137 thoughts on “GOH: I’m No Kin To The Monkey”

  1. Oh wait maybe I found the one section. Here is the lyric:

    Its so much more believable,
    And surely, surely its true,
    That God made man in His image,
    No monkey story will do!

    I’d laugh if it weren’t so sad. You are singing a song about how “convinced” you are that evolution is untrue and that a literal Genesis is absolutely right and your comeback is, “my way is ‘surely, surely’ more believable.” Cause if you say surely twice then it must be true. If you believe that evolution is a joke don’t go the self-satyrical route by making fun of yourself and make the opposition’s job that much easier. The reason I can’t laugh is because they aren’t meaning to be a self parody they are serious and that is sad.

    1. Here’s a good alteration to that verse
      Its so much more believable,
      And surely, surely its true,
      That God made man out of mud clumps,
      And there was a talking snake too!

  2. I’ve only heard about this song. I’ve now lost my “I’m No Kin to the Monkey” virginity. And, I’d like it back, please.

  3. Didn’t even have to watch the video and had the song in my head all morning. Thanks a lot. My kids stayed home from VBS this summer for this very reason.

  4. I don’t know anything about these guys ancestors, but I’m guessing brothers were marrying sisters for several generations back…. :mrgreen:

    Seriously, though, it’s just another example of the Fundy “I’m right and you’re stupid” mentality.

    1. Brothers were marrying sisters….all the way back to the Garden of Eden. But then again, wouldn’t Adam have had to engage in sexual intercourse with his daughters,also? No relation to apes?….then one must be a product of incest and child abuse.

      1. Genesis 6 says (depending on the translation) that there were either giants or some kind of “divine beings” or demi-gods or something that bred with the daughters of men. So it may not have been incest, but it seems that, if not monkeys, we have some other species in our geneology.

  5. Maybe I’m being a bit pedantic, but:
    1.) The pictures in the slides for the song are not pictures of monkees. They are of apes (chimpanzees). Misidentification of well-known animals is not a good way to show off your superior knowledge of biology.
    2.) Neither Darwin, nor anyone else, to my knowledge, who supports any theory of evolution ever seriously said that humans descended from monkeys or apes. Instead, the claim is that humans, monkeys, and apes had a common ancestor (which was not any modern species), but that the lines diverged several million years ago. Going a bit farther back, all mammals probably had a common ancestor. So the song makes fun of a claim that no one ever made.

    1. Big Gary,
      of course you are right and these things are facts, not theories. We can map genes now, we know exactly who are closest living relatives are in the animal kindom by genotype alone, not phenotypes. Fundie logic: Pretend not to know what you know.

    2. Big Gary, not to be too pedantic about your pedantry, but I believe those are orangutans on the song background, and not chimpanzees. πŸ˜‰

      Of course, neither of those is a monkey, either.

    3. Yeah, thanks for pointing that out (they do look like orangs, though). I’m actually a young-earth creationist myself, but this is sad. I think plugging our ears in the manner of this song puts us at a severe disadvantage. Plus, even if one doesn’t believe in evolution, one must consider its practicality–just as the Bohr model of the atom, though not correct, helps us understand basic structure of these particles, evolution does help us grasp similarities between species that can then be applied to medicine, paleontology, etc.
      Oh yeah, and technically homo sapiens is in fact classified as an ape… we are primates which lack tails, and are therefore apes by definition.
      Now that I think about it, I do believe a song in one episode of VeggieTales mentioned this difference, though of course Larry the Cucumber had to go and misunderstand.

  6. Just another dumb kids’ song. There are far too many of them. If I had kids, I would have kept them home from VBS as soon as they started singing “Pharaoh Pharaoh” to the tune of “Louie Louie”. (“Pharaoh, Pharaoh, ooooh baby, let my people go. O-wo-wo-wo-wo-wo…” I’m not making this up! Only they were singing it in VBS at a PCA church, not a Fundy one.)

    1. That song was hilarious. There was something about mummies in it as well. Also, have you never sung Amazing Grace to “House of the Rising Sun”.

      Fake Edit: I just double checked. The mummy song is different –

      Ancient Egypt down by the Nile,
      mummy’s gonna be in the tomb for a while
      fair go, pharaoh, it’s not funny,
      tell king tut i want my mummy!!”

    2. We sang Pharoah, Pharoah at my PCA church too! Uggh…makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. I think we even used to sing it at nursing home visits. If I were an elderly woman watching a bunch of brain-washed kids sing that blather, I’d be worried about the future of America.

    1. speaking of which…why did the speaker chuckle/giggle after reading that the song writer was deceased?? (0:25)Sounded like he thought it was hilarious that the man was dead? O.o

  7. Ah yes, the monkey song. I had this song on a tape as a kid an listened to it quite regularly so, yeah, I know it by heart LOL Yes, Theron was an interesting man. My family had him and Hal Webb over for dinner about 8 years ago. I think they’d been singing this song for longer than I’ve been alive.

  8. I’ve never heard this sung in the round before. What do you mean they weren’t? They were all starting from the beginning but at different times.

    My youngest brother, as a child, thought the song said, “I look into the monkey.”. Too bad he didn’t grow up to be a vet.

  9. To me, the most scientifically illiterate song of all time, bar none, is one made famous by Fundy U; I still cringe to think that a self-styled institution of higher learning thought this was a fitting song to play at purported academic conferences. πŸ™

    “It’s a Miracle”
    (as made famous by a certain fundy college
    that starts with a P and rhymes with “Ensacola”)

    What drives the stars without making a sound?
    Why don’t they crash when they’re spinning around?
    What holds me up when the world’s upside down?
    I know, it’s a miracle!

    Who tells the ocean where to stop on the sand?
    What keeps the water back from drowning the land?
    Who makes the rules, I don’t understand,
    I know, it’s a miracle!
     
    Who shows the birds how to build a good nest?
    How can the geese fly so far without rest?
    Why do the ducks fly south and not west?
    I know, it’s a miracle!

    What makes the brown seed so tiny and dry,
    Burst into blue, grow up so high,
    Then shoot out blossoms of red by and by?
    I know, it’s a miracle!

    When a spring makes a brook and a brook makes a stream,
    The stream makes the river water fresh as can be,
    Who puts the salt in when it gets to the sea?
    I know, it’s a miracle!

    There are thousands of people in citys I see,
    This world must be crowded as crowded can be
    But God knows my name and He cares about me,
    I know, I know, I know, it must be a miracle!

    Chorus:
    It’s a miracle, just to know, God is with me wherever I go
    It’s a miracle as big as can be, that He can make a miracle of me

    1. The last stanza is nice, but the rest have answers, and the answers are not “it’s a miracle” but “God made it that way and here is why it works according to the laws that God set up and so on and so forth”.

      That song is like my year 8 maths teacher.
      Me: Miss X, why does pythagoras theorem work everytime for right angled triangles?

      Miss X: It just does.

    2. The Onion and the like have long made jokes about how fundamentalists should object to the theory of gravitation as well as the theory of evolution (one issue of The Onion featured the alternative theory of “intelligent falling”). But satire seems to be impossible these days. Both the author of that song, and all the people who sing it, are apparently unaware of gravity, which accounts for most of the phenomena it lists.

    3. a certain fundy college
      that starts with a P and rhymes with Ò€œEnsacolaÒ€

      Schnemsaschmola?

      Rensafola?

      Mensabola?

      I give up.

      πŸ˜‰

  10. HAL AND THERON! I had almost forgotten about them. They came to my school several times. I think the memory that sticks out most for me about their visits was the one time Hal accused all the boys of jacking off in the shower. The exact quote was “I know what you boys do in the shower.” We referenced that line for years afterwards (often embellishing it a little from time to time πŸ˜‰ ). I didn’t know Theron was dead though. They were nice guys, just super kooky.

  11. Besides all this it’s a simple fact that humans are 96 percent similar in their DNA to the great ape species.

    Whether you believe that’s because God created it so instantly or used common evolution over time, the fact remains that we are “kin” to the monkey.

    Of course, there’s also that issue of imago dei but that’s a different discussion.

    1. Why is the Imago Dei a different issue?

      I for one would like to know from any theistic evolutionists how did God make man a living soul if he came about by the process of evolution?
      For that matter how doea man become a living soul now? Does a fertilized egg have a soul at fertilization or when the fetus is more developed and starts breathing?

      1. I was having some issues earlier, but I’ll post it here as well. Tim Keller dealt with this issue in detail at Biologos. I’d encourage you to read it.

        http://biologos.org/resources/timothy-keller/

        The answers aren’t all there, but then again for me neither are the answers all there by just saying Gen 1 is literal. In fact, that can raise even more questions for me. Neither is really that clean.

        Also Darell I was reading an article from NYT about hybrids and it got off on the topic of Neanderthal mixing with modern humans. “This suggests that early modern humans interbred with Neandertals after moderns left Africa, but before they spread into Asia and Europe.”

        It is interesting what they are able to trace now through the genome. It would seem that things aren’t as clear cut as creationism would like to think. It is the common ancestry link that leads Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, to conclude that God created through evolution.

    2. I think most Christians, especially hard-shell literalists of the Biblical creation narrative, take issue with “kin” because man was made wholly separate, from the dust of the ground, than the animals.

      DNA might show similarities, even solid correlations, but science works against creationism in that the conclusions based on the evidence is in direct contradiction with Scripture.

      In other words, the evidence is ok, but we can’t make conclusions based on the evidence.

      An example of literalism from day’s past: It’s OK that Mars has this strange little looping action in it’s movement across the skies. We can observe it, and there’s no denying it. It is not ok to conclude that the earth is in movement, orbiting the sun, causing that looping action of Mars from our perspective, because it contradicts Scripture that says the firmament is fixed and immovable.

      1. If you’re a Biblical literalist, which Genesis creation story do you believe is literally true? The account in Chapter 1 is quite different from the account in Chapter 2, especially in terms of the sequence of creation, so much so that I think it’s impossible for both of them to be literally accurate chronologies.

        This is just one of many cases where different accounts of the same story are told in the Bible, but because the literal factuality of the Creation story (stories) is what so many people are fighting over, and also because the contradictory stories are in consecutive chapters, it’s the most glaring one.

      2. “but we canÒ€ℒt make conclusions based on the evidence.”
        What else are conclusions based on if not the evidence? That statement is the equivalant of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la la la” when when factual evidence produces a conclusion that is not in agreement with your belief.

        1. The problem is not how we reconcile science first with faith. That tends to get us humans into logical quandaries.

          The problem is how we reconcile faith (“the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”) with the observable and measurable.

          “God of the gaps” is a favorite phrase of my atheist friends and loyal adversaries. More and more of the gaps get taken away through observation, experimentation, the scientific process. Less and less remain mysteries.

          I don’t believe in the god of the gaps. God has created a gapless system and natural order. No matter how far we peer back, either 6,000 years, or 600,000,000,000 years, we can still see God in the process.

  12. In reading all this Klan stuff, this song popped into my head like agonizing gas after South Carolina barbecue. It was kind of an epiphany for me, and not a good one, considering that the anti-evolution crowd in large part were resisting it because evolution concluded that the black man and the white man were the same.

    πŸ™ Add this song to the mix, and you have a really, really sad perspective on our history.

    1. I would think the theory of evolution would support bigoted thinking (“that race hasn’t evolved as far as my race”) more than the creation which says mankind was made in the image of God.

      I’ve always thought the opposition to evolution was because it attacked the inerrancy of Scripture which of course if one used the story of Ham to justify prejudice, one would need the Bible stories to be true, so it still could get down to opposing evolution because of racial prejudice, I’d just never heard it that way. (Then again, I’m from New England which may or may not make a difference. Sadly, the KKK is even in Maine.)

      1. The “that race hasn’t evolved as far as my race” thinking does get support from Darwinian evolution. In 1904 a Pygmy man named Ota Benga was put on display first in the St. Louis World’s Fair and later in the Bronx Zoo in a display with the apes. It’s a longer story than I will relate here and a sad story ending with the poor man shooting himself in 1916. But all in the name of evolution –“Is he a man; is he an ape; is he the missing link between the two?”

        Acts 17:26
        And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth…
        The Bible says we are related — no “races” but one blood.

        1. It makes me so sad that supposed Christians have justified treating other people as less than they. Christ’s teachings are so clear: we are ONE. No one is better than another. We are all sinners at the foot of the cross. We are all children, accepted and forgiven. And the ONLY way to become “first” or foremost in the kingdom of God? Not to lord it over others because of one’s race or skin color or family heritage. The only way is by SERVING others. How could people miss this? How could they ignore this?

          OK, serious rant over now!

        2. Attempts to “prove” that one race was more evolved than another were rampant in the 19th century, and into the early 20th century. They don’t have any scientific credibility now, though. Both DNA analysis and all sorts of biometrics have demonstrated beyond any serious doubt that there is far more variation (in just about everything measurable) witin each race than there is between any two races. So much so that there’s really no biologically viable way to separate races without huge amounts of overlap.

        3. why is it that science divides all into Domanin, Kingdom, Division, class, order, family, genus, and species… then only humans are further divided by “race?” Why was it necessary to further divide into race unless it was to have another point with which to separate ouselves from others, and feel superior to them, you know, kinda like the fundies do when they separate from other Christians… we are morally and spiritually superior than those with whom we have separated ourselves. We are the chosen, only we have right doctrine, gid loves us more.

          Why do we do that? ❓

        4. What I was trying to say is that scientists don’t separate humans by race anymore. That kind of categorization is at least 50 years out of date in scientific circles. There just aren’t the objective criteria there to distinguish races without them all blending into each other.

          Instead, the consensus now is that race is a “social construct.” That is, a society may decide to classify the Irish and the English, or the Indians and the English, (or the Baptists and the Catholics) as being different, but that classification doesn’t correspond well to any measurable biological differences. Besides clearly social features like nationality or language group, “race” tends to be based mainly on skin color and things like hair texture or eye shape. But there is more variation in these characteristics within any human “race” than the difference between the averages of any two “races.”

      1. I think this song is code. It may or may not be intentional. What do I know about someone’s intentions? Read the Klan Krap from the 1920s and what they were saying about evolution and the Negro — and you hear the same Kode Krap in this song.

        1. Even if this song is not directly racist, during the mid-20th century many people who clung to literal 6 day creation were also racists in their politics, daily lives, etc. They believed that God had made the white man and then sin had caused the differences in skin color (i.e. Ham) which would mean the white race was the more “purer” race. However, there were some people who clung to evolutionary theory who were also racists who believed that the white race had evolved more than the other races, thus making them the superior race. Racists are going to twist ideologies to fit their own prejudices. That is human nature.

        2. So even if the song isn’t directly racist…it’s still racist.

          The logic and reason in this line of thinking is so enlightening to me.

    1. What other scientific facts/disciplines are you not a fan of?
      Gravity? Angular momentum? Conservation of Energy? Chemistry? Biology? Physics?
      Good luck living the comfortable lifestyle you live today without the understaning of these principles that have spawned many many inventions that we all enjoy today.
      It amazes me that fundies will ridicule scientists (or anyone for that matter) that state that evolution is a fact (it is). Yet those same fundies will enjoy all the creature comforts that those same scientists have provided for them through their diligent research and understanding of the natural world.
      Example #1 – A geologist will state that the earth is roughly 4 billion years old. A fundie says nonsense, it is only 6,000 years old. Yet that geologist, with his/her understanding of the physical makeup of the earth can determine where oil fields can be found. Said fundie gladly fills up the gas tank of the van every week without ever considering how the gas got to the pump.
      Example #2 – Fundie is appalled that scientists state that they may reproduce the big bang in the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. Yet that same fundie will wander around with their favorite preaching or hymns on an iPod, not realizing that the technology from smaller haldron colliders helped produce the technology to make devices such as the iPod as small as they are.
      Sorry for the rant.

        1. I should have been a little clearer. Evolution, on a micro level, is a proven fact. Germs and bacteria prove that on an on-going basis. Macro evolution (that is evolution over thousand to millions of years) is still a theory that is being studied and tested everyday. And every day pieces to the puzzles are being added, or discarded based on how they stand up to the scientific method.

      1. No, but it is a very true rant. What I’ve noticed is that in many fields of science the Fundy will allow that scientist complete field of study. They can explore to the ends of the earth that field because it doesn’t matter to them or because they benefit from it (an example of doesn’t matter might be a string theorist, and it benefits them would be a medical doctor). But when they *think* something suddenly threatens their Bible or their politics they’ll be the first to come out smarter than the scientist himself.

        1. I agree Mark. What fault I find in both sides is the lack of the ability to just admit “we just don’t know”. Both sides make crap up to prove their point. Modern day science is really a joke…from global warming to evolution…all of these supposed results from faulty computer models. If you can’t find an answer to something it’s fully acceptable to say “I just don’t know”…you just don’t see people saying that very often because it supposedly denotes weakness.

          I fully believe God granted us the wisdom to study his creation. I don’t have problems with good science finding something that is potentially at odds with what’s in the bible. That is what faith is all about.

        2. Loren, science will gladly admit “we don’t know”. But then it goes out and tries to find the answers to what “we don’t know”. Religion (fundy especially) will just say “we don’t need to know, all of our answers are in the bible. And if your answer doesn’t agree with what we believe, well you are just wrong”.
          At the risk of escalating this beyond the original topic, the planet is warming. Having degrees in chemistry and enviromental science, I had the opportunity to study global warming back in the early 90’s before it has become such a political hot button. The planet is warming in direct correlation to the use fossil fuels. How will the planet react? Will it self-correct? These are questions that probably won’t be known until all of us have passed on.
          One issue I have with “scientists” is their inability to properly relate to the general public what they have studied and found to be a fact.
          I hope I am not coming across too harsh. I am just very passionate about the environment (which gets me automatically expelled from fundyland πŸ˜› )

        3. Completely understand Loren. Sometimes we do need to say we don’t know. And there are issues in science where they do say that. One thing you have to separate from your mind. Politics and science (and I’m speaking generally here). Science proves as fact that evolution does in fact exist. To what extent *might* be debated, but that it exists isn’t. Geology is pretty well founded upon the fact that earth is far older than any 6 day creationist could possibly agree on. And quite simply science agrees that the earth is warming (why, and how to deal with it is a different issue). A person should be able to take all of that on fact, but unfortunately politics cloud the issue. In evolution it is the politics of atheism. Evolution becomes linked to the GTE (if you read Keller’s link), Grand Theory of Everything, whereby God must not exist because these certain truths do. The simple fact that Global warming exists becomes the mythology of Gore and the stuff horror movies are made out of.

          What I’m saying is that don’t confuse the facts with what people do with the facts. Evolution can be true and God is still the creator regardless of what Dawkins or any other atheist insists. Global warming can exist and have policy implications regardless of what the doomsayers use those facts for. I fear that you are conflating “modern day science” with modern day politicking. The science is no joke, what people do with that science becomes the joke. Science is willing to say, “I don’t know.” But then they will actively seek to answer those questions. And science is willing to change. When you get more information or better information your theory must change. Science does and is willing to do that, politicking won’t.

          Ok of my soap box.

        4. Mark – I thoroughly agree with you there. But it also doesn’t help (and Keller mentions this) that some self-appointed “apostles of science” like Dawkins is substantially ignorant of theology, philosophy and history. He is also a fundamentalist, albeit of the non-IFB kind. Wonder what acronym we can invent…..?

        5. You need to clarify which form of “evolution” you are talking about. MICRO-evolution–changes within a species/kind–is observable and provable–FACT. MACRO-evolution, in which one species changes into another, is not observable, repeatable, etc; thus, a THEORY. If you are talking about microevolution then I would agree with you.

          Being married to a scientist who doesn’t believe in macroevolution/bigbang, what it comes down to is the conclusion drawn when presented with the facts and evidence. He can look at the results of the quantitative red shift experiments (or whatever it was) that suggest that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate and conclude that that’s the way God made it (okay, so I forgot what he said exactly), while another scientist can look at it and conclude that everything is spinning away from the big bang explosion. He can look at the facts that say that the earth is warming up and conclude this is a good thing (warmer climate = more precipitation = more drinkable water) caused by the earth warming up from an ice age created by the flood, while another scientist will say it’s a bad thing caused by humans destroying the planet. The issue isn’t the facts/evidence being presented, it’s the conclusions being drawn from what’s presented. And then there’s stuff that’s just made up. . . .

          He has talked to me about scientific proof against macro/bigbang (using big terms like accelerated nuclear decay and irreducible complexity), but I am not as articulate or learnéd as he to reiterate them here.

        6. @Kristen,

          The distinction between macro and micro is actually misused in the creation debate. If micro evolution occurs then given enough events on the micro level and the lens of time they compound to become macro. So in other words the difference between micro and macro is only seen as a matter of time not function. We can see adaptation on a micro level through our various genetic testing or through viruses and insects etc. That is a micro level that is completely observable. But we have not been able to “observe” macro evolution because the science is as yet still too young. Unless, of course, you allow paleontology into the equation in which we can observe plenty of changes on the micro and macro level.

          The point is that there is no difference in the underlying science of evolution. You do not distinguish micro from macro when it comes to the science you only distinguish it when it comes to scope. So there is no clarification to be had. If evolution exists both are possible. Now I’ll give you that our earth didn’t have to be created that way (leaving room for YEC), but that also opens the door that it could have been created that way. Evolution is evolution there is no difference between micro and macro.

          But you are right about the people looking at facts. It was the point I was trying to make. The facts are the facts and our understanding of them may vary. In fact, our understanding could change with time or with more facts. So it would hardly be right to say that X is set in stone, but it would be appropriate to say Y is certainly not the case. Take for instance that the earth is warming. Somehow this fact is still, politically, up for debate. People believe that scientists are just making it up. The fact is that the earth is warming. Now whether it is good or bad….that is a different story…and whether it is all man or a natural trend that will likely be compounded by man is a different story. The point still remains. X= the world is warming, Y=the world is not not warming.

          It is the same idea with people who criticize carbon dating (accelerated nuclear decay). Of course there are certainly times when something will give a false reading. First and foremost carbon dating, to be precise, would have to assume that c-14 was at a constant level throughout history or would need to know the precise levels throughout history (something that cannot be done). Something we now know not to be the case. However, this is largely accounted for through various methods. This is why when you hear of something dated this way they do not give a precise date, but rather a range of dates. Truly that does make c-14 less then precise. So what are the facts? X=The age of the earth even with the caveats is still extremely old, Y=Even with accelerated nuclear decay (which is not the norm) and wild variations in c-14 throughout history you still couldn’t account for readings that *far* exceed 6000 years (by many orders of magnitude). A few false readings hardly accounts for all the other readings and even if C-14 is taken out of the equation probably the best evidence for an old universe is Astronomy itself…something the flood cannot account for.

    2. One of the biggest epiphanies I’ve ever experienced in my life was when I finally realized that evolution is a FACT… we can observe evolution every day, seriously…

      If you are like me, you grew up in a fundy school, and never heard evolution properly explained on it’s own terms, by real scientists who have studied it and tested it…

      Have you ever wished you could just put a certain book in front of an ornery fundy and just make them read it?

      read this:
      http://www.evolbiol.ru/large_files/why_evolution_is_true.pdf

      you are allowed to disagree with it, but remember that this is the best anyone who seriously studies biology, genetics, geology, etc can come up with…

      Try to think of Creation as a metaphor…

    1. Glad you all enjoyed it. It was a great read for me. I grew up in the mess of evolution *must* be wrong. But after leaving Fundy U I began to really question everything in my life. The more I studied science the more compelling the evidence was. I realized that I was never taught evolutionary science. I was taught about the straw men that Fundies would put up so they could easily shoot them down. Once you really get into the evidence you become faced with a horrible question. Is my faith right or is the science right? Fortunately for me I wasn’t in a Fundy church so no one bifurcated the issue on me. Instead they let me seek out the truth for myself, something that continues through today, and allowed me to come to my own conclusion.

      My view on creation is non-committed. I believe that God could have created in 6 literal days…what is stopping him right? But I also believe that he could have created by evolution. And I don’t believe that either threatens our Faith or our Bible. IOW if you believe evolution that doesn’t make you an atheist or diminish your view of scripture.

      What I do believe is highly dangerous is needlessly bifurcating the issue one way or the other. Dawkins does this by insisting that if evolution is true therefore God doesn’t exist. But mainstream evangelicalism does this as well by insisting on YEC and going so far as to say that if you don’t believe in YEC then you take a low view of scripture or that your whole theological framework will come out from underneath you. Doing this forces people to choose when no choice is required. This link by Tim Keller is a much needed voice on this issue. Opening the door theologically so that no choice needs to be made.

      1. I think God gave us our brains to think and reason and observe the world around us. If Science finds something that seems to contradict the Bible I don’t let that change my faith in a Sovereign God. I don’t think it changes who God is….he put the world here for us to study and give glory to Him for the wonderfulness of His creation.

  13. Oh sweet lord this song is amazing. My roommate is working on her degree in evolutionary biology and I plan on singing this to her at least once a day.

  14. Oh geez. I know this is a touchy subject, but I wish all the Fundy schools out there would start teaching their students what evolutionists ACTUALLY THINK. You teach them this kind of crap, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that if, heaven forbid, they go to a secular college and learn what evolution actually is, they start wondering what else you lied to them about.

    1. Good point Jessie, especially since most fundys bash on the public schools for not teaching BOTH evolution and young earth creationism as theories. They don’t abide by their own standard.

  15. great song. i, for one, welcome our opposable thumbed overlords.

    did the song leader really need to keep everyone in time with his hand?

  16. This takes me back to my first year – sixth grade – in private Fundie school. Fifth Grade in public school, I was told that next year junior high started, but I wound up in a private school ran by Independent Baptists that marketed their school in a non-denominational way. As a means to make themselves look better through window dressing, they felt that sixth graders were not mature enough to be considered part of the Secondary school, so another year of one classroom education.

    Anyway, the control freak second grade teacher, who lead grade school chapel, played this song, started off asking “Kids in public school are taught that we came from monkeys – Isn’t that sad?”

    The following year, Science Class consisted of how Evolution is too blame for most of the problems of the Western World, supposedly creating a moral vacuum, and racism was one of those problems thrown into the mix. Seemed kind of dubious, knowing that racism existed before Darwin.

  17. So sad to see such spiritual sickness on this site.

    You were all exposed to truth and have rejected it.

    May God open your sin hardened hearts. πŸ˜₯

    (2 Peter 2:20-22) “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
    For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
    But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”

        1. I think what was wrong was saying that we’ve rejected the truth. Actually, I know it’s wrong. We rejected man’s 100-year-old traditions dressed up for church.

          Also, that whole sin-hardened heart bit. If anything, getting away from all that concern about outward appearances at the expense of real ministry has softened a lot of us up in the right way. You should really try it… oh wait, getting real is messy and that’s not Fundy kosher. Oh well. *shrug*

    1. This is pretty typical. This is why some people believe that IFB is a cult. They set up an environment where once you are in you can never leave or be sentenced to life in hell. “Truth” as John puts it is merely his “truth” or anything that he deems “truth.” Another way to put it is anything that Fundamentalists proclaim as “truth” is truth. They conflate interpretation with truth itself. And John you are absolutely right. I have rejected that. Fundamentalists cannot even agree on all of the “truths” amongst themselves. Should I choose PCC’s version of truth, BJU’s or Jack Hyles? But I have not rejected God’s truth. Don’t mistake man’s understanding of God’s truth for His truth itself. They are not the same.

      1. @Mark
        Sounds a lot like Islam doesn’t it? Once a _______ always a ________. a)Muslim b)Fundy c) both a & b

        I contend that the IFB, as a movement, IS a cult. I submit John’s tirade as people’s evidence “A” your honor.

    2. Original post: “Because nothing demonstrates GodÒ€ℒs love for all mankind like saying that people who disagree with you belong in cages.” Or saying that everyone on this site has rejected truth and thus are dogs returning to vomit.

      John, Jesus Christ is the truth; I do not reject Him. He is my Lord and Savior. You were rather quick at sweeping generalities and judgmental pronouncements.

  18. I quoted scripture and even IT is mocked…..this site speaks for itself and is evidence “A’ of what happens to those who reject God’s revelation.

    You compare me to Muslims, Cults etc. without any basis that you yourselves aren’t guilty of. Talk about your “sweeping generalities and judgmental pronouncements”!

    My comment was not out of any anger whatsover, but sadness. Anyone who receives pleasure from poking fun at brothers and sisters in Christ is to be pitied.

    You are guilty of what you accuse fundies of…..judgementalism, mockery, pride, etc.

    Saducees are just as bad as Pharisees.

    1. Dude, get over it.
      Unless you ARE the IFB and the IFB IS you then nobody called you a Muslim or a cult.

      Who mocked Scripture rightly quoted in context?

      Anyone who receives pleasure from poking fun at brothers and sisters in Christ is to be pitied.

      According to your apprisal of our spiritual condition…

      You were all exposed to truth and have rejected it.
      May God open your sin hardened hearts.

      …we are not your brothers and sisters. So are we saved or not? Go ahead and tell us… Who is a child of God on this site and who isn’t? Go ahead, you can begin with me, tell me, Inquiring mind want to know.

      So, Which are you? Pharasee or Saducee?

        1. Well, then at least tell us what truth you think I have rejected? You cannot deny that you accused all of us of that, so I’ll make it easy on you, What truth have I rejected?

    2. I John 4: 2 “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” I do confess this, John, and there are others on this site that do as well.

      I John 4:7 “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God.”

    3. This is another thing that Fundamentalists do. They quote one verse and look at you like, “See end of argument.” Or this, “How can you argue with scripture.” But John you are proving my point. You’ve conflated *your* truth with *God’s* truth. They are not one and the same. I reject your truth and do so gladly, but I have not rejected God’s truth. Your verse doesn’t apply to me and is therefore moot. Just because you quoted scripture doesn’t make you right, nor does it mean that the argument is over.

      “Saducees are just as bad as Pharisees.”

      This is an interesting form of logic. Because it sounds like you are saying that we are just like you and therefore both of us are wrong? So which one are you? You are right both are wrong neither is better. So we should all strive to be better Christians and shake off the bad. You first.

      As far as the cult thing. Well I’m sorry, but when you set the bar to “only my small faction of Christianity” is right all others be damned it sounds like a cult to me. Your original statement: “You were all exposed to truth and have rejected it.” comes across as a threat. In the rest of Christianity if we proclaim Christ we can stand unified that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. A reformed person can stand next to a dispensationist without worrying about their orthodoxy. In IFB that isn’t good enough we need to proclaim the added or stipulated doctrines that IFB insists upon, but are completely extra-biblical in order to accept [your] “the truth.”

      1. @Mark, it’s not just fundys who make hasty generalizations…i think we are all guilty of it from time to time, especially when we are desperate to make a point and have run out of logical ways to make it…

      2. No, I am only stating my agreement with God’s truth, nad trying to bring SOME sort of balance here.

        Also, pointing out that the repeated arguments here are akin to Saducee-ism and that it is just as bad as Pharisee-ism. Maybe worse, as some of the Pharisees later became Christians, not much mnetion of sucess among the Saducees.

        1. Ya know, everytime a fundie says they want to bring “balance” they end up meaning that you have to agree with them or else you have rejected the truth, you are spiritually sick and have a sin-hardened heart.

          I guess practically perfect people can render judgement like that, I remember when I used to be one of them that did junk like that.

          However, I can render judgment on the IFB cult that I came out of and I do so on a regular basis. The gross excesses, extra-biblical nonsense, non-essentials that are elevated to core doctrine, the men who populate the pulpits who are Diotrephes wanna-bees (and worse), the idea that the gifts of ministry are offices to be held in the Body of believers and that those offices somehow sanctify the so-called holder of it, and the idea that the Omnipotent Creator God of the Universe is dependent on, or subject to, the will and whims of His creation are the things I will stand against and call attention to and ridicule at every opportunity.

          Just sayin’

        2. If you want to “bring balance”, then bring balance. Grace2live already does that quite well. I know her offline and know that she is a voice of balance around here.

          OTOH, if you just want to tell us how horrible we are because we’re not in lockstep with you, good luck getting us to take that seriously. Some of us have actually, you know, read the Bible and taken it seriously :mrgreen:

    4. @John, nobody mocked the Scripture. They were mocking you. Don’t equate the one with the other unless you are claiming a sort of divinity and/or some degree of infallibility…

  19. Love how you mock the video’s mocking of evolution, and side with the non Christians AGAINST the Christian…and still pretend to be on the other side.

    Lovely.

        1. Metzger has a pretty nuanced commentary on genesis; and I loved reading rachel held evans book “evolving in monkey town”. Apologies for caps issues, adjusting to my first droid.

      1. Surprised if they are genuine Christians, yes.
        (Didnt say they were going to hell–just not Christ like–Jesus belived and taught that Adam and Eve were literal)

        It really takes a tremendous leap away from scripture to belive such–those who I know in education (Which I work in BTW) who believe it, do so mostly to fit in with the staus quo and ignore the clear teachings of scripture.

        I love this site and laugh often, and any comment made to point out hypocrisy or denial of bible truth is met with open hostility, while Athiests and extreme left liberal religious thought is coddled and comforted.

        Just find it interesting.

        Oh, and John Calvin has done ten thousand thousands times more harm to Christianity (and I think he was saved) that Tom Ferrell, Jim Schettler, or Curtis Hutson. Almsot as much as Hyles LOL
        :mrgreen:

        1. Oh, and John Calvin has done ten thousand thousands times more harm to Christianity…

          Everyone is entitled to their opinion but John Calvin and his theology is not the caricature that the easy-believism crowd makes it out to be. John Calvin’s doctrine holds God in an infinite higher esteem than the man-centered empire builders do.

          Either God is Sovereign over everything or He is not God at all. Just like He cannot be Savior without being Lord. The Locical gymnastics are insurmountable for either of these to be separate issues.

          But like I said everyone has an opinion, I’ll take the High View of God and His Sovereignty, and you can have the man-centered view.

        2. Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were literal historical figures? You got a reference on that? Even Paul’s reference to them that I can think of are metaphors (1st/2nd Adam comes to mind). I can’t think of anywhere Jesus taught about Adam/Eve

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *