The creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have produced another winner. This one is by Henry Morris III, the son of ICR founder Henry Morris. Henry III is carrying on the family business as ICR’s Chief Executive Officer.
The title of Henry’s article comes from the movie exclamation of Dr. Frankenstein: It’s Alive!, and that’s our clue that Henry is trying to be cute with his title. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Poor old Dr. Frankenstein stitched together bits and pieces of various “fresh” human parts in hope that he could energize them with the terrible force bound up in lightning flashes during a thunderstorm. We know now that such an effort is silly, but less than a hundred years ago those concepts were the staple of theories that attempted to find a natural explanation for how life got started. The Bible simply states that the One who is Life created life.
Nice contrast. Frankenstein’s theory vs. the bible. Isn’t creationism fun? Henry continues:
But how can we recognize life? What is the difference between botany and zoology? What makes the cell in a petunia different from the cell in a platypus?
The difference, according to Henry, is that plants aren’t alive. Why this is worth an article doesn’t become known until the end, and even then it’s ambiguous because this is a terribly disorganized piece of writing, but we’ll do our best to guide you through. Henry mentions a Hebrew word that the bible uses for life, but not for plants, and then he says:
Plants are indeed marvelous, beautiful, complex, and able to reproduce “after their kind,” but they are designed by the Creator to be a source of energy to maintain life. Plants are food — they are not alive.
If that’s not enough proof, he has even more from scripture:
[O]ne of the descriptive terms that the Creator applied to living creatures was “movement.” The Hebrew word is ramas, used 17 times in the Old Testament — never about plants or vegetation of any kind. Living things move.
Wow — plants don’t move! But wait, there’s more:
And living things eat plants! Plants do not travel from one location to another, except on the backs of animals, blown on the wind, or transported by men. They are “rooted.” They do not have the power of ramas. Living things have the ability to move independently, but plants do not.
Isn’t this astonishing news, dear reader? But who cares if Henry’s definition of life excludes plants? Stay with us, he’ll get around to it. Let’s read on:
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood,” God announces in Leviticus 17:11. The Mosaic law was centered on blood sacrifice, requiring the “shedding of blood” by killing (executing) an innocent animal for a temporary substitutionary atonement (covering) of the sins committed. Blood is the life source of all living things.
Life requires blood. Blood! Then Henry mentions that plants don’t have a soul. No soul! Now, having scientifically established that plants aren’t alive, he’s ready to attack evolution:
Evolutionary dogma insists that everything that exists is connected to the basic elements of the universe. Evolutionists claim that life is connected through a “common ancestor” in the distant eons — through the first cell that became enabled to reproduce itself by the random interplay of atoms. According to that definition, “life” is anything that can reproduce. Thus, everything that grows on our planet is our brother, and humanity is nothing more than a highly evolved arrangement of organic chemicals.
Henry ain’t no kin to no plant! He continues:
The challenge comes within Christian scholarship. Groups such as BioLogos and a growing list of Christian schools and universities have bought into the terrible lie that plants are just as much alive as humanity — that we “kill” plants before we eat them. While that idea may seem innocuous (after all, we do kill animals before we eat them), the implications and applications are enormous!
Enormous! Uh … what implications? Here it comes, omitting the Genesis references:
If we do indeed “kill” (take the life of) plants as we consume them, then God Himself authorized that killing. He specifically designed plants as food and drew a strong distinction between food and the “life” of everything else. If God authorized the “killing” of plants, then God designed death into the very essence of the creation — and pronounced it all “very good”.
The writing is so clumsy it’s never specifically mentioned, but what Henry’s getting at is ICR’s belief that there was no death before Adam & Eve sinned — even though they (and dinosaurs) were happily munching on plants. Moving along:
Here’s the heresy: If God designed death into creation, then death is as “good” as all other factors — and the atheistic evolutionary doctrine is right. Death is the “good” force that brings about the ultimate “fittest” in our universe. Death, therefore, is not “the wages of sin,” and our Lord Jesus’ death was not necessary for salvation — it was just the wasted effort of a deluded martyr.
See? It’s all about death, which is Adam & Eve’s fault. Plants don’t die, even though Adam & Eve ate them before that apple, because plants aren’t alive (no blood, etc.). Therefore evolution is false and Genesis is true. And if you’re running around like Dr. Frankenstein yelling “It’s alive!” then you, dear reader, are headed for the Lake of Fire. That’s hinted at in Henry’s final paragraph:
These teachings cannot be harmonized. Either the Bible is Truth (capitalization intended) or it is Error. The choice is clear. The message is clear. The effect is eternal!
But remember, none of this makes sense if plants are alive. Once you abandon that heresy, the rest follows.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.