Menu Close

Tag: Evolution

Christians Say the Darnedest Things: You Don’t Have to Know Anything About Science to Discredit Evolution

Bruce Gerencser 7 Comments
teaching creationism

The truth is, you do not have to be a scientist to be qualified to speak on evolution. One reason is that evolution is not scientific. As we have stated in many of our articles exposing evolution as a false theory, there has not been one true scientific experiment that can be described as being evolutionary.

Every scientific experiment has been non-evolutionary. The second reason why non-scientists are qualified to speak about evolution is that it is false teaching. Every Christian who knows the truth can pick out the false elements of evolution and expose it for what it is. One does not need to be a scientist to do that.

They just need to know the truth and stick with that. The Bible has taught everyone about false teaching, false teachers, and false prophets, and how to spot them. There is no better teacher than Jesus or God.

— Dr. David Tee, TheologyArcheology: A Site for the Glory of God, You Do Not Need to be a Scientist, March 22, 2023 (David Tee is not an actual Dr., but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. His real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen,)

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen 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.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Evolution Played No Part in My Loss of Faith, Despite What Evangelicals Say

Bruce Gerencser 9 Comments
peanut gallery

An Evangelical man name David sent me a message today via my Facebook Page. Here’s what he had to say (all spelling and grammar in the original):

That’s interesting. I know in my mind I wondered about my faith for a long time. I’ve seen some miraculous stuff in my lifetime as I’m sure you have too. I saw the shekinah glory move through the church isles when I was about 22 which was 32 years ago and walked away from God for along time but I always felt God tugging on me trying to bring me back. Have you every studied the evidence on both sides of evolution vs creation? There’s a lot of scientific evidence for creation and a lot of scientists who believe that God created it all and that’s how I believe also after looking at all the evidence. I’m not one of those who would say well you just really was never saved because I believe you are. The one thing that stood out to me in your conversation between the two of you that have renounced Christianity was that there’s been a lot of people that are calling themselves Christians did not do the Christian thing to either one of y’all and I get the impression that y’all are both bitter with God because of it. I hope you realize that and don’t take what broken people do and turn it on God. My hope is that one day you’ll come back to God and I will definitely pray that you do. Sorry that wife never got to experience some of the stuff you did as I’m sure sooner or later she would have. I had always had a little bit of faith even when I was running from God and it all started with offense from other people but now my faith is strong and I have no doubt God put us here and the Bible is his word due to the the underlying mathematics in the Greek and Hebrew text and just from studying the Bible in general. Bruce I will be praying for you brother as I believe you still are a Christian. You got a wonderful looking family and good luck to you sir.

I want to give David the benefit of the doubt, but I find emails, comments, and messages such as his increasingly irritating, frustrating, and condescending. While David says I have a “wonderful looking family” and wishes me luck, his email also ignores what I have publicly said and written about my journey from Evangelicalism to atheism, and essentially calls me a liar (a point which I shall press in a moment).

David, as many Evangelicals do, conflates atheism with acceptance of evolution as the best explanation of the natural world. Atheism is one thing, and one thing alone: the lack of belief in the existence of gods. I wish Evangelicals would write this down on a post-it note and attach it to their computer screens; a reminder of what atheism actually is. Atheists have all sorts of beliefs — crazy beliefs, promoters of woo. Jesus, some atheists even voted for Donald Trump. Sure, atheists generally accept what science says about our biological world and the universe, but that does not mean such beliefs require atheism. Scores of Christians believe in theistic evolution or are old earth creationists. Are these followers of Jesus actually atheists too?

I am not a scientist and neither is David. Neither of us is qualified to speak authoritatively on evolution. As a former Evangelical pastor for twenty-five years, I understand creationism inside and inside. I don’t need a science education to understand creationism. Why? Creationism (and its gussied-up step-sister intelligent design) is a theological claim, not a scientific claim. Science, in fact, has repeatedly repudiated creationist claims. Sure a handful of scientists, operating from the presuppositions that the Christian God exists and the Bible is true, are creationists, but the vast majority of scientists believe evolution best explains our natural world, and that cosmology and other sciences best explain the universe.

Let me say this one more time, evolution played no part in my deconversion from Christianity. None, nada, zip. I read my first book on evolution in 2012 — Why Evolution is True by Dr. Jerry Coyne — four years after I deconverted. I have read several books about evolution since then and continue to watch YouTube videos about evolution. I have found Forrest Valkai’s video series on evolution to be quite helpful. Here’s episode one:

Video Link

I generally accept scientific consensus. Since I am not a trained scientist, I am in no position to judge the work of people who have dedicated their lives to understanding our biological world. I try to educate myself and be informed as possible, but I will always be a novice. Thus, as I do with many things, I trust experts. Want to talk theology, Evangelicalism, or sex, I’m your man. Okay, maybe not that last one. No one knows everything. My late brother-in-law was a cardiologist, yet he couldn’t fix his computer or palm pilot if his life depended on it. That was my job. He trusted my expertise about computers and I trusted his expertise about medicine. That’s the way the world works. Sadly, within Evangelicalism, there are countless people who think if they read books published by Answers in Genesis and other creationist parachurch ministries, they are somehow experts on evolution. They are not, but don’t bother trying to tell them that.

Typically, when I interact with creationists, I try to get them to discuss the foundation of their creationist beliefs — the Bible. Not science, the Bible. If I can disabuse them of the notion that the Bible is in any way inerrant and infallible, then perhaps they will see that believing God created the universe in six literal twenty-four hours days, 6,026 years ago is rationally and intellectually unsustainable.

Let me conclude by answering David’s statements about my life and that of my wife, Polly. David believes that Polly and I are still Christians; that we are just bitter over harm caused to us by other Christians. David supposedly watched my video interview with the Harmonic Atheist.

Video Link

Did he hear me say that I am bitter about what Christians did to me? Of course not. This is a straw man that David has built of me (and Polly) in his mind. There’s nothing in my story that suggests I was bitter towards God or Christians. I am not, by nature, a bitter person, so any claim that I am is false. If anything would make me bitter, it would be constant attacks on my character by God’s chosen ones.

David says he is a Christian. I believe him. I accept his story (testimony) at face value. Who am I to say that he is not, right? Why can’t David extend the same respect to me? Rarely does a day go by without an Evangelical Christian telling me what I really believe, what’s wrong with me, why I am not a Christian, etc. They daily dig through my story, looking for things that don’t fit their peculiar worldview. Others psychoanalyze me. Some attack, harass, call names, and threaten me with judgment, Hell, and death.

The Bible says you will know a tree by the fruit it produces. From my corner in the orchard, Evangelicalism is a poisonous tree that produces poisonous fruit. Even if I were inclined to return to Christianity, it sure as Hell wouldn’t be Evangelicalism. Of course, that ain’t going to happen. I have weighed Christianity in the balance and found it wanting. Unless new evidence is presented to me, I see no reason to reconsider my decision to divorce Jesus.

This brings me to my last objection to David’s message: the idea that I am still a Christian. This is, by far, the silliest thing Evangelicals say to me. What, in my life, remotely suggests that I am a Christian? Nothing. The God of the Bible is a myth. The Jesus of the Bible is forever dead, and did not perform the miracles recorded in the Bible. The Bible is an errant, fallible manmade book. I reject EVERY central claim of Christianity including the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, and the resurrection of Christ. Can I fully, and without reservation, reject these claims and others? In what universe am I still a Christian?

No, the problem here is that David can’t square my story with his peculiar theology, so he claims I am still a Christian. Once saved, always saved, right? If David wants me to accept his claim that he is a Christian, then he must mine. That’s respect. I AM AN ATHEIST. Proudly so. I am, according to the Bible, an apostate and a reprobate.

I am not David’s brother. I am a stranger on the Internet. As is common among Evangelicals, they cheapen words such as love and brother. Becoming my brother is reserved for my three biological brothers — two of whom I became aware of two years ago — and men who are close, intimate friends. And trust me, I have very few male friends. I am not promiscuous with my love and friendship as Evangelicals are.

Well, enough. I am sure David got more than he bargained for. I suspect all I did with this post is prove to him I am bitter. 🙂

Saved by Reason,

signature

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen 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.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

The Voices of Atheism: Neil deGrasse Tyson Patiently Schools Bill Moyers on God and Religion

Bruce Gerencser 1 Comment
neil degrasse tyson

This is the latest installment in The Voices of Atheism series. This is a series that I would like readers to help me with. Know of a good video that espouses atheism/agnosticism or challenges the claims of the Abrahamic religions? Please email me the name of the video or a link to it. I believe this series will be an excellent addition to The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser.

Thank you in advance for your help.

What follows is an interview of Neil deGrasse Tyson patiently schools Bill Moyers, a Christian, on God and religion.

Video Link

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen 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.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Ken Ham Proves Yet Again That He Doesn’t Believe in the Sufficiency of Scripture

Bruce Gerencser 6 Comments
ken ham

Ken Ham, CEO of Answers in Genesis and stand-in for Captain Noah on the Kentucky Ark of Ignorance, is well-known for pointing to the Bible — God’s science textbook — as THE (only/final) authority when it comes to understanding how the universe came to be. Ham is noted for telling Bill Nye that the Bible was all-sufficient, that it alone explains how everything came to be. But here’s the thing, Ham doesn’t really believe this. Here’s proof of my contention:

ken ham tweet

Ken, I ask you, why do we need to read your materials? I thought all we needed to do is read Genesis 1-3. Now you are saying that the Bible is NOT sufficient for our understanding of how the universe and biological life came to be. What’s up with that?

Of course, Evangelicals don’t really believe that the Bible is a one-stop knowledge store. If this was really the case, there would be no need for the thousands of Christian books that are published every year. There would also be no need for “ministries” such as Answers in Genesis. Ham and his cadre of professional dispensers of ignorance have published over ten thousand articles that are meant to help Evangelicals understand what God said in Genesis 1-3. If God has spoken, why would Christians have any reason to read any of Ham’s articles? The answer, of course, is that Ham needs 10,000 loads of bullshit to cover up his irrational, anti-scientific, literalistic interpretation of the Bible.

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen 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.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Ken Ham Needs Atheists So He Can Fund His Monuments to Ignorance

Bruce Gerencser 18 Comments
lying ken ham

Ken Ham, known as the ayatollah and grand poohbah of Kentucky and a purveyor of Fundamentalist ignorance, frequently writes articles about atheism. Several years ago, Ham asked and then answered the question, Why Do Atheists Care? Here is some of what this noted intellectual genius of young-earth creationism had to say:

 Atheists get very passionate when it comes to fighting biblical Christianity. If God doesn’t exist—and life has no ultimate meaning—why do they even care?

Why do atheists get so emotional and aggressive in opposing biblical Christianity? Why does it bother them? Why does it matter at all to them?

When Answers in Genesis announced plans to build the Creation Museum, a local atheist group began attacking the ministry of Answers in Genesis and campaigning against the museum. When the museum was opened, the atheists gathered outside the museum to protest the opening of this facility. But why did they do this?

At the time of this issue’s publication, atheists are aggressively opposing a new project involving the building of a life-size Noah’s Ark, the Ark Encounter. But what is it to atheists if Christians build such a facility to proclaim the Christian message? After all, thousands of secular museums across the USA and other countries around the world are already proclaiming an atheistic evolutionary message to the public. Government schools throughout the world by and large indoctrinate hundreds of millions of the coming generations in naturalism—really atheism.

So why do atheists get so upset with a minority that stands for biblical Christianity?

During my debate with Bill Nye “the Science Guy” on February 4, 2014, Bill was asked where matter came from. In his answer he said it was a great mystery, but he loved the “joy of discovery” as he pursued such questions. In my responses to Bill’s answers, I asked him why the joy of discovery mattered to him. I explained that from Bill’s perspective, life is the result of natural processes and there is no biblical God, so when he dies, he won’t even know he ever existed or knew anything. Then, when others who knew him die, they won’t know they ever knew him, either. Eventually, from his perspective of naturalism, the whole universe will die and no one will ever know they ever existed. So what is the purpose of this “joy of discovery”? Really, the naturalistic view of life is ultimately purposeless and meaningless!

Think about the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins. Why does he spend so much time writing and speaking against Someone (God) he doesn’t believe exists? Why is he so aggressive against biblical Christianity? In an ultimately purposeless and meaningless existence, why does it matter to him if people believe in the God of the Bible and the account of creation as outlined in Genesis? Why bother fighting against such people when, from his perspective, eventually no one will even know they ever existed?

No matter how many times atheists point out to Ham that they don’t live purposeless and meaningless lives, he continues to recite these lies as a six-year-old would when reciting his memory verse in Sunday school. Ham seems to think that if he repeats the same lie over and over, it will magically become true. Later in the same article, Ham continues his lying ways by telling readers that atheists “aren’t fighting for the truth, but suppressing it” — “truth” being Ham’s literalistic interpretation of the Christian Bible. According to Ham:

Really then, when Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, and others so aggressively oppose biblical Christianity, what they are doing is this. They are covering their ears and closing their eyes and saying, “I refuse to submit to the God who created me. I refuse to acknowledge that God is the creator. I refuse to accept that I’m a sinner in need of salvation. I want to write my own rules! Therefore I must oppose anything that pricks my conscience and aggressively suppress [sic] the truth to justify my rebellion.”

…..

So why do these who so aggressively oppose Christianity care? They care because they are desperately trying to justify their rebellion against the truth. They don’t want to admit that they are sinners in need of salvation and thus need to submit to the God who created them and owns them.

Again, Ham continues to lie, refusing to accept the reasons atheists give for not believing in his peculiar version of God. Our objection to Christianity, its God, and the Bible is not one of deliberate denial of truth. Far from it. Many atheists such as myself spent most of our lives reading and studying the Bible. We know the Bible from cover to cover. It is not that we have some sort of intellectual deficiency or have some secret desire to eat babies or star in porn movies. Our rejection of Christianity is based on our careful examination of its claims. Are the claims Christians make for God, Jesus, and the Bible true? The atheist says no. Rather than accept this, Ham lies and tells his followers that the real reason atheists aren’t Christians is that they suppress the truth and are in rebellion to God.

At one time I was willing to give Ham the benefit of the doubt. I thought, Ham is sincere. He genuinely wants atheists to be saved. I no longer believe this. Since Ham refuses to accurately report the atheistic/agnostic/humanistic/secularist worldview, I can only conclude that he has some sort of ulterior motive that requires him to lie about his adversaries. What could that motive be? you ask. I think Ken Ham needs atheists. He needs an enemy to fight, a war to wage. Ham believes that True Christians® are called on to wage war against Satan and his earthly emissaries. Atheists are an easy target because most Evangelicals equate atheism with Satanism (and Ham does nothing to dispel this notion). Ham knows that Evangelicals — his primary target audience — live lives that are indistinguishable from those of non-Christians. In order to stir up the passions of these passive Christians, Ham uses hyperbolic language when speaking of his three great enemies: secularism, atheism, and liberalism. Ham knows that stirred passions mean more donations, so this is THE reason Ham continues to misrepresent what atheists and secularists really believe. Ham lies because lying is good for business. Evangelicals, thanks to rapturist eschatology, are conditioned to believe the “world” is an awful place and should be avoided at all costs. And what better way to avoid the world than to visit Ham’s monuments to ignorance — the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter.

Ham knows that his Museum and Ark theme park won’t bring people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. I don’t know of one atheist who has become a Christian as a result of visiting Ham’s entertainment facilities. Ham’s goal has never been to save souls. The Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter are meant to reinforce Evangelical young-earth creationist beliefs. Why does Ham encourage Christian parents to bring their children to the Museum and Ark Encounter (by giving children free admission)? Why are most of the things in these facilities geared towards teenagers and young children (i.e., zip line, petting zoo)? Ham’s objective is to indoctrinate another generation in the creationist way of thinking. By focusing on children, Ham ensures that when these children grow up and marry that they too will bring their children for a visit, thus providing continued income for his empire.

As with much that goes on in the name of the Christian God, it is all about money. Ham knows that the key to his future prosperity rests on his ability to generate income. That was the real reason for building the Ark Encounter. Creation Museum visit numbers and income were in decline, and Ham needed something that would stir the passions of his fellow Evangelicals, resulting in them paying his ministries a visit. By building a wood replica of a fictional boat and throwing in a few amenities homeschoolers and children will be sure to love, Ham ensured that the next few years will have increased revenues. Knowing that revenues will later decline, Ham is already planning to build a new attraction, a monument to speaking in tongues, the Tower of Babel. What’s next? A water park where children can watch God drowning men, women, children, and unborn children while Noah and his clan float by in a wood boat?

Ham knows that fighting the atheist horde increases the bottom line, and it is for this reason he really doesn’t want to see any of us saved. If all the secularists and atheists got saved, Ham wouldn’t have anyone to rail against. And with no enemy, revenues would decline and Ham’s monuments to ignorance would fall into disrepair. Ham will continue to lie about atheism because, in his mind, the end justifies the means. He cares more about money than he does honesty. For those creationists who object to my portrayal of Ham as a money-grubbing liar, the easy way to repudiate my claims is for Ken Ham and his ministries to publicly release their financial reports. Of course, it will be a cold day in Kentucky before Ham ever releases his financials.

Twenty years from now, Ham’s ministries will be in decline, facing increasing financial pressures. Ham surely knows that Evangelicals won’t treat the Creationist Museum and the Ark Encounter as they do nearby King’s Island. Once Evangelicals have visited the Museum and Ark Encounter, they are unlikely to return. Been there, done that, Evangelicals say to themselves. Imagine children being forced to repeatedly visit a museum. Doing so is not their idea of summer fun. When asked what they would rather do: visit Bro Ham’s ministry or go to King’s Island/Cedar Point, I suspect most children will quickly opt to ride roller coasters. And since the Museum/Ark Encounter combo ticket is more expensive than that of the amusement parks, many Evangelical parents will decide to take their families to one of the theme parks instead. Facing financial decline, Ham will be forced to scale back his empire. As science continues to draw future creationists away from his pernicious teachings, Ham will be forced to rely on fund-raising appeals or large estate donations from dead supporters. These too will dry up as older supporters die off. By then Ham will likely be dead, leaving others with the responsibility to manage the Creationist Titanic. Eventually, Ham’s monuments to ignorance will close their doors and become decaying testimonies to the dying breaths of a thoroughly discredited system of belief. I will likely be dead when this happens, so I will leave it to my grandchildren to say good riddance.

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen 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.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Christians Say the Darnedest Things: How Scientists Should Do “Science”

Bruce Gerencser 12 Comments

Secular science does not know what objective truth is because it has already taken a side. It is on the side of evil once they rejected God and his son. All of their work is done from a biased viewpoint. God has said that there are only 2 sides and if you are not on his, you are on evil’s side.

They [non-Christian scientists] are also very easily misled as well. Sure they can see more of the universe with the new Webb telescope but without the right starting point, they are lost and do not know what they are looking at.

….

Evolutionary and Big bang theories do not help because those are false concepts and cannot be verified. In other words, without the true clues [the Bible], the scientist is free to make up whatever they want about what they see, even when it is clearly wrong.

Observation is useless without that correct starting information. They will learn nothing but how beautiful the universe is and how complex it is. The scientists cannot see into the past for it is gone and they cannot see into the future for it has not arrived.

They are just fooling themselves and continually proving they do not know what they are talking about.

….

The scientific method is not making these discoveries and it is not human curiosity.  Science is no better at fighting diseases than it was 5,000 years ago. Death will happen and sometimes that death happens at the hands of the scientific professional.

Oh, and medical science does not depend on the evolutionary theory. it depends solely on fully formed chemicals and cells, etc. interacting with each other. It is what God did that medical science owes its gratitude.

Try putting unfully formed molecules together and see what happens. You can’t because they do not exist. What that means is that scientists are not doing evolutionary experiments. They are doing experiments using God’s fully formed creative designs.

Not one scientific experiment has followed true evolutionary claims. They are all based on God’s work.

….

If you do science God’s way, you will see a vast difference in the results. You won’t see a lot of wasted time and wasted money spent on fruitless pursuits that have no hope of ever being true.

— Fake Dr. David Tee, TheologyArchaeology: A Site For The Glory of Ignorance, They Never Have a Response, January 2, 2022

Tim Gilleand Asks: How Can All Those Scientists be Wrong? 

Bruce Gerencser 68 Comments
bible vs evolution

Several years ago, Tim Gilleand wrote a blog post titled How Can All Those Scientists be Wrong? In his post, Gilleand argued that creationists and scientists both have the same data and that the difference between them is how that information is interpreted. Gilleand wrote:

I believe that the scientific method requires that all evidence must be interpreted before a conclusion is drawn.  My issue is not with the evidence itself, it is with the interpretation stage.  I believe that scientists interpret the evidence through a worldview filter.  Their worldview filter includes their personal beliefs about how the world does or does not operate.  For example, if I believe there is no supernatural influence in the world and everything continues on the way and the rate at which it always has, then I am going to interpret something like radiometric decay or geology much differently than someone who believes God has intervened in this world at various points in our early history.

Let’s look at a couple examples…

If God really created Adam on the literal sixth day of creation – how old do you think he might look on day 7?  Was he a full grown man?  30… maybe 40?  But the truth is he is only one day old.  He was created fully mature and able to sustain himself.  Now apply that concept to the rest of creation.  If God really created the world in six days fully mature and self-sustaining – how might that affect the apparent age of the earth?  And how might that affect our research if we left out that concept?  Might we come to a much different conclusion?  I think so.  The point is evidence like radiometric dating the age of the earth doesn’t rule out a special creation because things still might appear older than they truly are and yet that would still be in line Biblicaly (sic).

But isn’t that a deceptive God??  I hear this all the time.  No, it’s not.  Perhaps God never intended us to study the age of the earth while ignoring his revelation about how He did it!  Not God’s deception, human ignorance.

As for geology, we have to look at what might have happened had Noah’s flood actually covered and destroyed the whole world as the Bible seems to imply.  Take the layers at the Grand Canyon.  Two schools of thought: either a little bit of water (the Colorado River) over a long period of time (millions of years) OR a lot of water (the flood) over a little period of time.  The same evidence, different conclusions based on different interpretations that are dependent on our worldview assumptions.

Is the difference between creationists and scientists really a matter of worldview? Is it, as Gilleand says, a matter of how one interprets the world? Creationists would love for this to be true, but doing science requires no particular worldview. Some scientists are devout Christians, yet they come to the same conclusions as their non-Christian colleagues. It is the creationist alone who allows his worldview to radically alter his view of scientific data.

The argument Gilleand is trying to make is that creationists and scientists alike have a starting point from which they begin their investigations While this is, to some degree true, let me demonstrate the difference between the starting points of creationists and scientists. Scientists begin with what we know, the collective body of knowledge we call science. This body of knowledge changes often, as scientists continue to make new discoveries and test currently held scientific ideas. Any student of the modern scientific era knows that science has radically adapted and changed as new information is brought forth. Things that were once considered settled facts are later, thanks to the diligent work of scientists, shown to be wrong. This is why the scientific method is vitally important to our understanding of the universe and the future of all life. It is a self-correcting way of explaining and understanding the world.

Creationists, on the other hand, do not start with the collective body of knowledge we call science. Their starting point begins not with science at all, but with a literalist, Fundamentalist interpretation of the Christian Bible. Gilleand admits this when he says:

As a Christian, I believe God does and has intervened in our world.  I also believe the Bible is a historical, reliable account of the creation of the world.

….

We believe we have additional information in the revealed word of God – therefore we see our starting assumptions as more reliable than fallible human intellect because it comes straight from God who was there, observed it, and doesn’t lie.

For creationists like Gilleand, their interpretation of the world begins not with what they can see and know, but with what unknown authors wrote in an ancient religious text thousands of years ago. Creationists are less than honest when they say that the issue is how the scientific data is interpreted. No matter WHAT science says, creationists will always retreat to faith and their literalistic interpretation of the Bible. Non-creationists know that the universe is billions of years old. How do we know this? Science. While scientists continue to study the universe, creationists have no need to do so. Their minds are made up: God created the universe in six literal twenty-four hours days, 6,024 years ago. None of what science tells us about the universe ultimately matters to the creationist. Why? To put it simply: the BIBLE SAYS.

For these reasons, I have long suggested that it is generally a waste of time to argue matters of science with creationists. The issue is not one of science, but theology. This is why when creationists comment on this blog, I ignore their anti-science rants and instead attack their beliefs about the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. Once inerrancy and literalism fall, the argument for creationism is over. This is why, a few years back, when Gilleand stopped by this blog to wage war with the Evangelical preacher-turned-atheist, I challenged his view of the Bible. Gilleand ultimately retreated to the house of faith, safe from the assault of the evil, Christ-denying atheist.

If creationists want their understanding of the world to be accepted as the prevailing scientific view, then they need to start publishing studies in non-Evangelical peer-reviewed scientific journals. Why don’t creationists do this? Surely, if it is self-evident that creationism is true and just a matter of properly interpreting the scientific data, science journals should be filled with studies and papers by creationist scientists. Yet, year after year no studies or papers are forthcoming. The creationist answer for this is that there is a conspiracy by non-creationist scientists to keep creationists from publishing. Their evidence for this? None. If the evidence for creationism is overwhelming, then the science community will grudgingly admit they were wrong and embrace the creationist interpretation of the data. Of course, the creationist, at this point, responds, right, these scientists are unsaved. They don’t believe in the existence of the Christian God, nor do they believe that the Bible is a supernatural, authoritative text. So then, it is clear, the real issue is theology, not science.

Gilleand describes his apologetics ministry this way:

. . . a new apologetics ministry based in Northern Indiana.  Our mission stems from the verse found in Colossians 4:6 (NIV) – “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” We have formed this ministry to combat modern secularist tendencies to pull people (often times including Christians) away from the accurate original Biblical message. We will discuss hot topics ranging from creation vs. evolution, homosexuality, abortion, modern politics, the supposed separation of church and state, often-cited inaccuracies in the Scriptures, end times, and much more.  We aim to make our posts informative, researched from both sides of the aisle, and considerate of opposing views (grace) but firm in our stance (salt).

You see, even for Gilleand, it is not about the science. It is all about apologetics, the defending of the Fundamentalist Christian view of the world. In Gilleand’s eyes, everything begins and ends with the Christian God and the Protestant Christian Bible. Gilleand’s literalistic interpretation of the Bible becomes a box in which everything must fit. (Please see The Danger of Being in a Box and Why it Makes Sense When You Are in It and  What I Found When I Left the Box.) While Gilleand has convinced himself that he has “researched from both sides of the aisle” and considered “opposing views,” his “firm stance” never changes. This is Fundamentalism at its finest: No matter what, I believe. While Gilleand thinks of himself as being open-minded, the fact is he is only willing to consider data that neatly fits within his box. Any data outside of this box is rejected, labeled as being contrary to the Christian God and the Bible.

There is no hope of reaching people who think like this. Try as you might to reach them, their minds are walled off from anything that contradicts or challenges their worldview. For them, the lines are clearly drawn, and no amount of argument will change their minds. Until Fundamentalists are willing to venture past the lines they have drawn, there is no possible way for someone like me to move them away from their ill-informed, ignorant view of the world.

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen 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.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Christians Say the Darnedest Things: There’s No Possible Way the Evangelical God Does Not Exist

Bruce Gerencser 7 Comments
dr david tee

As you approach the New Year and you are having doubts about Jesus, God, and the Bible, there is good news. There is far too much physical evidence for the reality of the Trinity and the Bible for there to be any other answer than they are real and the Bible is true. [No evidence is provided for these claims or any of the other claims that follow.]

In spite of the empty claims made by the atheist [Bruce Gerencser], Jesus is who he says he is, God is who he says he is and the Holy Spirit is as real as they are. The Bible is also written by God through humans and there were no elites writing scriptures to manipulate or control anyone.

We have spent over 20 years researching and documenting this topic [creationism] and there is no possible way that God does not exist or did not create everything we see.

— “Dr.” David Tee, Theologyarcheology: A Site for the Glory of God, What if It is All a Lie? December 31, 2021

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen 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.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

1999 Letter to the Editor of the Bryan Times by Bruce Gerencser: Evolution Incompatible with Christianity

Bruce Gerencser 8 Comments
adam or ape creationism

Published on March 18, 1999. At the time, I was pastor of Our Father’s House in West Unity, Ohio. This is a good example of how I used to think about life, God, the Bible, sin,  and culture. I encourage readers to read a letter to the editor I wrote on January 19, 2016, about the same the subject. You will quickly see that my viewpoint has changed a wee bit over the past 17 years.

Bryan Times:

I am writing in response to the recent editorial that suggested evolution is not being taught in public schools because teachers fear right-wing religious zealots. The zealots are portrayed as being anti-science and intellectually stunted. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Evolution is a theory. Even the writer of the editorial admits such. Yet, just a few paragraphs later, he advocates teaching the theory as fact. He then states that man cannot understand biology without evolution.

What arrogant presumption and distortion of truth. Evolution is a theory of “how” things came into existence. It is, at its root, a faith religion that suggests a random existence apart from a divine being. Evolution demands that there is no God, no creator, and that man is nothing more than the most evolved of creatures. Man becomes nothing more than an animal that has evolved to a more mature state than that of other animals.

Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Christianity begins with the premise that God is, and whatever God says is true. The Bible is God’s revelation to man, and he reveals in the first three chapters of Genesis how this world came into existence. To deny the biblical record is to deny God and his revelation, and the result is eternal damnation. Christians fear being viewed as ignorant if they deny the teachings of evolution. They become just like the schoolteachers who fear the religious zealots. If God is who he says he is, and he meant what he said in the Scriptures, then let us not fear, but instead declare boldly “Thus saith the Lord.”

Bruce Gerencser, Pastor
West Unity, Ohio

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen 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.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Bruce Gerencser