“Science Backs Up Genesis 1”: A Response
It may come as a surprise to some that I’m always mildly excited to receive the views of the faithful. It often provides me with a source of amusement unobtainable elsewhere. I recall the late and great Christopher Hitchens once remarking that he never grew tired of debating the godly as “You never know what they will say next”.
This brings me to the topic of this post. In my eternal search for amusement and my part-time hobby of pointing out the spelling related shortcomings of the supernaturally inclined, I stumbled across the following claim:
When I pressed @ChallengeChurch for further details, they were kind enough to direct me towards their blog, which I was told would provide further details. The related post may be viewed (laughed at) here.
I think it is apparent to any thinking individual that there is a fundamental lack of understanding of what is meant by the word “science” and how it is used to know… things.
Science discovers what is, and tries to disprove it. If it can’t, we accept those findings as fact. It is a slight to anyones intelligence therefore, to discount scientific findings, except in the instances you feel corroborate your beliefs, which, in this case they don’t.
Let’s take a look at some of the extraordinary claims made, and the thought process behind them (or lack thereof):
In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. Genesis 1:1 – The
big bang theory in a nutshell.
If nutshell meant “in the mind of a nut”, this statement would be accurate. Please elaborate on how the book of genesis describes and details, with adherence to the scientific method what facts we now hold regarding The Big Bang, or I shall dismiss this claim as nonsense.
What then follows in the book of Genesis is what science and historians
call evolution. If you look closely at what came and when, there had to
be some strategic thinking.
Why? Natural selection is a simple and proven component of evolution, overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. Please provide some credible evidence for intelligent design, or I shall dismiss this claim as nonsense.
Then came the trees and the vegetation, common sense tells me that
someone had an idea of long-term survival. Every living being from the
beginning of time to eternity needs these basics to survive.
Perhaps then, you can explain why 99.9% of all species that have ever been on earth are now extinct? Life on earth began 3.8 billion years ago, something which your holy book gets as wrong as you would expect from a text “authored” by a group of semi-literate desert dwellers. Please provide evidence for your claim of “common sense”, or I shall dismiss it as nonsense.
Then came the animals, well first attempt was the dinosaurs, possibly
God didn’t like them, or thought that were too dangerous to be around a
This sincerely does not merit a response, except to say I apologise if you are not an adult, as this resembles something you would expect to find scribbled in crayon. This is clearly, nonsense.
Genesis speaks of a Garden of Eden, archeological evidence has proven
this garden exists and that the forbidden tree still stands – dead but
it is still there.
Please provide me with the source of this “archeological evidence”. Furthermore, for clarity, you accept human life began in a magic garden with a talking snake? Please backup these claims, or they will be dismissed as nonsense.
I am afraid that from every source I
have read it is ‘timing’ and ‘God’ that are the source of why Atheists
believe God doesn’t exist.
Then you clearly do not read frequently. Not only is there no evidence for a creator, let alone one who intervenes, or is interested in human affairs, but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence refuting the claims of any holy text at every single turn. Atheist are generally of the viewpoint that if reasonable evidence for a creator is provided, then our views are subject to change. The faithful ignores what contradictory evidence is presented in order to maintain their faith. This is commonly referred to as “ignorance”.
In closing, it’s fair to say I enjoy deconstructing a well thought out case for a creator, this however, was not one. Science, by any stretch of the imagination, does not validate any claims of the supernatural.
What you state is purely faith-based, which is to say, belief without evidence. Have your beliefs, but be decent enough to call them what they are. Invoking science when you feel it confirms your nonsense is not only dishonest, but you won’t get away with it. If I believed the things stated in your blog, I would avoid any mention of the word “science” as it only serves to demonstrate your lack of understanding, and possibly education.