Keep On Point

I recently watched a video titled “Top Ten Creationist Arguments” on YouTube. It was an Evolutionists simple refutation of Creationist arguments. Again, I like to hear the opposition, but some of the items he listed as “Creationist Arguments” didn’t make sense in the context of Creation Vs. Evolution.

One was that Atheism is a religion. While I agree that Atheism is in fact a form of religion (see my earlier definition of “religion”), that debate has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution or Creation. Anyone that would claim it is, isn’t paying attention to the debate and is trying to insert a red herring.

Another was that America was founded as a Christian Nation. Again, this has nothing to do with Evolution or Creation. While I agree that America was not founded as a Christian Nation, the laws that were made and the reasons given for the succession of the Americas from England were distinctly Judeo-Christian in origin. But again, in reference to Evolution or Creation, that is neither here nor there. It is yet another red herring, by either side.

Finally, Hitler was an Atheist. Yet again, what does this have to do with Creation or Evolution? Internally, Hitler may have been an Atheist, I’ve never met the man or read any of his personal journals, but publicly he was Catholic. Obviously his actions prove his belief to be false or flawed, but Hitler’s religion has absolutely nothing to do with Creation or Evolution.

The other seven points listed in the video were more or less on point. The refutations given were short, but then the argument bullet points were short too, often one or two words. The format given is difficult for either side to make a reasoned argument, one of the disadvantages of technology. 

Jesus Never Existed

This is yet another example of bad arguments. People these days claim that Jesus Christ never existed. He is merely a story from a storybook. He never existed. I find this argument as ridiculous as the argument I presented earlier about us evolving from chimps. The question of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth has been posited and answered over and over for the last 2000 plus years.

Any scholar, secular or Christian or any other religion, will tell you that Jesus was a real person who lived pretty close to 0 BC (I don’t remember the exact dates, but I believe it was within 30 years of 0 BC). We have ample extra-biblical records from the time following Jesus’ life that have proven the existence of the man Jesus that founded a religion that has crossed the globe and continues today. He existed, period. Do the research yourself, though there have been plenty of historians on both sides of the debate that have concluded that He existed. Move on to the real crux of the argument behind the claim that He never existed.

The only thing that can be in doubt is the claims made by the Bible and Jesus’ followers that He was the incarnation of God. That cannot be proven from the historical record one way or the other. So people, please, stop making bad arguments. Jesus existed; there is no debating it. You can argue about His deity all you want, but not His reality. 

The World Is Right

When I use the word “World” in this context, it is in reference to the world of the flesh, non-believers. I like to watch and read views opposed to mine so that I can get an idea of the opposition I am up against; theology, science, history, and so on. Most recently I've been looking at Evolution and Atheism. I've looked at the arguments made by some of the celebrity faces of Atheism in particular. Namely Penn, from Penn and Teller, and Bill Maher who made a mockumentary titled “Religulous”. And I have to admit, from a purely rational, materialistic (as in the real world is all there is, not gaining of material wealth) worldview, they make absolute sense. They got it right. All religions are myth given to the masses to control them. There is no God, and if there is, He just doesn't care enough to get involved. Religious scriptures were written by backwards people in a backwards time. Science has proven the supernatural to be false, to not exist (think about that for a second). I hear and read these things and my mind screams, “Yes! That makes perfect sense.”

But then I hear this voice struggling to be heard over the tumult, “No, you know that to false. You know the Truth.” In my worldview, that is the Holy Spirit gently guiding me in Truth. In my worldview, the natural world is not the end all, be all, the world of the flesh is in direct opposition to the Creator. That part of me that still struggles with the flesh sees the rationale. Thankfully I have a Guide, directing my spirit to overwhelm the flesh.

If that Guide were to go silent, I would honestly have to agree with the atheists. If the Christian God isn't real, then no God is real. We are all a simple product of natural, biological processes. There is no overarching morality. There is no true right or wrong, only that which society and self-preservation impose upon us. I would have to be a pragmatic hedonist.

Oddly enough, my Scripture says exactly this. The world of the flesh (i.e. natural man) will see the world of the spirit as foolishness. They will mock the believers of God and worship the creature over the Creator. And this Scripture was written long, long before we had the great god of Science.

            “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for

            they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they

            are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14

It is often amusing for me to see how often that Scripture proves itself to be true in reference to the activities of human nature. 

Bad Arguments

I don’t know if you picked up on it from my last post, but I happen to be a Young Earth Creationist. I have seen clear scientific explanations given for it. I had a class in college called Scientific Models of Origins, and it was all about the science of the Creationist world-view. It was rational, cogent, and looked at the same data Evolutionists look at and came to a different conclusion (which is perfectly acceptable in the scientific community). Finally, it agrees with Scripture.

Unfortunately, we are still surrounded by Creationists giving horrible arguments against Evolution, or just as frequently Evolutionists pointing to horrible arguments made by Creationists in the past. For example, I recently heard the argument against Evolution about, “If we evolved from chimps, why are there still chimps?” Horrible argument. Horrible premise. Completely ignores natural selection (which I happen to agree is happening).

Of course, in that same vein of research, I heard an Evolutionist say, “It looks like design, but it isn’t.” How does that make any sense? It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it isn’t really a duck. If it appears to be something, and you disagree with what that something shows, doesn’t mean you can just write it off as false.

Make rational arguments. Give up poorly executed arguments. Look into what you are saying before you say it. Stop rehashing arguments that have already been refuted.

Creation Vs. Evolution

I recently watched a series of videos, not in a series together, just a series of like videos, about Creationists and Evolutionists and the debate going on. I have several problems with the debate in general, ignoring what side I come down on. When it comes to Creationism or Evolution, the hugest debate isn’t about processes or even age, but about origin. Neither Creationists nor Evolutionists can prove scientifically their hypothesis about the origin of the universe. Nobody was there to record it, it isn’t a repeatable process, and nobody will be around to see if it can happen again. It simply cannot be empirically proven one way or the other. Either way it is a philosophical debate, but both sides seem to believe it is not.

The debate also flies in the face of our world’s mantra of “Tolerance”. Based on the videos, Evolutionists look down their noses at Creationists as if they don’t have two brain cells to rub together. There is no room for discussion on the matter. Tolerance of a differing hypothesis about the origin of everything will not be accepted. In the scientific community, it is either Evolution or bust.

Why can’t the idea of a Creator even be posited? Neither Big Bang, nor God can be proved. Most Creationists believe that the age of the universe is less than that of the Evolutionist, but the age cannot be accurately proven either, since again, we have no record of it, and the observations made are based on our perception of the evidence, which may or may not be accurate. The age of the universe is made by assumption, not fact. Evolutionists assume that everything has happened at the same rate for all time. Creationists claim that the rate of things happening has changed over time. Neither can be proven scientifically because we have no way of testing it. They are both merely ideas.

One of my hugest qualms with the side of the Evolutionists is the condescension of making Evolution a “Theory”. I remember from my science classes that there was an order to the scientific process. It was roughly; hypothesis, testing, retesting, adjust hypothesis, more testing, theory, time, Law. Evolution has seemingly skipped over hypothesis and testing and been deemed theory. How arrogant is that? In none of the practical sciences can you be taken seriously without lots and lots of testing of an hypothesis. Evolution simply cannot be tested yet. Maybe in time, with all the recording we’ve been doing, it can be tested, but as of now, Evolution can only be an hypothesis, and yet it is given the surety of theory. This simply is not fair on a scientific level.

The most important thing is, don’t dismiss the scientific study of someone simply because they don’t believe in the same improvable hypothesis you believe in. Evolutionists claim that Creationists are stunting scientific inquiry, which cannot be further from the truth. No scientist, Creationist nor Evolutionist, worth their salt says, “it just happens”, and then let it be. The Catholic Church has been ridiculed for years because of their stubbornness, don’t fall into the same trap they did, Evolutionists.

Marriage Equity Is For Everyone

I saw this on a sign once and just busted up laughing. It is so wrong on so many levels. No matter how I look at it, how I dissect it, it turns out meaningless or absurd. Marriage equity is for everyone is complete nonsense if you merely apply a little logic to it.

Marriage equity is for everyone. Start with the current definition of marriage, one consenting adult male, one consenting adult female, bound together. Well, obviously we cannot apply everyone to that. That limits age, gender, species. Marriage equity is not for everyone in this case.

Marriage equity is for everyone. What if we broaden the definition of marriage? Maybe that will work. Let’s broaden it to anyone that loves anyone. Now we apply everyone to that, and it becomes both silly and frightening, because now I can marry anyone that I deem to be “anyone”. Do you believe that pets are people too? Then you can marry your pet. Do you love multiple people; then marry them all. Do you love your neighbor’s 12-year-old son? Why not get married? Okay, that doesn’t seem to work. Marriage equity is too broad and everyone is too broad.

Marriage equity is for everyone. How about if we change it to what the homosexual community wants to change it to? Two people bound together, gender need not matter. Let’s apply everyone to that…oh wait, we can already see from the first example that that doesn’t work, because now anyone that wants to marry multiple people, or their pet, or a child are out of luck. Marriage equity is not for everyone.

No matter how you define marriage, the moment you try to apply “everyone” to it, it becomes either wrong grammatically, or morally. But hey, if we’re going to redefine marriage, why not redefine everyone? Let’s make everyone to mean whomever I deem to fit my definition. There, now marriage equity is for everyone. It is rather subjective, but it gives just enough of a boundary to make the statement work. As long as you apply your subjective definition of everyone to your subjective definition of marriage, then you can make it work.

My point being, be careful with what you say. Words have meaning, or if they don’t, nothing makes sense, nothing can be accomplished, nothing can be taken seriously. Words without objective meanings are like traffic lights without color. 

Spiritual, But Not Religious

There is a church near me that often has some odd or disturbing sayings on their signboard. The most recent was, “Are you spiritual but not religious? Come worship with us.” Warm, inviting, open, non-threatening. All things that would appear to be good to attract people. But what is it really saying? What does it mean to be spiritual but not religious?

It seems to me that a church cannot be both spiritual and non-religious. Religion is merely a community of people that agree to worship together and agree on their spiritual tenets. The implication of spiritual but not religious would be that one believes in the supernatural, but there is no centralizing of those beliefs. So how could a church, which is a place of worship for people that share a centralized belief, be spiritual, but not religious? The two ideas are obviously in opposition. A church cannot be both spiritual and non-religious.

A church can be spiritual and religious, which I’d really hope is going on in a church, but the moment you get a group of people together believing the same thing, it becomes a religion. Just because that religion may not have a name yet doesn't mean it isn't religious. It is merely a means of identifying similar belief structures, akin to identifying as American, or Canadian, or Mexican-American. Labels are not the evil things we seem to think they are. Our brains need to label things in order to be able to identify them. If you didn't label anything, it would be difficult to communicate the idea of something without that label.

And just because people have done bad things in the name of their religion doesn't mean religion is evil. Religion helps us to identify, vocalize, and live out our spiritual beliefs. It helps us to find community, fellowship, and acceptance. It is why cliques form, like-minded people enjoy being together. It is much easier to communicate with and understand someone that believes like you.

It seems that spiritual has become good, and religion bad, but without being spiritual, you can’t be religious, and without being religious, you can’t find people to encourage you in your spirituality. It is complete absurdity to try to be spiritual and not religious in a church setting.