According to Discover magazine, “Charles Darwin, the naturalist best known for his theories of natural selection, described evolution “as ‘descent with modification.’” That means humans descended from common (and now extinct) ape ancestors that lived millions of years ago, a process also referred to as “common descent.” While we share our ancestry with these animals, along the way, over millions of years, we all changed. “[We] each adapted to our own environments or specific circumstances or niches,” says Cofran. It’s believed that this human divergence from the chimpanzee lineage of apes happened between 9.3 and 6.5 million years ago.”
There are so many errors and lies in that paragraph! [So says a man with a Bible College education] If the Bible is a correct record of history – and it most certainly IS – then there is no such thing as millions of years. There is no such thing as ‘descent with modification’ because God made each species unique, and reproduction was always “after his kind.”
….
Now, we have an omniscient God. Darwin’s beliefs didn’t surprise God. So, why would God go ahead and create an animal with such similarities to man, knowing that man was going to create such a blasphemous, heretical doctrine that would lead millions astray through the years?
….
Man was presented with a choice: Worship and serve God or worship and serve His creation. Believe what the Bible says or believe the foolish inventions and imaginations of man. We learn a lot about those who will follow the pseudo-science. God says that they are fools with their foolish hearts darkened. They are not wise. They are fools. And God gave them up because of this.
— John MacFarlane, Pastor of First Baptist Church, Bryan, Ohio, Let’s Go Ape, December 14, 2024
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, has been busy writing about me and my British friend, Ben Berwick. Thiessen swore off using our content for “teaching,” but much like a crack addict, he failed to remain drug-free. Our posts are a drug he just can’t give up. I largely ignore his posts, but I thought I would share with readers a few excerpts from his recent posts about me. Ben has also responded to Thiessen. You can read his posts here, here, and here.
What follows are excerpts from four posts Thiessen has written about me since October 28, 2024. All spelling, grammar, punctuation, and irrationality in the originals.
As for BG [Bruce Gerencser], we wonder how his health is doing as he is taking longer breaks between writing content. We hope his health has not deteriorated too much.
Sometimes we wonder if he is trying to assuage some guilt by posting content that seems more positive toward Christianity than negative. He doesn’t really critique our content anymore and publishes other topics that seem to spread the good news about Christ and Christian living rather than oppose it.
We checked the BG and MM websites to see what they had to say about the election results. Needless to say, their responses have been consistent with a majority of athletes and celebrities who have, as Sky News labels their reactions, had meltdowns.
It is actually quite disturbing to read their responses as their treatment of Mr. Trump violates a lot of characteristics they claim to have about treating others, as well as violating the scriptures, ‘do unto others as you would like to be treated’.
We find their responses to be on the verge of delivering them into the realm of insanity. Some responses had youtubers screaming and wailing toward their viewers in a totally unhinged reaction to losing. All of them, including, BG and MM, have forgotten about how to be good losers.
….
He [Bruce Gerencser] must have been watching a different Former President Trump than we saw as none of that is true. In fact, he just appointed a female head of staff so the accusations do not fit. But this is the way it is with democrats, liberals, and leftists. They hold minor things over people’s heads forever depriving them of the right to change and be better people.
….
G should also look in the mirror when he describes MR. Trump in those terms as he has treated evangelicals and other Christians in the same manner. He is not perfect so he should not be saying one word.
Plus, his words show that BG is part of the problem much like the New York and New Jersey Governors, along with the female NY Attorney General who have made public statements containing threats against Mr. Trump.
The problem is not Mr. Trump, but the attitude of those who oppose him. We listened to his victory speech and none of those words ring true as Mr. Trump seeks to heal the nation not continue the divisiveness that the democrats have caused.
….
This is nothing but lies as Mr. Trump praised his wife as well as other women working for him throughout the campaign. Since he has been faithful to one wife for a long time, it is doubtful he is a predator. But democrats, etc., ignore the good and only focus on the bad to dehumanize others while trying to bully them into submission.
….
Except for the last line, none of this is true. Harris got over 65 million votes and some of those had to be men. or all the celebrities and athletes who said they would vote for her changed their minds and voted for Trump. But this is the level of nonsense the left brings to America.
They [Bruce Gerencser and Ben Berwick] look for excuses to blame anyone or anything for their candidate’s failure. The loss rests solely on Harris and her advisors shoulders for hiding away from press conferences and saying she would not change a thing from what Biden had done.
The mere fact that both people were unqualified & uneducated seems to be outside of the democrats scope and view. They suffer too much from TDS to see the real picture.
….
This is just another lie as it ignores Mr. Trump’s accomplishments in his first term. It is amazing that BG ignores all the people who have been killed by illegal aliens under Biden’s & Harris’ watch. The country has been through 4 years of dark times already and Mr. Trump, with God’s help, will change that.
No one cares which party BG will support. He is just a speck of sand in a sea of sand hills. His insane rhetoric puts him on the fringe and is in need of some therapy. Then there is MM who did not write as much but felt he had to attack Mr. Trump as well.
….
This is just stupid and not dealing with reality. It is also not true. It is a waste of time proving how wrong he is. YOu can read some of the accomplishments here. Besides building a wall to protect the country and fellow citizens he loves, Mr. Trump had a great first term. As for cognitive decay, that is just wishful thinking by anti-Trump people.
….
The evidence that BG and MM have decided against following god and his way is seen in their quotes. They think they are better by forcing or bullying others to do as they want. But in reality, that makes them worse than they accuse Mr. Trump and evangelicals of being.
We have often said you cannot be Christian and vote for or support democrats but as you can see by the reaction of the athletes, celebrities, and politicians, as well as their supporters, there is nothing Christian in the democrat party or side of politics.
It is best for Christians to stay away from them and the misguided ‘Evangelicals for Harris’ and similar people. Do unto others does not exclude those you disagree with and Mr. Trump seems to be extending the fig leaf of peace to save the nation he loves and protect his fellow citizens. He gets it while many of the democrat supporters, etc., do not.
No matter where Christians turn, there is always some unbeliever putting forth often refuted arguments and thinking those arguments are true. BG is just one of those people and he continues to proclaim long-dead arguments that go nowhere and prove nothing. Here are some samples of his attempts to persuade himself that God does not exist.
….
He is wrong of course. Atheists have tried for millennia to produce alternative answers to the Biblical record. They have always failed every time. Our origins is just one subject that atheists can’t answer as they cannot produce one shred of credible evidence supporting their point of view.
….
Bg actually does know as he preached about it for 25 years. He just won’t admit it. Christians know because we have all the evidence supporting the biblical record. He won’t admit that either.
….
Being a ‘faith claim’ does not exclude the answer from being true. Especially since all research fields have produced more evidence supporting the biblical record, this is more than a faith claim. It is proclaiming what truly happened.
The question ‘Were you there…’ is not illogical because it points out the fact that unbelievers are making faith claims of their own. They were not there, they did not see life develop thus their claims about life development are all based on faith.
Unbelieving scientists do not know what took place as they have no verifiable or credible evidence supporting their views. Since the Big Bang and Evolutionary theories violate the observable principle of science, these so-called learned men and women cannot come to the truth. They do not know if their mechanisms actually work or not.
….
Sure it is fair to ask that question of Christians. We may not have been there BUT we got the word from someone who was. The scientists do not even have that advantage. His point i smoot as everyone has to take the scientists’ claims on faith as no one but scientists were in their laboratories when the experiments were conducted.
In other words, BG and other unbelievers do not have a leg to stand on. Their conclusions are based on faith as they cannot go back in time to see if their results matched their historical claims about life development. Evolution and the Big Bang are nothing but faith claims.
….
Evolutionary scientists do the same thing. They do special pleading as everyone is supposed to take their word for it, an action Bg and other unbelievers hate when asked to do it for God. Then, all of science’s claims are human-written making their argument against biblical authors and God, moot.
….
Yes, there is but BG won’t admit it.
….
Not true.
….
Also not true and we have heard of more scientific lies and distortion of scientific facts committed by unbelievers than by Christians. The only people trying to fit the ‘evidence’ to their theory are those who accept and believe the evolutionary theory.
….
We know of many cases where forensic scientists have altered, distorted, and misrepresented science and scientific results to get convictions than Christians have been accused of. BG has no argument because he keeps repeating the same old tired arguments that have been refuted for millennia.
No unbeliever has any smoking gun evidence hidden away that would destroy or prove the Bible untrue. They are desperately grabbing at straws knowing they cannot win this debate.
BG has written an article lambasting Christians and God over a lack of supposed healing/
….
He and other unbelievers will never understand how God works. The main reason is that they do not believe in God or that he exists. So how can they understand? They will reject any legitimate explanation in favor of trashing spiritual beliefs.
….
But again, unbelievers do not accept these facts so they continue to criticize the Christian faith. The Bible also tells us that God’s ways and thinking are higher than ours, so how can Christians fully understand something that is beyond their capacity to grasp? It is for sure that unbelievers cannot grasp the reasons God does what he does.
….
They would rather insult and attack than take the time to honestly learn about God. It is not up to us to criticize God’s decisions rather we are to learn from our experience and see how God works everything together for his good and ours.
….
Yes, God could have healed her and millions of other Christians immediately. Would that have brought the person to a greater knowledge of God or to a level of trust? Not always. There may be lessons God wants the woman and other Christians to learn. We just are not privy to God’s intentions and he does not answer to us.
Instead, we learn to be patient until it is time to learn the correct lesson. But one of the most important lessons is that Christians are under, the verse, ‘it is appointed unto man once to die’ In other words Christians die and there is no escaping that event just because they believe in Jesus.
Yes, Jesus will heal people but when it is their time to pass on, there is no more healing in the works for those individuals.
….
We could say the same thing about modern secular medicine. Many doctors are great diagnosticians, but when it comes to healing, their track record thanthey claim God is in this department. Has BG looked at himself lately?
He claims to have several diseases and trusts medical science to find a cure. Yet he has suffered for approx., 14 years, and medical science has no cure for many of his ailments. WHy does he trust medical science and suffer through such great pain and discomfort when medical science has failed him?
Non-Christians like to point fingers and accuse God of the failures that medical science has. Unfortunately for BG, medical science is not greater than he is and has no higher purpose in keeping him sick.
….
They may avoid healing him so they can have a continuous cash income from his insurance but they are no better than he accuses God.
….
No, not true. The bad light is caused by unbelievers as they fail to understand how life works. The Bible tells us that both the righteous and unrighteous will suffer so we were warned about this in advance. We accept the fact that there will be Christians who suffer medically. It is a fact of life.
We just leave these things in God’s hands and look for the solution with his guidance. As the Bible says, we are not to worry about these things.
The unbeliever will rarely grasp these truths and when they recognize that they don’t it is best that they just ask questions and consider the answers honestly. They are in no position to criticize as they do not have an alternative to God. BG says:
For the atheist, in science we trust.
That is a misplaced trust for 100% of all medical science patients have died from day one of human existence till now. That is a lousy statistic to build trust in something that has no power over life or death. The track record of science is dismal and at no time should Christians trust science over God.
— end of excerpts.
As you can readily see, Thiessen doesn’t critique or respond to my posts. He quotes Bible verses, personally attacks me, and pompously and arrogantly says I am wrong. His comments about my health were offensive, well beyond thoughtful dialog. Why he refuses to thoughtfully and intelligently respond to my writing is a question for him to answer. I have my own opinion on the matter, but I will refrain from sharing it.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Several days ago, I received the following email from an Evangelical man:
So where did it all come from. The known universe before the bang?
Over the past seventeen years, I have received scores of emails from Evangelicals posing this very question or something similar. Evangelicals think that this question is some sort of “gotcha” question atheists can’t answer; that by being unable to answer this question, atheists show the bankruptcy of atheism.
I am going to surprise the man who wrote this email by answering his question: I DON’T KNOW! No one knows where “it” came from; where the universe came from before the Big Bang. Atheists can’t answer this question, but neither can Christians. Saying GOD DID IT! is a faith claim, as is quoting verses from Genesis 1-3. To quote the great intellectual and scholar Ken “Hambo” Ham, “Were you there?” Ham loves to use this line of illogic when challenging evolutionists and other scientists. Since these learned men and women didn’t observe firsthand the beginning of the universe (and what became before the Big Bang), they can’t possibly “know” what happened. However, what’s good for the proverbial goose is good for the gander. When Evangelicals say GOD DID IT! it is fair for scientists to ask, “Were you there?” If not, then Christians cannot possibly know whether the Christian God created the universe or exists outside of space and time. These are faith claims, not science.
Of course, Ham and other creationists resort to special pleading to defend and justify their beliefs. The Bible is different from any other book, Evangelicals say. Written by God through human instrumentality, the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. Thus, we can KNOW who created the universe and when and how he did it by reading the Bible! The problem with this argument is that there is no evidence for the claim that the Christian God wrote the Bible. There’s a plethora of evidence, however, that suggests the Bible is the work of fallible men. Believing the Bible was written by God and is somehow, in some way, a one-of-a-kind divine text requires faith. Deep down, creationists know this, and that’s why Answers in Genesis, Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research, and dozens of other groups, spend countless hours trying to make science “fit” the creationist narrative. Faith is not enough for these zealots. They desperately want respectability and are willing to lie, distort scientific facts, and misrepresent science to get it. Yet, despite all their “scientific” work, creationism remains a matter of faith, not science.
Creationists can no more answer the aforementioned questions than atheists can. The difference between Evangelicals and evolutionists (a derogatory term often used by Evangelicals as a label for science in general) however, is that scientists continue to work towards answering the question of how the universe began and explaining what existed before the Big Bang. Science may never satisfactorily and completely answer these questions, and I am fine with that. Not every question — presently — is answerable. Evangelicals, armed with arrogance and certainty, think the Bible reveals to them everything they need to know about life. “The Bible says” becomes the answer to countless complex, difficult science questions. The underlying issue is that Evangelicals need to be right; to have “Biblical” answers for every question. Evangelicals have become the insufferable man at a party who dominates the discussion and has answers for every question. Or at least he thinks he does, anyway.
Let me conclude this post with this: atheism and evolution are not the same, any more than atheism and liberalism are the same. Atheism is defined this way: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. While it is certainly true that many atheists are evolutionists and political liberals, that cannot be said of all atheists. Atheism is a singular statement about the existence of deities. From there, atheists go in all sorts of ways.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Dr. David Tee, World Renowned Denier of Science, Observations, October 24, 2024.
On the back of the book (Stephen Hawkings — The Origin of Everything), and we are quoting from memory, the book said that scientists have finally got to the point where they understand and know where are origins began. Or something close to that.
As we read those few lines, the first thought was, what a waste of time. The secular scientists still have no clue about our origins because they omit the truth concerning that topic. They have yet to verify that our origins were by natural means.
They come up with different theories but not one of those theories puts the biblical supernatural creative act in jeopardy. The second thought we had and another reason we consider the book and the secular scientific work a waste of time is that God already explained our origins.
The scientists exploring and pursuing an alternative to the Biblical creation act simply wasted their intelligence, time, and money. They have spent years and valuable resources pursuing a topic that has already been answered
That is a waste considering the millions of people who could have benefitted from a wiser use of those three elements. But is the secular world for you. They would rather waste precious time, money, and intelligence pursuing a false idea than humble themselves and accept the truth.
….
As we have said for years, unbelievers always take the wrong paths, in the wrong directions and look in the wrong places for the wrong answers. They never learn or refuse to learn when the truth is presented to them.
Unbelieving scientists need our prayers so that the truth is revealed to them and their eyes are opened once and for all. Those prayers need to include all those Christian scientists and students who listen to the unbelievers and follow their counsel and not God’s
….
Throughout the world Christians can see the difference between the unbelieving world and the believing world. When they do recognize this difference, they will understand why God said to not follow or listen to unbelievers.
Unbelievers do not have the truth and many do not want it. We have read on many occasions where unbelieving scientists say that even if the Bible is proven true, they would not accept it. That is a sad state to be in and shows Christians we still have a lot of work left to do.
The unbelieving world uses its immoral standards and self-righteous attitudes to attack Christians, not realizing how bad off they are. They are merely pawns being used to harm unwary Christians
….
The right information does not come from unbelievers.
It comes from God and the Bible. Learn the truth and teach your children the truth before they come under attack from unbelieving teachers and professors. Giving them the right information is protecting your children.
Thiessen is not a scientist, and, as far as I know, has no science training apart from what he was taught in Bible college. He is no more qualified to opine on evolution than I am physics. That’s not to say that Thiessen doesn’t know anything about science. He knows enough to make it seem to uneducated Evangelicals that he is some sort of authority figure. This is common in Evangelical churches where preachers are viewed as authority figures in areas in which they have no relevant expertise.
What follows are excerpts from Thiessen’s latest posts. Laugh, ridicule, or weep, but never forget that scores of people agree with Thiessen, even if they might disagree with his ham-fisted approach.
There is only one single view that all Christians must accept and hold to. That view is the creation act revealed in Genesis 1. Every other viewpoint that alters or disagrees with this one biblical revelation is false teaching.
….
Evolutionary scientists make a lot of assumptions. The reason for this is . . . they cannot replicate claims made about ‘historical evolution’. It is an impossibility as they have no way of developing partial samples to experiment with.
This failure is another piece of evidence showing that evolution is not true. We do not have to worry about scientifically replicating any results of god’s creative act as it is done on an hourly basis every day.
….
No, other approaches do make scientific sense if science would be more open-minded about our origins. Science cannot study the one-time act nor replicate it. But it can prove that all life goes as stated in Genesis 1. That means God’s creative act makes scientific sense.
….
The truth never changes which is why Christian colleges, etc., need to stand with God and the Bible. Neither has changed over the thousands of years this world has existed. Evolution is whatever the evolutionist wants it to be no matter who it hurts.
….
There is no scientific evidence for any alternative to Genesis 1. All scientific evidence for those alternatives is manipulated to show support and read into any experiment they make. Plus, science has not discovered or tested one mechanism they say is involved in evolutionary human development.
….
To many unbelievers and unbelieving scientists, scientific media outlets and organizations evolution is dogma and settled science, not a theory. Evolution should never be taught in any school except to show why it is wrong and never existed. It is a theory that should never be considered for anything else.
….
It [the Bible] also tells us how God created. There is no room for any other theory to explain our origins. We know everything about our origins as the Bible reveals this creative act correctly. The opinion of Mr. Wright is one that is used to justify denying what God wrote about himself and says that God is incapable of writing about himself and his actions.
….
Any form of evolution is not true, it is not honorable, especially towards God, and it is not right or pure. Plus, evolution is not lovely or commendable as it caused great harm to millions throughout history and today, and it is not in any way shape, or form excellent or worthy of praise.
Evolution is nothing but a deceptive lie that has no place in any part of Christianity or its academic institutions. One cannot take science over God as the former is not the ultimate authority over anything.
Science, like many tools, is used to destroy people and Christians need to be aware of it before jumping on board scientific research. Christians can not teach other Christians to accept science over God’s word. If they do, they are leading those students to sin against God. That is very wrong.
If you don’t teach creation [ism] as true, then why teach the Bible at all? Or another good question why claim you are a Christian if you think the Bible is in error?
….
Good exegesis does require that everyone accept God’s word and does not hint at him being a liar. There is no evidence in scripture or nature that a process was involved in the origin of everything.
….
The very first biblical verse [Genesis 1:1] does not imply a process. Neither do the words ‘Let there be’ Every step of the creative act supports a supernatural creative act leaving no room for processes.
….
First, there is no evidence supporting evolution. To get evidence, scientists would have to produce the original conditions and let life take its course. With no intelligent being involved in the origination or development of life, scientists cannot be a part of any evolutionary experiment.
Then their ‘experimental’ set-up would have to produce the same results as scientists claim took place in their version of human history. If millions of years are needed for this production of verifiable evidence, then evolution is not true. One does not have evidence to support their extraordinary claims.
….
While the information about the fossilization of life forms is true, evolutionists will ignore this fact and claim the fossil record supports evolution. Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, everything about evolution is read into fossils not taken out of it.
Fossils do not support an evolutionary process. They are pawns in a high-stakes game that evil uses to deceive people.
….
If Christian colleges are not pursuing truth but academic freedom, then the truth is lost and Christians are not getting the right spiritual food to grow strong and maintain their faith. You get what we have today, false teachers teaching false doctrine to vulnerable people. That is not a recipe for success.
After browsing the science books placed on the tables [at a book fair], we came to the conclusion that we do not need to read unbelieving science books anymore.
There are good reasons for following that realization. First, all the authors are telling the same story. They all do not depart from the main evolutionary claims or themes. Thus, they are boring to read. We figure they are writing these works to avoid the perish part of the academic publish-or-perish mentality.
Second, they offer no new evidence especially any that would be considered groundbreaking or history-changing. No new ‘physical evidence’ has been discovered or reported from the evolutionary side of the creation debate.
Anything they would present would be preceded or followed by the words ‘We Think’, ‘We Believe’. ‘it is possible’, ‘we do not know’, and similar phrases all evolutionary scientists cover their theories with. The last one is the most telling as it openly tells everyone they cannot find an alternative to God’s creative act.
Their evolutionary theories, etc., are merely wishful thinking and a waste of everyone’s time. Third, those first two points add up to the fact that it would be a giant waste of time reading those books.
They are nothing but false teaching and no Christian should be reading them unless they are looking for data and points to refute as well as show students why evolution and the Big Bang are wrong. These books provide no other type of valuable information.
Save your money or use it to buy solid, good Christian books written by true Christian scientists who believe in a 6 24-hour day creation. Remember, unbelievers do not have the truth and that includes all research fields under the science umbrella.
Every alternative to God’s creative act found in the Bible is false and untrue. Find Christian works that support Genesis 1 and 2 and learn the truth about our origins. Learn to strengthen your faith, not undermine it by accepting and adopting false information written by deceived people who are far from the truth.
Only God was there when creation took place and scientists cannot see back in time. It is laughable to think that evidence would survive billions and millions of years untouched by anything else.
— End excerpts
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Several years ago, an Evangelical man by the name of Steve left the following comment on the post titled, An Atheist Thanksgiving:
You went from being unsaved to a flat out reprobate buddy. You rejected the God of the Bible to believe you evolved from a rock which came from and explosion 13.8586.678 billion years ago. I agree that these old IFB pastors you pick on all the time have no spine and are just in it for the money but to believe you came from a monkey which nobody has ever seen a monkey turn into a human! Never! You just traded one religion for another. You traded Paul the apostle for that Pedo Richard Dawkins! Have fun in hell buddy
I will leave it to Brian — a former Independent Fundamentalist Baptist preacher’s son — to answer Steve’s comment:
I read Steve P’s post sentence by sentence and tried to find even one sentence that approaches an accurate statement. I was unable to see even one in the lot. Accuracy/truth seems very unimportant to Steve P. Is this true belief in God, this parrot-dull squawking? (with apologies to parrots, who at least make their dull repetitions entertaining!)
Some day, perhaps, Evangelicals will realize that threatening me with their God’s judgment and Hell has no effect on me. The only God I fear is Polly and the only Hell I know is Trump’s America.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
An Evangelical pastor whom I have known for over forty years sent me some questions, the answers to which appear below. He previously asked me some questions which I answered in a post titled, Four Questions from an Evangelical Pastor. I found his questions sincere and honest, unlike many questions I receive from Evangelicals. Far too often, ulterior motivations lurk behind some questions, but I don’t sense that here. Hopefully, readers of this blog will find my answers helpful.
Are There Different Levels of Atheism
The short answer is no. Atheism is defined thusly: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. That’s it. Unlike Christianity — a hopelessly fragmented group — all atheists agree on one thing: atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. From that point, atheist beliefs go in all sorts of directions.
Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: “I do not believe, I know.” De facto theist.
Very high probability but short of 100%. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”Leaning towards theism.
Higher than 50% but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.” Completely impartial.
Exactly 50%. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.” Leaning towards atheism.
Lower than 50% but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”
De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”
Atheists debate amongst themselves Dawkins’ scale, and whether agnostics are, in fact, atheists. Agnostics believe that the existence of God, of the divine, or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. (Wikipedia) Another definition of agnosticism is as follows:
In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational. (Richard Rowe, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)
Enlightenment deism consisted of two philosophical assertions: (a) reason, along with features of the natural world, is a valid source of religious knowledge, and (b) revelation is not a valid source of religious knowledge. Different deist authors expanded on these two assertions to create what Leslie Stephen later termed the “constructive” and “critical” aspects of deism. “Constructive” assertions— assertions that deist writers felt were justified by appeals to reason and features of the natural world (or perhaps were intuitively obvious) — included:
God exists and created the universe.
God gave humans the ability to reason.
“Critical” assertions— assertions that followed from the denial of revelation as a valid source of religious knowledge— were much more numerous. They included:
Rejection of all books, including the Bible, that are claimed to contain divine revelation.
Rejection of the incomprehensible notion of the Trinity and other religious “mysteries”.
Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies, etc.
True Christianity
All deists rejected the Bible as a book of divine revelation. If you define “a Christian” as a person who accepts the stories in the Bible as true, divine revelations, the deists were not Christians. They rejected the miracle stories in the Bible and rejected the divinity of Jesus. Many, however, accepted Jesus as an actual historical person and held him in high regard as a moral teacher. (This position is known as Christian deism and was Thomas Jefferson’s motive for assembling his famous Jefferson Bible.) On the other hand, if you define “a true Christian” as a person who regards the historical human person Jesus as a great moral teacher and attempts to follow Jesus’ moral teachings, many deists considered themselves to be true Christians. Some deists were of the opinion that Jesus taught timeless moral truths, that those moral truths were the essence of Christianity, and since those truths are timeless, they predate Jesus’ teachings.
I have long believed that someone could look at the night sky and conclude that a deity of some sort created the universe; and that after creating the universe, this deity said, “There ya go, boys and girls, do with it what you will.” This God is unknowable and non-involved in our day-to-day lives. Believe in this deity or not, it exists. Some readers of this blog will call this deity divine energy or power. Of course, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that what we call “life” is, in actuality, a Westworld-like alien game simulation. Once I was freed from the authority and bondage of the Bible, I was free to think more freely about human existence. Who knows, maybe “reality” is an illusion.
Here is my take: I am an agnostic atheist. I cannot know for certain whether a deity of some sort exists. It is possible, though unlikely, that a deity of some sort might reveal itself to us someday. Possible, but improbable. For me, it is all about probabilities. (And the probability of the existence of any deity, let alone the Evangelical God, is minuscule.) On the Dawkins scale I am a six. The currently available evidence leads me to conclude that there is no God or gods. I am open to the possibility of the existence of one or more deities should evidence of their existence ever be provided, but, until then, I live my day-to-day life as an atheist. The only time thoughts about God enter my mind is when I am writing for this blog.
That said, let me be clear: I am not an anti-theist. Some atheists are vociferously and stridently anti-religion. I am not one of them. This has led to all sorts of criticisms and attacks from what I call the Fundamentalist wing of atheism. On occasion, I have had anti-theists tell me that I am not a True Atheist®. I laugh when such arguments are made, thinking, “Is this not the same argument Evangelicals use against me when they say I was never a “True Christian®?”
Do All Atheists Rely Strictly on Science and History for Answers?
Strictly or solely? No. Once we move from the base definition of atheism, atheists go in all sorts of directions philosophically, politically, socially, and even religiously. Yep, you will run into atheists who view themselves as “spiritual.” I have been blogging for seventeen years. I have met all sorts of atheists. Over the years, several pro-Trump, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual atheists/agnostics have commented on this blog. I don’t understand their viewpoints and logic, but I don’t have to. Atheists are free to meander every which way from “atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” One can be an atheist and be irrational; and believe me, more than a few atheists are as dumb as rocks. Some atheists will comment on this blog and leave me scratching my head, saying “huh?” I rarely respond to such people. I let them say their piece, hoping my silence tells them all they need to know.
This would be a good point to mention the fact that most atheists are humanists. There’s nothing in atheism that gives a person moral or ethical grounding. Atheists look to humanism to find a framework by which to live their lives. The Humanist Manifesto remains the best summary of humanism:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.
Do All Atheists Believe in Evolution?
Since I am not party to what all atheists believe, I can’t speak authoritatively on the matter. I can say that all of the atheists I know generally accept biological evolution as a scientific fact. While the word “belief” can be used in a variety of ways, in the context of evolution, atheists don’t believe in evolution. Belief, in this context, much like with religion, implies the use of feelings to come to a conclusion. Most atheists I know would say that their acceptance of evolution and other scientific conclusions rests on evidence, facts, and probabilities, not their feelings.
For most of my life, I was illiterate when it came to science. I believed that Genesis 1-3 told me all I needed to know about biology, cosmology, and the like. God created everything just as it is recorded in the inspired, inerrant, infallible Bible — end of discussion. I had a few creationist-oriented Evangelical apologetical books in my library. All these books did for me was affirm that I was “right.” It wasn’t until I was disabused by Dr. Bart Ehrman and others of the notion that the Bible was some sort of perfect, supernatural book that I was able to question what it was exactly I believed about science.
Let me be clear, I am not a scientist. I know a hell of a lot more about science today than I did a few years ago, or when I was a Bible-believing preacher, but that doesn’t mean I can speak authoritatively on matters of science. I continue to educate myself, but at my age, I will likely run out of time before I master any specific scientific discipline. I hope that one or more of my grandchildren will do so and become what their grandfather could not. Many of my grandchildren are straight-A students, so I have high hopes that some of them will enter STEM programs post-high school.
I know where I am lacking knowledge-wise, and I do my best to not speak beyond that which I know. Want to talk about the Bible, Evangelicalism, theology, photography, Lionel O Gauge trains, or Windows-based computers? You will find that I generally know what I am talking about. However, when it comes to biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, archeology, and other scientific disciplines, I am, in every way, a novice. It is for this reason that I rely on experts to tell me what I need to know about science. Smart is the person who values expertise. I have certain scientists I trust to tell me the truth. “So, Bruce, does this mean you put “faith” in what they say?” Yes. Many atheists shy away from the word faith because of its religious connotations. However, I refuse to let religion hijack certain words. Faith means “confidence in a person or plan.” There are scientists that I put great confidence in; when they speak, I listen. No, these men and women are not infallible, but they have given their lives to understanding this or that science discipline, so I trust what they say.
In Christianity, There is so Much Disagreement! How About Among Atheists?
There’s no doubt that Christianity is the most fragmented religion on the planet. I have long argued that if Christians were unified theologically that I might at least pause for a moment when considering the “God question.” However, there are thousands and thousands of Christian sects, each with its own version of the “faith once delivered to the saints.” This disunity says to me that Christianity is very much of human origin.
I wish I could say that atheism is monolithic, and everyone thinks and believes the same things. Sadly, atheism is quite divided too. Not so much on the core belief: “atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” Every atheist I know believes this statement to be an accurate definition of their view on God or gods. However, recent years have brought attempts by some to expand the definition of atheism to include social justice issues. This spawned a group called Atheism+. While there was a moment when I thought Atheism+ might be worthwhile, I quickly thought better of it after seeing who it was that was driving this attempt to redefine atheism. Socially and politically, I am as liberal as you come, but I saw Atheism+ as a purity test; an attempt to divide atheism between us and them. I concluded that the proponents of Atheism+ were using methodologies eerily similar to those I saw in Evangelicalism. No thanks. And let me be clear to Atheism+ flag-wavers, I have zero interest in re-ligating this issue with you in the comment section. Been there, done that, still bleeding.
Here’s one thing I know about most atheists. We can heartily disagree with one another and later enjoy each other’s company at a pub or restaurant. Back in my Evangelical days, every disagreement had eternal significance. Not so with most atheists. I don’t understand how an atheist can support Donald Trump or the present iteration of the Republican Party, but I am not going to let that affect our relationship (if we have one). I have booted several pro-Trump atheists off this site, not because of their politics, but because they were assholes. And as much as I hate to admit it, there are atheist assholes; people who don’t play well with others; people who think throwing feces at people on social media is “good conversation.”
I hope I have adequately answered my Evangelical friend’s questions.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
First off, we need to look at the source of scientific information. Are the people bringing us the alternative to Genesis 1 or scientific discoveries actually and truly Christian? If not then we know that they are being led by evil and are deceived people.
They are the blind trying to lead the blind.
….
God separates education into two distinct categories—true teaching and false teaching. If the scientists are not following God and the Bible then they are not bringing true teaching to the faithful. They may mix some of the truth in with their alternative ideas but as all con men know, to deceive people you need some truth to make the con work.
….
Secular scientists and alternative believers bring a different gospel than the one Jesus and the disciples taught. They are saying that Moses is wrong but Jesus, Paul, and the apostles never corrected Moses and in fact, Jesus stated in John 5:45ff that if you do not believe Moses how can you believe his words? So believing Genesis 1 is important to one’s salvation.
Secular scientists and alternative believers do not believe Moses thus they try to alter the gospel message because they cannot bring themselves to follow God’s rule of using faith to accept a supernatural origin.
….
We have help [God and the Bible]. The secular scientist does not have this aid so we know that whatever they conclude or say is not coming from God but from evil. They do not know what the truth is.
….
There is only one way for secular science to be compatible or harmonized with scripture and that is for those in secular science to repent of their sins and get right with God then toss out all false teachings from the field of science.
God and the Bible do not humble themselves to secular scientists, science, or alternative believers. Those groups are to humble themselves and give up what is wrong. We cannot put the truth into secular science because it is not made new but a very sinful and corrupt field of research and the Bible teaches us.
….
One is not blessed by God for taking sinful words and counsel over God’s words. Here is a question I have asked many an atheist, alternative believer, and secular scientist: Where in the Bible do both God and Jesus give permission to take secular science over their words?
So far not one of the people I have asked has been able to provide an answer.
They can’t because both God and Jesus tell us to follow them over the secular world and to use faith when we believe. We do not have to use secular science and its rules to combat secular science. We just need to know who God is and what happens if he is wrong to see that the truth lies in Genesis 1 and not with those who have rejected that passage of scripture.
It is not the amount of educational degrees behind a name that finds the truth nor is it the amount of expertise or years of doing experiments that lead us to the truth about our origins. It is following the Holy Spirit that gets us to the truth and the Holy Spirit will not contradict God or the Bible.
— Dr. David Tee, TheologyArcheology: A Site for the Glory of Scientific and Theological Ignorance, Harmonizing Science and Scripture, September 3, 2024
This is not a science blog. I have no training in science, outside of high school and college biology classes and whatever knowledge I have gained from the books I’ve read. I don’t engage in long, protracted science discussions because I don’t have the education necessary to do so. I know my limitations. I know what I know, and, most importantly, I know what I don’t know. Theology, the Bible, Evangelicalism, and sex are my specialties, and this is why I primarily write on these subjects (okay, maybe not sex). 🙂
When I post a science article, I do so because I think it will either help readers or illustrate the ignorance that is pervasive in many corners of the Evangelical world. I don’t have the skill or knowledge to adequately defend evolution, but I know people who do, and I trust them because they have the requisite training, knowledge, and experience to speak authoritatively. All of us, to some degree or another, trust experts. No one knows everything.
The problem that arises when I post a science article is that it attracts young-earth creationists. Armed with a limited understanding of science, colored by creationist presuppositions, creationists want to debate and argue with me about the article I posted. Generally, I try to steer such arguments back to the Bible and theology because I think that is the best way to disembowel creationism. Ask yourself, when’s the last time you’ve seen creationists abandon their beliefs as a result of a blog debate or discussion? It doesn’t happen, and the reason is quite simple: abandoning their beliefs would require them to also let go of their faith. Until creationists are willing to entertain the notion that they might be wrong about the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible, it’s impossible to reach them. Facts don’t matter because faith always trumps facts.
Young-earth creationists love to come to blogs such as this one because they can make themselves look like they are experts in disciplines such as biology, physics, archaeology, and cosmology (think Dr. David Tee, a world-renowned Evangelical archeologist). They know I am not going to engage them in a science discussion, and unless someone with a science background responds to them, that’s where the discussion ends. I’m sure they think they’ve won a mighty victory for the triune God of the Protestant Christian Bible, but all that has happened is that no one wanted to waste their time with someone who has no desire or ability to follow the evidentiary path wherever it leads.
I am content to let them play a scientist on this blog. If those of you trained in the sciences want to engage them, please do so. I will stick to what I know: theology, the Bible, and Evangelicalism. And even with these things, I have backed countless Evangelicals into a corner only to have them throw their hands up and tap out by saying FAITH! FAITH! FAITH! Once someone appeals to faith, all discussion is over (at least for me).
Each of us has competency in certain subjects or disciplines. I know where my competency lies, and I don’t pretend to know what I don’t know. Now, this does not mean that I have no understanding of science and the scientific method. I do, and my knowledge increases every time I read a science article, blog, or book. But I could follow this path for the next twenty-five years and still not have the necessary expertise to pass myself off as a science expert. I find it laughable that someone — anyone — thinks they can read x number of books and be as competent and knowledgeable as those who have spent six to ten years in college training for a specific scientific field and now work in that field every day of their lives. Such thinking is called hubris.
I am not suggesting that someone can’t become conversant and competent in a specific subject without going to college. I know firsthand the importance of study and hard work. That’s what I did for twenty-five years, spending hours and hours each week reading and studying the Bible and theology. Would I have been better off if I had gone to Princeton and not an Evangelical Bible college? Sure, but I did a pretty good job over twenty-five years plugging up the lack-of-knowledge holes. I still have gaps in my knowledge, but that can be said of every person. None of us knows everything, even when it comes to our particular area of expertise.
The good news about my areas of expertise — theology, the Bible, and Evangelicalism — is that rarely is there any new information. Outside of archaeological finds that might have some connection to the Bible, there’s not much happening in Bible Town. Sure, small skirmishes are going on over the historicity of Jesus and what the Bible really, really, really says about _______________, but for the most part, it’s just the same shit, different day. I don’t wake up in the morning and say, Hey, I wonder what new and exciting story about the Bible, theology, or Evangelicalism awaits me.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Over the years, we [I] have written more than enough articles proving that the theory of evolution is not true.
….
Evolution is what anyone decides it to be and then changes the physical evidence to fit their particular version.
….
The Bible has the theory of evolution beat no matter how you look at this issue.
Geoff Toscano, a long-time reader of this blog and a personal friend replied:
Oh brother, I’ve wasted at least 5 minutes of my life reading Tee’s article! Just when I thought the fool couldn’t get any more stupid, he proves me wrong, once again! The irony is that he accuses evolutionary scientists of creating fairy stories along the lines of Hansel and Gretel, when it’s actually a book of fairy tales that he seeks to defend.
He misses the most basic understanding of why evolution must be true, and that is its explanatory power. Take away all the evidence we have in terms of DNA, the fossil record, variation, adaptation, and so on, and still we have the explanatory power. Evolution provides an explanation of features we observe in every life form that special creation cannot begin to approach. It explains biodiversity, vestiges and atavisms, bad design (if god designed humans then he did a terrible job!), and especially the manner in which life forms seem strangely to conform to their varying environments. An educated person cannot deny evolution: they are mutually exclusive.
Thiessen refuses to comment on this blog, choosing instead to “answer” comments on his site. Of course, Thiessen refuses to let people comment on his blog, nor does he have a contact page. You can, however, email Thiessen at kinship29@yahoo.com.
Titled Responding to Comments 4, Theissen “answered” five comments from this site. He had this to say to Geoff:
The person missing the point is the quoted commentator. Explanatory power means absolutely nothing. There is nothing to support the ‘explanatory power’. If you remove the made-up evidence, then the explanation makes no sense.
Also, explanatory power is not exclusive to evolution. Any alternative can have the same explanations credited to it. In fact, creation has the exact same explanatory power with one exception. Creation has all the evidence supporting it.
Like the late George Carlin, the commentator is judging God from only seeing humans and creation from the results of the fall and corruption that entered in at Adam’s sin. he did not and cannot see humans and creation as God created it.
God did a perfect job, but sin and corruption ruined what he did. The quoted commentator should blame evil not God. He also says that creatures adapt to different environments.
We have yet to see humans adapt to living underwater and fish to living out of water. Those are different environments. Moving to a different place on the dry surface of the Earth is not moving to a different environment.
It is simply moving to different weather patterns and temperatures. Nothing needs to change for adaptation to take place in that situation. Also, we have not seen one person adapt to the environment on the moon or in space. They still need protective gear to live.
This fact proves evolution false.
Geoff sent me a response to Thiessen that follows below. Geoff responds to Thiessen’s reply to him and several other commenters.
David Tee’s first comment makes no sense. I pointed out the explanatory power of evolution, and he countered with “There is nothing to support the ‘explanatory power’. If you remove the made-up evidence, then the explanation makes no sense.” He either didn’t read my comment properly or he didn’t understand it. Explanatory power IS the evidence so his reference to other evidence for evolution being made up is irrelevant. For example, the laryngeal nerve is explained perfectly by evolution, but makes no sense in his creation beliefs. That is the evidence, end of story.
As for his nonsense about humans adapting to living under water, he gets to be equally silly. Animals adapt to their environment, humans included. Life originated in the sea, then slowly started to move out of it onto dry land many millions of years, perhaps billions, of years ago. Animals that emerged evolved until they were able to live on the land without recourse to water. This explains why humans still have vestiges of gills (tail bones also, I might add). He’s also ridiculous in saying that different parts of dry land on Earth do not represent different environments. Really? Arctic versus the Sahara Desert? They aren’t just different weather patterns or temperatures, they require adaptation in a way almost as great as leaving the sea.
His point about not adapting to living in space or on the moon? (Ignoring that we’ve been able to access space for only a very few decades, whilst evolution requires thousands of years to make significant differences on the scale required). He really knows nothing about evolution. In fact, this comment is perhaps the most stupid I have ever seen from a creationist! It’s precisely because we haven’t adapted to such hostile conditions that we are unable to live in them! Should we be forced through circumstances one day to live on the moon then our bodies would adapt to the conditions, especially the gravity, but it’s unlikely we would ever be able to adapt to the lack of oxygen, which is essential for human existence, indeed all life (there are apparently tiny multi cells that exist without oxygen in parts of the ocean, but these aren’t relevant to Tee’s point). Plus, of course, we’d need water. There are technical ways of producing these but then we’d be adapting the environment to us. We can do this because we’ve evolved to be able to do it!
He says there are thousands of Christian biologists who reject evolution. False, there are almost none. Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute is the only seemingly qualified scientist who makes the claim and he’s not a biologist. Michael Behe, who really formalised Intelligent Design, has since retreated and I think has either reverted to accepting evolution or at least gone very quiet. The thing is there are always outliers. People who are anti-vaxxers, or moon landing deniers, flat earthers, and many others can appear to be carrying some kind of qualification to lend them credibility. Even so, they remain outliers. They aren’t taken seriously by the scientific community, not because the scientific community is conspiring against them, but because the scientific community exists only because it is historically the only method whereby humanity progresses. Science works (and I define science widely in this regard, to include all methods of reasoning), where faith does not. Faith recently murdered a small child in Australia, a child who had every right to depend on her parents and other guardians for protection, but who was betrayed because her protectors thought the power of God was greater than the power of medicine.
Tee claims that unbelievers seek to exclude God from their work. Ignoring the fact that a very large proportion of scientists are themselves religious believers (though it is a much lower proportion than that found in other areas of life) the fact is that science excludes nothing, not even God. The point is that good science leads where it leads. Isaac Newton was a great scientist, but he was also a fervent believer. When he constructed his theory of gravity it was hailed as, rightly, one of the great scientific achievements of all time. Even so, he knew there was a small error for which he couldn’t account, so he attributed this to God keeping ultimate control of his creation. He was wrong because he didn’t know, and at the time couldn’t possibly have known, of relativity, something Einstein demonstrated centuries later. So God figured in the thinking of one of the greatest scientists of all time, but unfortunately God proved not to be the answer. If God is ever the answer, then science will discover this, it won’t be through faith.
On top of this, many attempts have been made by science to ‘find God’. There have been four peer-reviewed studies that have attempted to establish whether prayer is of any benefit in assisting ill patients to recover. Three indicated it provided no benefit greater than chance, whilst one suggested there may even be negative benefit. Indeed, every aspect of supernatural claim has been carefully investigated by science. Miracle claims, so-called paranormal events, weeping statues, hauntings, exorcisms, NDEs, etc., all have been studied and no evidence of anything other than perfectly natural explanations has ever been found.
Matt Ridley’s main claim to fame is that he was chairman of the bank that initiated the financial collapse in the UK in 2007 (a full year before Lehman Brothers failed) and had to give evidence to a Parliamentary Committee that wanted to know where he was whilst all this happened. He admitted that he didn’t really involve himself, rather it was his name that was important to the bank (he is actually Sir Matt Ridley, and part of a wealthy landowning family). He’s written some good science books aimed at children, but he’s verging on denialism in much of what he writes. His religious beliefs, however, are irrelevant to his science writing.
It is easy to conclude that Tee is simply delusional (which he undoubtedly is) but it’s much more than that, and I think he has to be regarded as an outright liar. He keeps insisting that there’s no evidence for evolution. He’s simply wrong. Evolution is supported by more evidence than any other branch of science. It is now such a vast subject that it has to be subdivided for study purposes. No serious scientist in the world denies it, and certainly no biologists, whether religious believers or not. He insists the bible is true, in the face of all the evidence that proves it is not, other than in minor, trivial, ways. Most believers, and certainly most religions, have come to terms with the realisation that evolution is a stark fact.
Tee yet again demonstrates the impossibility of his ever having obtained a legitimate doctorate. I’ll go further and allege that he’s never passed any formal academic examination in his life. It’s significant that he chooses to limit his reply to the comfort of his website, protected from comments, and certainly not daring to risk direct interaction on Bruce’s forum.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
