Creationist Wisdom #718: Three Leaps of Faith

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Oakland Press, published in Pontiac, Michigan. It’s titled Is it possible to still be a creationist? Evolution is a leap of faith. The newspaper has a comments feature.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name — but today we’ve got a preacher. It’s Rev. Mark T. Wuggazer, interim senior pastor at the St. Peter Lutheran Church in Macomb, Michigan. We’ll give you a few excerpts from rev’s letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Okay, here we go:

Many devout Christians, Jews and Muslims struggle with the issue of Creation and Evolution because our society teaches that the issue is settled — that evolution is a fact and creationism is a myth. We are told that science is on the side of evolution and if one wants to believe in creation, one must suspend reason and logic.

Yes, we hear that a lot. The rev says:

Not true. God is not anti-science. The Bible is not anti-science. Science is a gift from God that helps us understand what He created. In fact, science sometimes is not evolution’s friend at all. Evolution requires you to make a leap of faith — three leaps, actually. God also asks His believers to make similar leaps of faith.

Egad — three leaps of faith? What are they? The rev tells us:

Evolution asks its believers to make the leap of faith that something came from nothing. Science cannot explain how something (a whole lot of something, actually) came from nothing. Theoretical physicists such as Steven Hawking have good-sounding theories, but they are nothing but the musings of very smart people — not based on evidence. They also tend to be based on circular reasoning such as: “The universe came from whatever was before it,” or, “It’s here, so it must have happened somehow.”

That’s not very convincing! The rev continues:

Neither of these ideas is science. They are leaps of faith. God asks believers to make the same kind of leap: That He alone spoke the universe into existence. Of course, this leap is also not based on scientific discovery and evidence. The point is that one way or the other, you have to make a leap of faith that cannot be arrived at with the help of science.

Wow — it’s one leap or another! This is confusing. Here’s the second leap:

Evolution asks its believers to make the leap of faith that life came from nonlife — that living creatures came from stones. The best evolution can offer is the idea that “somehow” given enough time, and the right conditions, it appened. Again, this is circular reasoning and completely lacking in scientific evidence. In fact, the simplest form of life, a single-cell bacteria, is mind-bogglingly complex. … The simplest form of life contains over 40 billion atoms. All of these atoms must be lined up in exactly the right order to do these operations. The statistical probability that this would happen randomly surpasses our ability to define it. Yet the evolutionist asks us to believe it just happened. On its own. With no help.

That sounds crazy! However:

God asks us to make a similar leap of faith — that He alone created life from its simplest to its most complex forms.

The mind boggles! Here comes the third leap:

Evolution asks its believers to make the leap of faith that humans evolved from nonhumans. While the fossil evidence suggests this, no scientist has ever designed an experiment to observe or observed in nature the evolution of one species into another. Evolution posits a theory based on fossils and asks us to believe it happened. God asks us to make a similar leap of faith — that He created humans from the dust of the earth.

So how can we decide? The rev offers a helpful way to find the truth:

Consider the soul. No believer denies the existence of the soul. Humans alone have a soul. It is part of what is meant by being made in God’s image. If humans evolved from apes, that means a nonhuman animal without a soul gave birth to a human with a soul. Nothing could be more ridiculous.

He’s right! And now we come to the end:

Every person must make a leap of faith. The question is: Which is it going to be? A leap into the arms of evolutionists or the leap into the arms of God?

When it’s put that way, the answer is quite simple. Great letter, rev!

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #718: Three Leaps of Faith

  1. *Evolution asks its believers to make the leap of faith that life came from nonlife — that living creatures came from stones.*

    Mmm, yet another creationist who feels he knows more about science than scientists. Evolution, as we all know, does not says that.

    The living stones is a quote, I think, from that eminent scientist Kent Honvid.

    Saying that, it is a very funny letter.

  2. Just a couple of questions (OK, multiple-part questions) about how the soul shows that humans didn’t come from apes.
    Where did the soul come from? From nothing? Is there a soul in the ovum, or in the sperm, or both, or neither? How is it possible that a human comes from a soul-less ovum and sperm?
    How is it possible that the human body could come from soul-less dust of the Earth (as the Bible says)?

  3. People with the beliefs of this delusional idiot never address the question of “where did god come from”. I apply Occam’s Razor here: if you think it is unreasonable for the universe to have come from nothing, why can you then think it is more reasonable for a god to have come from nothing and then created the universe from nothing. Yeah, I know, “god was, is and always will be”. That just doesn’t work for me; I have more ‘faith’ in Steven Weinberg than I have in any theologian or mythical book!

  4. I guess a master’s in exegetical theology is not helpful in either reading the Bible or anything else for that matter.

  5. @Cynic, especially since god is everything and anything – simple or complex, good, bad or indifferent, material or immaterial, who the hell knows?

  6. These people are neither stoopid (my favorite) and they do know science. But science conflicts and makes a LIE out of their firmly held made up fairy tale which gives them hope of something after death, and death scares the piss out of them!!! So to support the LIE they have to deny parts of science they don’t like. They do love the iPhone part of science. But it is simpler to just say ” I don’t know and will find out soon enough, so stop worrying as I will handle it as it comes, like i handle every day as they come.” and it does not require any more effort nor make believe fairy tales!!!

  7. Among Lutherans, it’s just the Missouri Synod ones that are fundies; most are not, however, in-your-face evangelicals. They have the dreariest of hymns, too. That said, what precisely is the evidence for the “soul”? Where does it reside? When does it form? If it’s in the sperm or egg, then gazillions are wasted. If its formed at conception, how do identical twins get separate souls (or do they?). If its formed at birth, then the unborn have no souls to worry about. It’s all so confusing. Unless, of course, there is no such entity as the soul.

  8. Re “Consider the soul. No believer denies the existence of the soul.” Uh, yeah, they want to believe in them so much that scientists have tried to weight them (like Annubis). One scientist actually claimed that humans had a sudden drop in weight as they died. He claimed this was possibly the soul leaving the body. But I don’t think :believers” know where they are going on this. If souls have mass, then they must also occupy space, which means they should be observable. Has anyone ever seen a material object leaving a dying person’s body? I do not think so.

    I think the “belief” in the soul is wishful thinking. The wishful thinking is in “life after death” with the soul being the mechanism. But if the soul has mass and occupies space, then it is a material object, one that needs a living human body to support it (unless it is some kind of alien parasite, do you think?). Which means the body would have to be physically resurrected to support its soul. Has anyone ever seen a body physically resurrected? (Don’t throw at me examples of people who were thought to have died and didn’t. All of those people went on to die real deaths which resurrect humans would not.)

    There are so many things that these people do not believe in: fairies, unicorns, ghosts, zombies, etc. The evidence of the existence of many of these clearly fictional entities is greater than for the existence of souls, so why believe? I guess it is easier to get along with your family and believe what they do than believe your own lying eyes.

  9. As with many religious entities, souls, angels, devils, demons, god, etc. – they’re all in the brains of humans and no where else.

  10. According to Rev Mark his god created something (namely our Universe) from nothing, so why he has a problem with science investigating how that happened is beyond me.

  11. Evolution asks its believers to make the leap of faith that something came from nothing. Science cannot explain how something (a whole lot of something, actually) came from nothing. Theoretical physicists such as Steven Hawking have good-sounding theories, but they are nothing but the musings of very smart people — not based on evidence. They also tend to be based on circular reasoning such as: “The universe came from whatever was before it,” or, “It’s here, so it must have happened somehow.”

    But that’s the point: it isn’t“circular reasoning,” because scientists look for evidence which will tell them how it happened and what, if anything, came before it. Moreover, evolution is in principle falsifiable, and (creationists always forget this) anti-evolutionists–who in those days included some top-notch actual scientists–had plenty of opportunity to blow it down in the nineteenth century, and failed.

    Consider the soul. No believer denies the existence of the soul. Humans alone have a soul. It is part of what is meant by being made in God’s image. If humans evolved from apes, that means a nonhuman animal without a soul gave birth to a human with a soul. Nothing could be more ridiculous.

    No believer denies the existence of the soul. Boy, I could drive a truck through that one, if I knew how to drive a truck.

    And if the soul exists, who can say for sure that animals don’t have them? And even if they don’t, so what? If the soul exists, and God created it, He could surely choose when in the course of life’s evolution to introduce it.

    Every person must make a leap of faith. The question is: Which is it going to be? A leap into the arms of evolutionists or the leap into the arms of God?

    How about a leap into the arms of the truth, whatever it happens to be? Faith is one thing; blind faith is quite another.

  12. And if the soul exists, who can say for sure that animals don’t have them?
    Particularly extinct animals, the precursors of humans?
    leap into the arms of God, i.e., “what I tell you”.

  13. The Bible does say specifically what God did to give the first human a soul:

    Genesis 2:7 (God) “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, so that he became a living being”. (“living being” trans. from “nephesh chayyah”. But “nephesh” also means “spirit” or “soul”, and is so translated in the KJV)

    That is, the act of bestowing a soul on soulless clay was the act of instilling breath. Aron Ra argues – rightly, I think – that to the ancient Hebrews the very fact of respiration in the visible act of breathing was evidence for the existence of a soul. You can see this in several references which equate the visible motion of air to a spirit: eg Genesis 1:2 where the wind that moves across the water is the spirit of God.

    So the soul enters with the first breath, and departs with the last. This has obvious and fascinating implications, but I will leave them to others.

  14. “Consider the soul. No believer denies the existence of the soul.”
    Alas, our writer doesn’t even correctly represent the world of faith. If the “soul” is to be understood as an immaterial, spirit-like entity that carries a person’s identity, and that survives death, there are absolutely believers that totally denies the existence of any such thing.

    This is for instance the position of Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses. They interpret Biblical references to the “soul” as meaning simply a person or living being (and indeed the relevant Greek and Hebrew words are also used of animals).

    The field of religion is as diverse and many-faceted as the human imagination it springs from, and it would be a bold man who says that “no believer denies” this or that.

  15. Dave Luckett says:

    So the soul enters with the first breath, and departs with the last. This has obvious and fascinating implications, but I will leave them to others.

    If breathing indicates the soul, then what, I wonder, is the scriptural meaning of flatulence?

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s