Creationist Wisdom #741: Choose Your Origin

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Chronicle Herald of Halifax, Nova Scotia. It’s titled Tracing the steps of two creation stories, and the newspaper has no comments section.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is John. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

I firmly believe that, when fully understood, the biblical view of creation is not in conflict with science.

Wow! We’re off to a good start. Then he says:

Rather, it is in conflict with any worldview that starts without a creator. [Hee hee!] With that clarification in mind, I attempt to trace my origin through two creation stories.

John tells us the two creation stories. Science first:

The secular view, which leaves God out of the process, reveals that I am the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm — the arbitrary product of time, chance and natural forces. … I exist on a tiny planet in a minor solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. I have no intrinsic value beyond my body, and at death I will cease to exist.

That’s a horrible story! And it gets worse:

Therefore, I conclude that I came from essentially nothing and I am going nowhere. But, if I am only a dash between the womb and the tomb and I don’t know why, then I must ask if there is any real purpose for my life either now or in the future?

Boo hoo! We don’t like that one. What else does John have for us? Let’s read on:

In contrast, the Christian story offers me tremendous hope. I discover that I am not the result of some cosmic accident but the special creation of a good and all powerful God — His crown of creation. I am created in His image, with capacities to think, love, worship and make moral choices that set me above all other life forms.

Ooooooooooooh! That’s nice! John continues:

My creator loves me and gave His son to pay the supreme sacrifice for my salvation. I am completely unworthy and undeserving of such love. My salvation is entirely by grace through faith and not of myself.

That’s wonderful! Skipping over the tale of a skeptic who changed his mind, John says:

Best of all, the fact that Christ died for each one of us and wants to live within us by His spirit in a meaningful relationship makes us incredibly valuable. And when we are willing to accept His gift of salvation, through repentance and faith, we can become children of God and spend eternity with Him.

That’s a story with a happy ending! And this is the happy ending of John’s letter:

Now, I invite my readers to decide whether it matters which of these two stories is true.

Isn’t this great? We get to choose which story we like. Just make a wish and it will come true. And there’s no conflict with science!

Copyright © 2017. 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

20 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #741: Choose Your Origin

  1. So the reason to choose between the two hypotheses is not which one can be backed up by science but the one that makes you feel better. Maybe we should institute a new basis for science: what is true is what makes me happiest! Yeah, I get it!

  2. michaelfugate

    If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

  3. There are many major points which I would like to talk about, the first one that I was going to write about was that there are at least three different Biblical views of creation. But on second thought, I decided on one which is more relevant to the anti-science stance of 20th Century creationism.

    The writer is interested in the origins of the individual. This is the concern of sciences of reproduction, genetics, and development. As far as I know, there is no real opposition from even the fundamentalists to the findings of these sciences. One can believe in the individual relationship with one’s creator and redeemer and accept the scientific finding that each one of us develops from a single cell by biological-chemical-physical processes.

    Evolutionary biology is about the changes that occur in populations, not individuals, including the origins of clades. Why should that be of some deep concern to our values? For example, the Bible does not have a word to say about it. As far as we can tell, the necessary concepts to talk about it did not exist in the culture in which the Bible was created. To make an anti-evolutionary theology requires a non-Biblical language – for example, “baramin”, “microevolution”.

  4. Well the secular ….” … I exist on a tiny planet in a minor solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. I have no intrinsic value beyond my body, and at death I will cease to exist….” is terrible but the xtian….Gawd made sure …. … I exist on a tiny planet in a minor solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. I have no intrinsic value beyond my body, and at death I will cease to exist. And if I deny this is his work I don’t cease to exit but is tortured for eternity!!! Sounds SSSOOOooooomuch better!!

  5. There is nothing wrong with John’s timing!

    “…. when fully understood ….”
    As the rest of this letter excellently shows these fools, who very unlike John don’t sit behind their computer composing profound letters, do not fully understand science.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature21031.html

    Will Ol’Hambo and the IDiots from Seattle contemplate these findings?

  6. James Bolton Theuer

    It’s weird that my need for emotional crutches and wishful thoughts controls Yahweh’s existence but not my bank account. Skee-Lo and I share a special kind of pain.

  7. The guy is an old as dirt ex Baptist pastor.

  8. @mbno: Great article, I missed that one! Got any more?

  9. I don’t suppose it would be worth the trouble to point out to John that nobody, except possibly the very occasional extreme psychopath, believes “I have no intrinsic value beyond my body”, that, what is it, forty dollar bag of chemicals. Of course human beings have value beyond that, mostly consisting of what they do.

    Nor, in fact, does anyone believe that “at death I will cease to exist”. Who was it said that the evil men do lives after them? The same writer was less sanguine about the good – but it does live on. What we do is part of us, and that does not cease to exist at our death.

    So John imputes to others grotesque misrepresentations of their own beliefs. He might like to do that, but it’s not true. Alas, for John, truth consists of what is palatable to him, as he makes such a fuss of telling us. I wonder if the man he thinks was God would have approved of such a definition of truth.

  10. davidambrose66

    So, if we buy into the fantasy of this guy John, we are/were created by this doG. Not only that, but as this John guy claims, we are the “crown of creation”.
    Well, being an old guy, not a hippy, was in the US Marines from 1968-72 and in Vietnam 1970-71, still a huge music fan, rock on as we used to say, Jefferson Airplane had a song; “Crown of Creation”. The first verse is as follows; “You are the crown of creation. You are the crown of creation. And you’ve got no place to go.”
    Hmm, John seems to disagree with a good old song. Myself, I tend to follow Monty Python. The end song from their film, “Life of Brain” sums it up nicely. We came from nothing, we go back to nothing. What have we lost? Nothing!
    Always look on the bright side of life.
    Cheers to all and a special thanks to Curmudgeon for sharing this blog with us all.

  11. “…we can become children of God and spend eternity with Him.”

    This kind of talk always seems to imply an actual corporal existence in the so-called afterlife, i.e., our bodies are real and they just rise up to the heavens and everybody, including their pets as well, just enjoy the good life, or is it sitting around on their butts for eternity? They’re dead, they don’t need food or drink, they don’t play games or read or really do anything as their dead. I guess that’s what all those evangelicals are hoping for in their rapture as well, to sit around and do nothing. The ancient Egyptians also thought that way, but they thought they’d be doing the same type of living as they do in their present lives. But it seems to be a common thread among them about dying and the beyond the grave thinking.

  12. I don’t think these idiots have any idea what they will be doing. Spending eternity doing what? Sitting in church? Singing praises? I choose the nothingness.

  13. Dave Luckett

    @ GreenPoisonFrog: Of course they don’t have any idea. They don’t have any ideas, generally, except those that have been implanted by long conditioning, and they are incapable of examining them.

    Case in point: read, if you can stand it, the Official Description of Heaven, chapter 21 and part of 22 of Revelation (ie, traditional title “The Revelation of St John the Divine”). That’s where most of the tropes come from: Holy City, new Jerusalem, Pearly Gates, streets of gold. Sure, sure. But also, no night, no sun or stars, no sea, no moon, no rain, no weather. And nothing to do but to worship, constantly, forever.

    Like living in a gold box in Tiffany’s window, under permanent arc-lights.

    I’ve asked fundamentalists if that sounded good to them. Was that how they wanted to spend eternity? Every time I did, they just looked at me funny. It was as if I’d said something completely alien, in some strange foreign language, a meaningless babble beyond all human ken.

    They can’t examine an idea. They just can’t. The ability has been systematically stripped from them.

  14. TomS notes

    The writer is interested in the origins of the individual. This is the concern of sciences of reproduction, genetics, and development. As far as I know, there is no real opposition from even the fundamentalists to the findings of these sciences.

    Except for their teensy little opposition about the matter of just when a fertilised ovum acquires a ‘soul’ and thus becomes a sacrosanct Exceptional Human with all the rights and privileges thereunto instead of a fertilised bovine ovum, which will become a Big Mac.

    Full disclosure: I have never understood all their arguments, which are a Gordian pretzel of illogic. If the uniquely human ‘soul’ is an immaterial personified entity that persists beyond physical death, when and how did such a thing come into being? Surplus ova discarded in the menses and slow swimming sperms have no special status, but somehow at the moment of conception some inexplicable bit of oogity-boogity occurs that is undetectable by science.

    Or not….

  15. It is easy to understand their Gordian pretzel. If the conclusion is, I ain’t no monkey, then any verbiage which precedes that is acceptable. Just take a look at what can be invoked as a literal reading of the Bible to get some idea of what is permitted.

  16. “By the sweat of your face
    You will eat bread,
    Till you return to the ground,
    Because from it you were taken;
    For you are dust,
    And to dust you shall return.”

    Genesis 3:19

  17. “For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.”
    Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

  18. OK, I’m putting this to the test:

    “A human ovum, in the very nanosecond it is ferrtilised by a human sperm, acquires an immortal soul, so an abortion can never be too early to not be murder, and so therefore a woman consenting to such a termination and the medics who perform it are 1st degree murderers who should be subjected to capital punishment on the grounds that I ain’t no monkey

    …By Jove, I think I’m getting the hang of Creationism!

  19. @megalonyx
    If I understand your reasoning, creationists ought to be “pro-choice”. For what is the difference which they point to between a human and a monkey – something like speech or reasoning – something which does not distinguish an early-term fetus.

  20. Spot on, Mega. Now carefully study some representative list of logical fallacies, apply them generously and you’re ready for joining the Discotute.

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