Chronicling the follies of religion and superstition, the virtues of skepticism, and the wonders of the real (natural) universe as revealed by science. Plus other interesting and educational stuff.
"Tell people there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure."
“If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed”.
“Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”
EVOLUTION vs GOD
A FILM REVIEW BY INGRID HANSEN SMYTHE
“I believe it’s going to take down evolution. It exposes it as bogus science. That sounds like a bold claim, but it’s true.”1
“There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about it would come from a serious scientist—not an idiot.”2
Ray Comfort, the professional preacher and proselytizer best known for his unwitting invention of the banana fallacy, is on the attack once again with his latest film Evolution vs. God. According to one reviewer this is a powerful film that leaves evolutionists “clutching at straws,”3 and Ray Comfort himself has issued a warning, saying, “I would say not to watch it if you are someone who believes in evolution, but you are weak in the faith.”4 Creationists claim that ever since the film’s release evolutionists have been in “damage control”5 and most significant of all, there’s been “an eerie silence from Professor Dawkins.”6 One imagines the beleaguered Dr. Dawkins sweating and grimacing in his underground biology bunker, surrounded by troll-like Darwinians all frantically trying to get their stories straight. “All right, people, next on the agenda is the doctrine of speciation. Who has faith in that godless heresy? Can I see a show of hands, please?”
It is astonishing to think that, of all people, Ray Comfort (now commonly known as Banana Man) has discovered, through his own tireless research, that the geneticists, the biochemists, the zoologists, the biologists, the geologists, the paleontologists, the ecologists, the comparative anatomists and physiologists, the cosmologists—the whole lot of them—have been entirely mistaken all this time. And if Ray’s film does what it claims, it will mean a scientific revolution on a scale the like of which has never been seen in the history of humanity. Note too that, in this film, Ray doesn’t interview any “creation scientists” as they rather comically call themselves,7 but only experts in the relevant disciplines, finally letting the godless Darwinians speak for themselves. How amazing that the Everest-like mountain of hard evidence for evolution might be razed to the ground in one brief 38-minute film by a man with only a high school education and a reputation for being, as Dawkins says, an idiot.8 Truly this is the mother of all David-and-Goliath tales, and so it was with great expectations that I settled in with my peanut butter and banana crackers and watched Evolution vs. God: Shaking the Foundations of Faith…
Christians cannot interpret the Bible in whatever way they please. They must take it literally. Before I convince all Christians and Atheists alike, I will like to outline the initial requirements to be a Christian:
- One must accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
- One must believe that he died for one’s sins.
- One must believe that he resurrected.
- One must believe that he ascended to the right hand of his father and that he is the son of god.
Of course, there are many more requirements. For example, a Christian that decides not to get baptized has fallen short — well, at least in the eyes of other Christians. I’m sure Christians are fully capable of adding more requirements. Nonetheless, these are the core requirements.
So, why did Christ die? The best answer can be found in this passage:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
This passage is supplemented by 1 Corinthians 15:45.
In the modern day, there are many Christians who have chosen to cancel out the creation myth in Genesis. However, I posit that they haven’t considered the implications of doing so. If the first Adam didn’t exist, what reason do we have to believe that the second Adam existed? If the first Adam didn’t didn’t bring sin into the world, for what reason did Christ die? Can one conclude that Christ existed though Adam didn’t exist? According to the “word of god,” such a conclusion cannot be made. Therefore, all Christians must embrace the creation account. Unfortunately, the account is a myth. Hence Adam is a myth and it would logically follow that Christ is also a myth.
How does this all imply that they must take the Bible literally? Well, Adam is the forefather. If Adam didn’t exist, it logically follows that all the characters in the Bible didn’t exist. The genealogies can be found throughout the Bible. However, this chart has unified the genealogies of the Old Testament; this chart has simplified the genealogy of Christ. This is what occurs when the Bible isn’t taken literally. If one cancels out the creation myth, one cancels out Adam; if one cancels out Adam, one cancels out Christ and all of the other characters in the Bible. In like manner, if one cancels out the flood myth, one cancels out a vital portion of the genealogy. Who does one put in Noah’s place? How would this new character be supported? My suggestion: take out a brand new scroll and draft a new religion. The creation account is bunk; our modern understanding of Evolution effectively buried the account in Genesis. I’m sorry to break it to you, but Christianity is dead.