bible, it was expected that church members would accept his words as coming directly from God.

What did Trinity pastors Gene Milioni, Ron Johnson, Bruce Turner, and uncounted other guest preachers teach me?

They taught me that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God.  The Bible was originally written by holy men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. They taught me the dictation theory of inspiration, a theory that says God dictated each word of the Bible to the authors. Every word, every jot, every tittle is without error. The history and the science taught in the Bible is true, perfect in every detail. As a result, pastors Milioni, Johnson, and Turner taught me that the universe was created in six 24 hour days and that the universe is 6,000 years old. From the Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, the history recorded in the Bible is accurate and without error.

The Bible that they believed was inspired and inerrant is the King James Bible. To this day, these pastors still believe the King James Bible is the perfect words of God for English-speaking people.  They taught me that other Bible translations were tools of Satan meant to obscure and corrupt the Word of God At Trinity Baptist Church, every word, every jot, every tittle of the King James Bible was 100%, God-approved truth.

From the King James Bible, preachers taught me the basics of the Christian faith. The soteriology taught at Trinity was orthodox and indistinguishable from any other Baptist church I had been a part of. The battles over grace and lordship salvation had not yet roiled the IFB church movement. The essential, cardinal doctrines of Evangelical Christianity were taught and believed. Being a Baptist church, Trinity practiced two ordinances, baptism by immersion and memorial communion. The preaching, typical of the time, was topical and most often focused on the need of personal salvation and separation from the world.

trail of blood chart

The Trail of Blood Chart (Full size here)

The preachers also taught me some things that were peculiar to our brand of Christianity. They taught me that the Baptist church is the true church. The  thinking went something like this: John THE Baptist baptized Jesus, which made Jesus a Baptist. The apostles were all called by Jesus so they were Baptists. The first Christian churches were started by the apostles so they were Baptist churches. This belief is commonly called Landmarkism or Baptist Bride. This belief was popularized in a little red booklet titled The Trail of Blood, written by 19th century Baptist preacher J.M. Carroll. Here’s an excerpt:

…It is a significant fact well established in credible history that even as far back as the fourth century those refusing to go into the Hierarchy, and refusing to accept the baptism or those baptized in infancy, and refusing to accept the doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration” and demanding rebaptism for all those who came to them from the Hierarchy, were called “Ana-Baptists.” No matter what other names they then bore, they were always referred to as “Ana-Baptists.” Near the beginning of the sixteenth century, the “Ana” was dropped, and the name shortened to simply “Baptist,” and gradually all other names were dropped. Evidently, if Bunyan had lived in an earlier period his followers would have been called “Bunyanites” or “Ana-Baptists.” Probably they would have been called by both names as were others preceding him.

The name “Baptist” is a “nickname,” and was given to them by their enemies (unless the name can be rightfully attributed to them as having been given to them by the Savior Himself, when He referred to John as “The Baptist”). To this day, the name has never been officially adopted by any group of Baptists. The name, however, has become fixed and is willingly accepted and proudly borne. It snugly fits. It was the distinguishing name of the forerunner of Christ, the first to teach the doctrine to which the Baptists now hold…

… These Christians, during these dark days of many centuries, were called by many different names, all given to them by their enemies. These names were sometimes given because of some specially prominent and heroic leader and sometimes from other causes; and sometimes, yea, many times, the same people, holding the same views, were called by different names in different localities. But amid all the many changes of names, there was one special name or rather designation, which clung to at least some of these Christians, throughout all the “Dark Ages,” that designation being “Ana-Baptist.” This compound word applied as a designation of some certain Christians was first found in history during the third century; and a suggestive fact soon after the origin of Infant Baptism, and a more suggestive fact even prior to the use of the name Catholic. Thus the name “Ana-Baptists” is the oldest denominational name in history.

A striking peculiarity of these Christians was and continued to be in succeeding centuries: They rejected the man-made doctrine of “Infant Baptism” and demanded rebaptism, even though done by immersion for all those who came to them, having been baptized in infancy. For this peculiarity they were called “Ana-Baptists.”

This, special designation was applied to many of these Christians who bore other nicknames; especially is this true of the Donatists, Paulicians, Albigenses and Ancient Waldenses and others. In later centuries this designation came to be a regular name, applied to a distinct group. These were simply called “Ana- Baptists” and gradually all other names were dropped. Very early in the sixteenth century, even prior to the origin of the Lutheran Church, the first of all the Protestant Churches, the word “ana” was beginning to be left off, and they were simply called “Baptists.”…

The preachers also taught me that the rapture of the church, the removing of all the Christians from the earth, was imminent. Jesus Christ was coming soon, it could happen today, was drilled into my head by every preacher that preached from the Trinity pulpit. There was a sense of urgency in their preaching; get saved today, lest it be too late.  As was typical for Evangelicals churches in the 1970’s, the preachers spent a fair amount of time preaching on eschatological subjects like the rapture, the tribulation, the second coming, the premillennial return of Christ, the 1,000 year reign of Christ, the great white throne judgment, and the BEMA seat judgment  Eschatological preaching was the fuel that stoked the furnace of evangelism.  Jesus is coming soon, church members were told.  Time to be busy winning souls and working while it is yet day, for night cometh when no man can work.

The beliefs I have shared so far were innocuous. However, there were other beliefs that, once rooted in my mind, later caused great damage. What follows caused great harm, not only to me, but to my family and those who would later call me pastor. In some ways, due to guilt, these beliefs still affect me.

The preachers taught me a rules based Christianity. This is commonly called legalism. While the pastors at Trinity preached salvation by grace, what I understood from their preaching was that to be a real Christian you had to follow the rules. While I am now of the opinion that virtually all forms of Christianity and religion have legalistic influences, the rules at Trinity and the rules that are pervasive in the IFB church movement are legalism on steroids.

clarence larkin chart

Clarence Larkin, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (full size here)

The preachers were dispensationalists, adhering to the eschatological teachings of Clarence Larkin and the Scofield Reference Bible. They taught that we were no longer under the dispensation of law. Thanks to Jesus’s death, resurrection from the dead, and ascension back to heaven, we now live in the dispensation of grace. In the dispensation of grace, the New Covenant teachings of the New Testament are considered God’s law. Well that and any inference, application, rule, or standard IFB preachers made up based on their own convictions and preferences. While every preacher would say their laws, also called standards, were from the Bible, it seemed every preacher had a different set of rules and laws.

As I shared in  posts titled An Independent Baptist Hate List, and How Fundamentalist Preachers Take the Fun Out of Everything,  there were rules for almost everything, from clothing and hair to music and movies and from hand holding and dating to dancing and gambling. The older I got, the longer my list of sins became. While these sins didn’t keep someone from being a Christian, it was made clear that a real Christian would obey all the rules, especially those with a proof text attached to them.

The preachers taught me to be judgmental, not only of myself, but of others. Everything was judged according to the rules, the standards of the church. I wasn’t allowed to go to dances, square dance in gym class, listen to secular music, have long hair, wear worldly clothing, date non-Baptist girls, or sing secular songs in choir. The world was evil and so was the flesh. Only in Jesus and the teachings of the King James Bible, could I, or anyone for that matter, find purpose, meaning, calling, and fulfillment. According to the preachers, a life without Jesus and the teachings of the King James Bible was empty and filled with brokenness and heartache.

Evidence for the Existence of Evangelical God: Bruce, Look at the Stars

carl sagan dot

Evangelicals believe the Christian God reveals himself to every human through:

  • Creation
  • Conscience
  • Divine Revelation (The Bible)

In this post, I want to focus on the Christian God revealing himself to us through creation. On a clear night, I can look skyward and see a vast array of stars and planets. Recently, Jupiter and Venus were in perfect alignment, a wonder to behold in the Western sky. Last week, the New Horizons spacecraft sent back pictures of Pluto, amazing both the atheist and the Evangelical.

Both the atheist and Evangelical look to the sky and contemplate its vastness and awesomeness. When the Evangelical looks at the sky they see the handiwork of  their God.  They are certain that the Christian God created everything.  The atheist, however, points to science and its explanations of the universe.  The atheist has a lot of questions, questions science has not yet answered. These questions may or may not be answered in the future. The Evangelical, using the creation framework in Genesis 1-3, is satisfied that the Christian God created the universe. No matter what science tells us about the universe, the Bible explanation is the superior and final explanation. If science conflicts with the Bible, science is wrong.

When an Evangelical uses the creation argument with me, I agree with them. I don’t really agree with them, but for the sake of argument, I say, OK, I agree that someone can look at the night sky and wonder if a God created everything. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that a God, a divine force, the first cause, the master holographic programmer created or designed the universe. Since science has yet to tell us all we need to know about the beginning of the universe, perhaps one day we will discover that a God of some sort created everything. I doubt it, but it is certainly possible, just like it is possible the Cincinnati Reds will overcome a 16.5 game deficit in the standings and win the World Series.

Once I grant the Evangelical position, I then ask, how does one get from A GOD to THE GOD, the God of the Evangelical Bible? What is there in the night sky that says the Evangelical God created the universe? It is at this point the Evangelical says, THE BIBLE SAYS, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Once the Evangelical appeals to the Bible, they’ve lost the argument. Why? Because science tells us that the creation account in Genesis is not true. Once drawn back into the confines of the printed page, the Evangelical is forced to defend all sorts of absurd beliefs, beliefs that can only be swallowed with a large dose of blindness and faith.

But, Bruce, look at the various creation myths. Don’t they ALL testify to there being a creator? Again, the Evangelical is not arguing for a generic, adaptable creator. They are arguing for a specific creator, the one spoken of in the Bible. Even here, I am willing to grant the Evangelical’s assertion. The question remains the same. Why is the Evangelical creation myth true and all others false? Why should I believe the Evangelical myth and not one of the other creation myths?

By appealing to the Bible and the creation account recorded in Genesis 1-3, the Evangelical also must defend everything from a talking, walking upright snake to polytheism.  Since the night sky itself is not enough to tell us the Evangelical God created the universe, the Evangelical must appeal to the presuppositions they’ve derived from the Bible. With one hand, the Evangelical points to the sky and with the other hand points to the Bible. As I have stated many times before, the Abrahamic religions are text-based. For the Evangelical, the Bible is the foundation upon which their religious house is built. Destroy the foundation and the Evangelical house comes tumbling down.