AIG Defends Lot’s Righteousness

We have often thought that if creationists can defend their bizarre creationist doctrines, they can defend anything. Apparently that’s true. We found proof at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. AIG is the online creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia.

AIG’s article is Contradictions: A Lot of Righteousness. It’s the latest in a long series of articles explaining away contradictions which abound in scripture. This time they’re concerned that Lot — of Sodom and Gomorrah fame — is referred to in scripture as “righteous.” According to this Wikipedia article: “Jesus is a descendent of Lot through David’s great-grandmother Ruth, who is descended from Lot’s son Moab.”

Remember that name, Moab; it comes up later. But how can Lot — of all people — be considered righteous? Although a nephew of Abraham, Lot lived in Sodom. AIG’s article says, with bold font added by us:

[Scripture] records that Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom when the angels came, and he invited them to his house. When a mob of men came later that evening to molest Lot’s guests [scripture reference], Lot offered his daughters to the crowd in an attempt to satiate them. Providentially, he was prevented from doing so. The angels pulled Lot back into the house and blinded the mob [scripture reference].

The angels saved Lot’s daughters, but Lot was quite willing to give them to the mob. AIG doesn’t go into detail, but we will. Here’s what the Good Book says of Lot’s behavior that night. This is from Genesis 19:8 (King James version, of course). Lot says to the mob:

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Nice guy. Great family values. Then AIG reminds us of Lot’s incest with his daughters. Again, they don’t go into detail and neither shall we; but the tale is told in Genesis 19, starting at verse 30 and running through verse 35. Then the next two verses say:

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

So there’s the Moab connection (but AIG never mentions it). Then AIG returns to the problem with which their essay grapples:

How can we reconcile this in our minds? Lot, the ineffective leader, the indecisive family man, the comfort-loving hedonist, the drunken dad — how could this man be called righteous?

“Drunken dad”? That’s one way to put it. Anyway, we have confidence that AIG can handle this dilemma. If they can believe that Genesis is good science, and Noah’s Flood was a recent historical event, they can talk themselves into believing anything. Here they go, with scripture references deleted:

We only know of Lot’s actions during a short period of his life. We are not told of Lot’s final days, but we do know that while living with Abraham he was a witness to Abraham’s humility, kindness, and faithfulness to God. He also saw Abraham make poor decisions and sin, and then saw him repent. So it is not unreasonable to presume that Lot repented of his sin later in life, and God forgave him as He has promised.

See? It’s “not unreasonable” to assume that Lot was forgiven. Wow — maybe even a Darwinist can find forgiveness! Then, after some gobbledegook, AIG wraps it up with this:

Lot spent too much time around the creature comforts of life in Sodom, and consequently his testimony was tarnished. Yet even in all of this, God was faithful and did not forget that Lot was His servant. God twice delivered him physically, and through the Holy Spirit He conveyed to us that Lot was righteous, signifying more importantly that He delivered Lot from his sins. Though Lot did not live a very outwardly righteous life, he believed in God by faith, and God counted that faith as righteousness.

So there you are. If Lot could be forgiven, maybe even you, dear reader, may yet hope. Oh, wait — AIG has a footnote that helps to explain things:

Note that the laws forbidding sexual relationships between close relations were not codified until the time of Moses in Leviticus 18. Abraham married his half-sister, and Adam’s and Eve’s children married each other. Either way, these actions were carried out by the daughters, who were never called righteous by the Scriptures.

Ah, it was the girls’ fault. Yes, it has always been thus. In conclusion, we return to what we said at the start: If creationists can defend their bizarre creationist doctrines, they can defend anything.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Louisiana Creationism Is National News

You are already aware of Louisiana Governor Jindal’s Creationist Voucher Program and Zachary Kopplin’s efforts to publicize and defeat it. We’re pleased to report that news of this bayou abomination is being reported nationally.

Some of the articles are from the AP, which we won’t touch, but this appears at the website of the Washington Post: Louisiana’s pretend voucher ‘accountability’ plan. It’s by Valerie Strauss.

After describing how Louisiana private schools funded by state vouchers aren’t accountable for their failures (a problem we’ve overlooked in our focus on creationism), the reporter says, with bold font added by us:

Incidentally, this is being championed by Gov. Bobby Jindal, the man that presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has praised specifically for his education policies. Jindal is said to be on Romney’s short list for vice president, but secretary of education may be more likely.

Jindal’s on our short list too. He’s short (“approximately” 5’9″). The Post article continues:

The voucher program is a result of a new law that allows the state to offer vouchers to more than half of the students in the state, expand the number of privately managed charter schools and do other scary things, including giving letter grades to preschoolers. It’s rightly been called an assault on public education.

Even if the private, voucher-funded schools were as splendid as it must have been for the Athenians to learn from Socrates, they’d still be opposed by the teachers’ unions, so they’d be politically controversial regardless of quality. But there’s more involved here than union opposition. Let’s read on:

Though some 450,000 students were eligible for vouchers, about 10,000 applied, with most of the slots in Christian schools that don’t appear to have the resources to absorb them. What’s more, many of these schools use curriculum that promotes Young Earth Creationism, which holds the belief that the universe is no older than 10,000 years old despite definitive scientific evidence that it is billions of years old.

It won’t be Socrates teaching the kiddies, it’ll be some creationist nut-job.

The rest of the column quotes from Zack’s website, describing the creationist texts at several state-funded private schools. So Zack’s work is getting the recognition it deserves.

There’s also an article about Zack and the Louisiana mess at the National Center for Science Education: Vouchers for creationism in Louisiana? One excerpt should be sufficient to encourage you to click over there to read it:

Louisiana is about to spend almost twelve million dollars to fund the teaching of creationism, charges Zack Kopplin, famous for organizing the effort to repeal the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act. In Kopplin’s sights now is a controversial new voucher program in the state that uses public school funds to pay for tuition and certain fees at private schools for students who attend low-performing public schools and whose family income is below 250% of the federal poverty level.

And one of our clandestine operatives, code-named “Bayou Boy,” sent us a link to the AP story, this one appearing in The Advocate of Baton Rouge: Vouchers get dose of religion. The AP mentions Zack Kopplin too.

So dear reader, we’re left wondering: Will Louisiana persist in implementing Jindal’s program of state-funded creationist schools? And more importantly, will Romney — if he wins the election — have Jindal as his Vice President or Secretary of Education?

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Rev. David Rives: Don’t Think. Believe!

Once again, dear reader, we present another video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries. The last time we brought you a David Rives video was Chemistry Is a Miracle.

This one is titled A Leap of Faith. It’s truly life-altering. Best of all, it requires less than 90 seconds to watch the whole thing — including a brief ad at the end. There’s no excuse to miss this one!

Click on the video. Do it now! You have nothing to lose but your mind.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Kansas Creationism Is National News

As we pointed out in “We’re Not Crackpots”, Kansas is considering new, evolution-friendly science standards proposed by the National Research Council, which are intended as voluntary guidelines to be adopted by all states for use in their public schools.

One faction on the Kansas State Board of Education wants to approve the standards now, before the November elections — which could swing the Board back to a creationist majority. Between 1999 and 2007, the state had five sets of science standards, oscillating back and forth between creationism and evolution. See (see Kansas Flashback: The Crazy Days).

Five of the 10 Board seats are on the ballot this fall. Kathy Martin, the queen of the Kansas creationists, won’t be running for re-election, so it’s all up for grabs this year. Evolution is the big issue, because Kansas is on the cutting edge of science — Tenth Century science.

Today, the Los Angeles Times has this story: Kansas’ evolution debate just keeps evolving. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

The great Kansas debate over teaching evolution continues to, well, evolve. Consider Jack Wu, candidate for the Kansas state Board of Education. Perhaps the most relevant qualification on his bio is that he attends the Westboro Baptist Church. … “The current public educational system in Kansas and the United States is preparing its students to be liars, crooks, thieves, murderers and perverts,” he says on a statement on his campaign site.

He’s as whacked as they come. Well, maybe not — he could be mainstream in Kansas. We wrote about him here: Meet Jack Wu. On with the story:

All this is just a way of saying that the evolution debate once again is rearing its head as Kansas considers new science standards that would firmly entrench evolution as a core scientific principle.

[...]

Once the Next Generation Science Standards are finished by the end of this year, it’ll be time for Kansas to review its own science standards. The state’s current education board members would be expected to adopt the national standards they are helping to draft. For some creationists, that makes November’s upcoming election for half the seats on the 10-member board huge.

Huge indeed. Let’s read on:

“It’s not a bunch of Kansas crazies that has brought this up,” said Kenneth Willard, one state education board member who questions teaching evolution, according to the Lawrence Journal-World. “It’s broader.”

Actually, Willard, although there are loads of creationists around, in your case it really is a bunch of Kansas crazies. We continue:

Creationist advocates outside of Kansas, such as Answers in Genesis in Kentucky, have distanced themselves from the most strident calls to ban teaching evolution.

Too embarrassing, even for AIG. Here’s more:

Add to that list the Institute for Creation Research. “Teachers who don’t believe the Bible shouldn’t be forced to teach something they don’t believe,” Lawrence Ford, director of communications for the Institute for Creation Research, told the Christian Post.

Both organizations supported standards that would allow students to critically challenge evolution, however, so expect the debate to go on — maybe just more gently.

Professional creationists have had their heads handed to them so many times in court that they’ve adopted a kinder, gentler approach to suppressing rationality. But they’re not fooling anyone. Nevertheless, Kansas creationists like Willard and Wu aren’t interested in such subtleties. They want Kansas schools to teach full-blown creationism.

The election is a few months away and we’re expecting lots more fun from Kansas. Stay tuned to this blog.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article