The Bible Doesn’t Make Sense? So What?

We found this one at the website of the Institute for Creation Research — (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Their post is titled Biblical Creation and Intellectual Foolishness, and it was written by one of ICR’s top creation scientists — .Jake Hebert. They say he has a Ph.D. in physics, and joined ICR as a research associate the same year that degree was awarded. Here are some excerpts from Jake’s post, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

In a recent interview discussing his new book In Quest of the Historical Adam, philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig acknowledged his biased assumptions when interpreting how the words of the Bible should be understood.

Here’s his write-up in Wikipedia: William Lane Craig. They say he’s a Discoveroid fellow, so you know what we’re dealing with. Jake says:

What prejudices his interpretation of words contrary to their plain and normal meaning is his longstanding “great fear” that young-earth creationists are correct that the book of Genesis should be understood as real history. Dr. Craig is concerned that this would require a wholesale challenge to all of modern science. [It certainly would!] However, during the interview Dr. Craig made numerous revealing claims that show that science has nothing to do with why he rejects a historical Genesis.

He rejects Genesis? How is that possible? Jake tells us:

He ridiculed clear biblical narratives that Eve was beguiled by a real “talking snake” and the “anthropomorphic” idea that God walked and talked with Adam and Eve as stories akin to ancient mythology. [Gasp!] It is important to realize that these objections have nothing to do with modern science — science cannot inform us whether God would, or wouldn’t, walk with Adam and Eve. Nor can we scientifically test the ability of Satan to possess an animal and speak through it.

Jake is correct — science is worthless in such matters. He continues:

These are philosophical objections to a literal Genesis, not scientific ones. [Science is useless in such matters!] So, it cannot be the science per se that has Craig worried. However, affirming a literal Genesis does offend modern sensibilities that consider biblical truths to be foolish (1 Corinthians 2:14). Like the Corinthian Christians, we all need to guard against the fear of appearing foolish in the eyes of the world.

Yes, a creationist would never never want to appear foolish! Let’s read on:

It’s Craig’s biases that he brings to the Bible — not anything in the Bible itself — that underlie his attack on biblical clarity, which undermines not just the first 11 chapters of Genesis but the entire Bible. [All of it?] If Craig rejects the normal meaning of Genesis 3 as real history because God walked and talked with Adam and Eve, then what does he do with Genesis 18, where God and two angelic visitors talk — and even eat — with Abraham? And what of Numbers 22:28-30 and 2 Peter 2:16, both of which affirm that the prophet Balaam was rebuked by his donkey?

Jeepers — Jake is right! If you reject one part of the bible because it doesn’t make sense, then what about all the rest of it? Here’s another excerpt:

Biblical creation has always seemed foolish in the world’s eyes, but this is not because evidence for creation is lacking. [Really?] The ranks of biblical creationists include researchers recognized as world-class scientists. [Hee hee!] Scientific and historical evidence for even the earliest chapters of Genesis are abundant [What?], and the creation-Flood model of the Ice Age is vastly superior to anything proposed by the Creator-denying scientists to which Craig eagerly conforms his understanding of Genesis 1–11.

Amazing, isn’t it? Wait ’til you see what’s coming next:

Moreover, creation researchers have published scientific evidence refuting iconic arguments for evolution and an old earth [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!], and, like evolutionists, Craig fails to engage this primary literature. Evidence for biblical creation is not getting weaker over time, it is getting stronger.

Getting stronger! And now we come to the end:

Is it really science that is keeping so many Christians from embracing a straightforward understanding of Genesis, or is it something else? [What else could it be?] Every Christian needs to guard against the sin of intellectual pride.

Jake ends with some scripture quotes warning about pride, and that’s certainly worth reading. Don’t let pride keep you from being a creationist, dear reader! That’s a mistake with eternal consequences.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Ken Ham Is Opposed to Quote Mining

Look what we found at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Hambo’s new post is titled What Are the Dangers of Quote Mining?

You’re probably familiar with quote mining, because it’s a common creationist tactic. Wikipedia mentions it in their article on Quoting out of context. They say: “Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.”

We’ve posted many times about flagrant quote mining by creationists, and you don’t need any examples. Well, here’s one, and the creationist doing the quote-mining is ol’ Hambo himself: Hambo Explains Racism. Let’s see what Hambo says about the tactic today. Here are some excerpts from his new post, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

The Bible teaches atheism. That’s right; Psalm 14:1 says, “”There is no God.“” Convinced? Probably not, because you know there must be a context. The rest of the verse reads, “”The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.“’” In fact, you might be a little upset if someone twisted the Bible like this. But do Christians ever do this?

We see creationists doing it all the time — not about the bible in such an obvious way, but certainly about science texts. Let’s see what Hambo says:

Unfortunately, yes, we do. [Gasp!] Consider this quote from a letter by Charles Darwin. “The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.” Christians have actually quoted this to show that Darwin believed it seemed impossible for chance to produce the universe.

Then he explains why it’s quote mining:

But as you should have guessed, given that Darwin is the father of evolution, this isn’t a reasonable conclusion. The rest of the paragraph was left out, and the end of the sentence says, “but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide.” Darwin doubted this argument for God’s existence, not his own belief in evolution.

Hambo’s disapproval of quote mining is a surprising development. He continues:

To put it bluntly, quote mining is a version of lying. It occurs far too often in theology, politics, and even the debate about evolution. Sometimes it may be unintentional, as when we quote someone who quotes someone else. But we should not be too ready to believe a damaging quote is accurate just because it comes from an opponent.

Amazing, isn’t it? Now we’re skipping to the end:

The lesson is clear. Misquoting Charles Darwin won’t convince a skeptic, but it may damage your Christian witness. So if a quote seems too good to be true, investigate. Evolution’s shortcomings are crippling, and careful, accurate arguments will expose them. [Hee hee!] We don’t need to resort to cheap shots or quote mining. “Do unto others what you would have others do unto you” is still our motto, as Christ’s followers!

From time to time, Hambo advises against other common creationist tactics. He has this at his website, but you have to search for it: Arguments to Avoid.

Well, dear reader, what do you make of all this? Is Hambo a changed man? We shall see.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Surprise! Discoveroids Say Evolution Is Racist

You’ll be shocked — shocked! — by what the Discovery Institute reveals in a new post at their creationist blog. It’s titled Human Evolution as a “Path to Whiteness”, and it was written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Staff of Evolution News [the Discoveroids’ blog] recently toured the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History and brought back a fascinating and revealing series of three photo essays on how the museum covers evolution (see here, here, and here). [Links omitted.!]

We wrote about one of their thrilling posts — see Huge Shock at the Smithsonian Museum. Let’s see what Klinghoffer has for us this time. He says:

I was not part of that particular trip. So I was struck by a point made in the final essay, [Link omitted!]: the simplified and misleading science on display, which is supposed to be so up-to-date as to merit showcasing on the National Mall, retains the element of traditional Darwinian racism.

Traditional Darwinian racism? Egad! Klinghoffer tells us:

Believe me, I don’t use the word “racism” casually — it is grotesquely and most unfairly overused in our current culture. Note this, however:

[He quotes something:] Entering the Hall of Human Origins [the Smithsonian exhibit], the viewer is greeted by a panorama of species becoming more “white” as they evolve. [Gasp!] One exception is the Hobbit of Indonesia (Homo floresiensis) which is portrayed as exceptionally dark…. Inside the Hall of Human Origins, these same six specimens are portrayed on a path to whiteness. Visitors seem to accept this portrayal without rioting because, after all, this is “science.”

We’ve posted several times about the creationist clunker that Darwin and his theory are racist. See, e.g.: Discoveroids — One of Their Strangest Posts Ever. Anyway, Klinghoffer continues:

I had never thought of this before. In contemporary museum displays and other evolutionary depictions, just as in Darwin’s Descent of Man and in the notorious Civic Biology textbook that was at issue in the 1925 Scopes Trial, human origins are portrayed as an upward progress from dark to white.

Is it that way in China too? Somehow, we doubt it. Let’s read on:

Check out some examples from around the Internet, here, here, here, here, and here. [Links omitted!] Do a Google image search for the phrase “human evolution” and you’ll see many others.

Just a coincidence? Or is Darwin’s racist legacy [Groan!] still with us today? You tell me.

Okay, that’s enough. The bottom line appears to be this: Forget about science. Textbook illustrations are offensive, so Darwin’s theory is false. Hooray for the intelligent designer — blessed be he!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Happy Thanksgiving 2021 from the Curmudgeon

Mars is red,
Uranus is blue,
Holiday greetings
From the Curmudgeon to you

As we do every year, your Curmudgeon sends holiday greetings to all, including our many non-US readers who don’t celebrate Thanksgiving.

This was our original Thanksgiving thread from 2008, which is still worth reading: Of Plymouth Plantation: “Every Man for His Own Particular”.

As you surely know, Plymouth Colony occupies a special place in American history. Its original settlers arrived on the Mayflower, and the descendants of that legendary voyage still take pride in their heritage. Also, it was Plymouth colony that observed the first Thanksgiving.

We urge you to read that old post of ours if you haven’t yet done so, because it explains the true meaning of the holiday. It wasn’t just a nice dinner with religious overtones. It was — in our Curmudgeonly opinion — a celebration of their abandonment of bible communism under which they had been living. When they cast that craziness aside and adopted the system of private property and free enterprise, that’s when they began to enjoy prosperity. It’s all described in William Bradford’s History of Plymouth Plantation, and that’s what our Thanksgiving post from 2008 is all about.

Thanksgiving is traditionally a slow time for our kind of news news, so we’re declaring this post to be an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. We’re open for the discussion of pretty much anything — feel free to express yourselves about science, economics, politics, philosophy, etc. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

But wait — before we throw open the comments, we must give you our famous guarantee of quality:

Self-Proving Truth Certificate

Everything written by the Curmudgeon in this blog is true. The presence of this Certificate is your proof. Our logic is undeniable.

Okay, the comments are open. Have at it!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.