218 thoughts on “GOH: We Didn’t Come From Monkeys”

    1. Kent Hovind for the … win? Nah, clearly not. But he’s a prime example of a stuck up jerk.

    2. These gals are also known as the singing touring IFB group Proverbs 31 Sisters. Their firs single “We Didn’t Come From Monkeys” topped the Top 40 Southern Gospel chart and they even crossed over to the CCM charts and some IFB churches were in an uproar over it.

      The Proverbs 31 Sisters released their first album on “Sword of the Lord Records” simple titled Proverbs 31. Featuring 10 tracks:

      1. Dirty Laundry
      2. We Didn’t Come From Monkeys
      3. Five Rows Back (featuring Alvin Martinez)
      4. Old Rugged Cross
      5. El Shadai
      6. A Way
      7. Jesus On The Main Line
      8. Jack Hyles Our Hero
      9. Outlaw Man
      10. Doolin’ Preacher Boys (featuring Hyles-Anderson College Chor)

      The Proverbs 31 Sisters are also coming to a church near you.

      July 27, Windsor Hills Baptist Church Oklahoma City,OK featuring Jim Vineyard

      July 28, Southwest Baptist Church Oklahoma City, OK

      August 3, Hammond,IN First Baptist Church
      August 4, Hammond,IN First Baptist Church
      August 5, South Bend,IN Notre Dame Theatre
      August 6, Indianapolis, IN Conseco Fieldhouse
      Auguat 9, Chicago, IL United Center
      August 10, Chicago, IL Solider Field,
      August 11, Detroit, MI Ford Field
      August 12, Auburn Hills, MI Palace of Auburn Hills
      August 13, Milwaukee, WI Miller Brewing Center
      August 16, Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles Coliseum (TBN Crusade)
      August 17, San Francisco, CA Pac Bell Park, (Giants Game)
      August 18, Santa Clara, CA North Valley Baptist Church (featuring Alvin Martinez)
      August 19, Santa Clara, CA North Valley Baptist Church (featuring Alvin Martinez)
      August 23, Greensbo,NC Greensboro Coliseum
      August 24, Charlotte, NC Erickson Stadium (Franklyn Graham Crusade)
      August 25, Greenville, SC Bob Jones Auditorium (BJU Welcome Week)
      August 30, Pensacola, FL PCC Auditorium (PCC Welcome Week)
      August 31, Miami,FL Dolphins Stadium
      September 1, Atlanta,GA Georgia Dome
      September 2, Atlanta,GA Western Hills Baptist
      September 3, Atlanta,GA TBN Studios (PTL Club Taping)

  1. I don’t get the creationist objection to “coming from monkeys” – which is usually accompanied by some kind of disgust at the apparent baseness of that reality.

    However, they’re happy to go along with a woodenly literal biblical interpretation that has us being built out of dust…

      1. Yes.
        I don’t know why the Creationists can’t get this straight.
        All primates had a common ancestor, but the line that became monkeys diverged from the line that became humans very early on. No Evolutionist thinks that humans are descended from monkeys (or apes).

        1. I don’t know why the Creationists can’t get this straight.

          Creation “science” depends on creationists never getting it straight.

      2. We actually are Apes. Not Monkeys. But we do share a common ancestor with Monkeys as well. A bit more removed.

      3. That was my first thought when I heard this song too.

        My second thought was that climbing trees is really fun, and if none of these kids have ever swung from a tree, then that’s just unfortunate.

  2. Top Ten Signs You’re a Fundamentalist Christian

    9. “You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.”

    1. There is nothing insulting and dehumanizing about the God of the Universe taking the time to create humanity from the dirt of the earth to be in His likeness and serve Him at His pleasure. There is nothing that is not insulting and dehumanizing about evolution, because it declares that humanity is a mistake; a result of random chance. No, God tells us that He created us different than the animals and that we are a special creation of His (Genesis 1-2; Revelation 4:11; Isaiah 45). Evolution is an insult to God and is not even science, but a religion (true science can be observed and recreated) that requires more faith to believe than the Bible.

      1. There’s nothing dehumanizing for God to evolve humanity out of a quad-ped predecessor and imbueing us with with a sense of morality & justice that ideally reflects his own.

      2. I would like you to reconsider your last sentence. There are no scientists in any discipline that would agree with you. Also, it is a logical fallacy to define your conclusion into your premise. I think you could communicate your position more effectively with these considerations.

      3. Also also, I’ve never understood the “more faith” argument. Who measures faith? What is the standard? Which parts of the Bible? Some are far easier to believe than others, especially depending on how literally one interprets them.

        Anyway, faith to trust God is a gift.

      4. Romans 1:18-22: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…

        1. Ah, in that case you have just classified yourself quite clearly. I think the category begins with f, and sounds like ‘tool’… :grin:

      5. Nope. Not result of “random chance”. You guys always get this wrong. It’s such a simple concept.
        Mutations are random, but the method by which we retain the useful ones and discard the bad one is by “natural selection”. We apply the same concept in the domestication of animals but in that case we humans are the “selectors”

        The other thing you guys always get wrong is that there is no ultimate purpose. Species are not evolving to reach some ‘pinnacle of evolution’ or any nonsense like that.

        Species evolve to better survive in a given environment. That’s why there are bears adapted to the polar region and some adapted to other climates. Neither is a superior species.

        Another caper that’s popular in your circles is to lump together evolution and cosmology. They share very little and one does not affect the other. God could have created the universe but washed his hands of life on earth, or vice versa.

        Speaking of cosmology, please don’t describe the “Big Bang” as an explosion. Actually, the BB was theorized by a Christian and in the early days it was taken as proof of the existence of God. Many astronomers of the day didn’t like it precisely for that reason. But eventually they (more or less) had to agree that the evidence was overwhelming.

        But when you speak of the BB you should keep in mind that what was “exploding” was Spacetime itself. You as a physical and temporal being, could not have watched it from the outside because what was expanding was the very reality you live in. Space + time. So even to speak about “Before the Big Bang” is absurd because time was what exploded along with space.

        i know it’s hard to understand but it’s what our experiments and our math tells us happened.

        Actually, even as an Atheist I don’t see either evolution or BB theory as being a negation of God. A being such as your god while not necessary could have very well started these processes.

        What evolution disproves completely is you particular branch of Christianity, because with evolution there is no Garden of Eden, there is no original Sin and there is no need for a redeemer.
        Whoops!

        Too bad. That’s why many branches of Christianity had to treat the bible as allegorical or the whole idea of christianity goes in the garbage.

        But a God? even a Old Testament God? That could exist, although I surely hope he doesn’t because he is truly a nasty character.

        You are welcome

        1. Thanks for your response – some good stuff there, but I take issue at two points:
          “Species evolve to better survive,..” – No they don’t. Species evolve – new genetic code, new variations are thrown up. Some of these better predispose an individual to survive in a particular environment. Most don’t. Those that survive better are more likely to reproduce and thus pass on their new genetic code into the species gene pool, thus evolving the species. Your comment suggests intent on the part of the organism. There is no intent. This is a bit like the myth of ecological niches, as if there were parts of each environment just waiting for the perfect organism to evolve so that it could fill it. Every species is caught in a complex and ever changing web of environmental and genetic change. When environmental and genetic change both head in the same direction simultaneously you will witness evolution.
          Secondly, you suggest that without a literal Garden of Eden there can be no original sin and thus no redeemer. But if the whole of those first few chapters of Genesis are not literal but literature that graphically lays out the perplexing problem of the human condition, as St Paul beautifully summed up, “for what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do,” then there’s still room for the idea of sin as a repeating human characteristic, and of course, for the need of a redeemer.

        2. Mutations are random, but the method by which we retain the useful ones and discard the bad one is by “natural selection”.

          So, the processes that result in gene mutation are “random”, but the processes that retain and discard these mutations are not random? Surely these processes are restricted by the same physical/ chemical interactions that also influence gene mutation (albeit at poerhaps differetn scales). I hope we’re not using “random” as an excuse to fill gaps in our knowledge. If the gene mutations are allowed to be called “random” why are the other natural processes not allowed this benefit?

        3. “… even a Old Testament God? That could exist, although I surely hope he doesn’t because he is truly a nasty character.”

          Which “old Testament” god are you referring too? There are competing images of God in the Judaic writings. The image of god that claims “I desie mercy, not sacrifice” is much more palatable to my sense of goodness than the one who endorsed the killing of Achan (which looks pretty similar to a human sacrifice event), for example.

      6. Who says that Evolution is “a mistake”?

        Evolution is change over time, and that is how the world God made actually works.

        Frankly, if humans came from monkeys, the monkeys are the ones who should be insulted. They don’t go out of their way to make war on innocent people. They act a whole lot better than most of us do! No monkeys ever polluted the earth with poisons or built weapons of mass destruction.

        Biologically we *are* animals. We are a part of God’s creation. But it is this “We are Special” attitude that has somehow let people run riot, rape the earth and devour greedily its resources.

      7. Evolution is no insult to anyone. It’s just how things happened and are still happening. If your god is insulted it’s just too bad because if he exists he is the one that came up with it.
        But that aside, the natural sciences are beautiful and poetic, as well as cruel, of course. But it’s the struggle to stay alive and the myriad forms life has taken that is fascinating.

        As far as being created by dirt, indeed our bodies are composed of atoms that were forged in the crucibles of the stars. Every single atom in your body and mine was once in the core of an ancient star. I find that extremely poetic. A connection to the Universe that no biblical allegory can equal.

        See, all these “Theories” you don’t like are not such because someone made them up in their bathroom while battling constipation. They are the product of observation and experimentation. The theory part is the explanation of these observations and as such they can be faulty. Just as faulty as if you had to explain to somebody how a diesel engine worked after watching one running.

        You will come up with a theory of how that engine works, but the engine exists. As you study the engine more and more, you start to understanding better and your theory gets stronger.
        Until one day you can say you have mastered it, but it doesn’t mean you have understood everything. For instance, your understanding of combustion could be limited if you are not also an expert on expanding gases. At that point, a creationist would say that God makes the gas ignite, but a scientist would study it more until he or she discovers that air and fuel under high compression ignites and creates the explosion.

        Thus the theory just got a bit better.

      8. Look at the state of the planet, due to humans believing we’re “special”. Perhaps a little humility is in order.

  3. To be honest, this song is more of a funny little ditty than anything else. It is no more insulting (” *so*insulting”, Darrell?) than Psalm 14;1 etc., where God tells us that folk who say in their heart “There is no God” are fools. That one always upsets the atheists.

    1. You should read the comments on the youtube version if you don’t think fundies believe this song is more than just a funny ditty.

    2. Actually, atheists are not insulted by the “fools” verse on the Bible. There are plenty of other parts of the bible that are upsetting. What atheist get upset at is the person delivery the passage, thinking that somehow they are making some profound point just because they are repeating a nonsensical,self serving verse.
      It is insulting because the person that delivers it means it as an insult.

    1. Trying to earn their MRS.

      Good news, they’re building a new Chick-Fil-A near my house, they hire women with MRS degrees from Basement Bible College.

    1. Ahhh, so you object to us doing what you fundamentalists do as a matter of course?

      “You get what you grow, you reap what you sow. This is the Law that the Lord hath made!”

      1. rtg – that is the first time I have ever been accused of being a fundamentalist.

        No worries. I just commented on your liberal rant above. :mrgreen:

  4. As though the concept of taking the great reality of being made by our Creator Christ in His very image and attributing that to being nothing more than rearranged pond scum isn’t supremely insulting.

    1. It has been tried. The fact is the truth doesn’t work for them, they feel so much more comfortable making things up out of whole cloth, lying, making false accusations, and so on.

      What converted me FROM creationism was the discovery that creationism is built on a foundation of deliberate lies. The people who built creationism, Whitcomb and Morris, absolutely knew their accusations were false. They deliberately altered quotes from scientists to make it appear that the scientists were saying evolution wasn’t really true or didn’t happen.

      And the lead creationists (who I believe absolutely know better) deliberately conflate terms, mix things up and tell misleading stories so people will never understand. And Ken Ham can tell more lies about evolution in one sentence than can be unraveled in an entire science course.

      Fundamentalism talks about the Truth, but the leaders have quickly learned that lies are a far more powerful way to control people.

      1. This topic does have a way of bringing out a lot of passion for a young earth. I’m gonna need some beverage service back here in coach! :)

        1. That story about the vervet monkeys swiping booze from tourists is pretty wild.
          And, apparently, the hardest-drinking monkeys are the leaders of the tribe …

        2. Make mine a double! :)

          As they say in the Larry Miller Drinking Society: Nominum quid geminus? (Latin for “You call that a double?”)

  5. It is amazing how a group of people that claim to be Christians (and I know some of you truly are) can also claim that evolution is true. The same Bible that declares Jesus as the only Savior of mankind through His death, burial, and resurrection is the same that declares that Jesus created the Universe in six literal days! It takes faith to believe in Jesus alone for salvation (not works) and it takes faith to believe that Jesus created the Universe. We cannot choose what we want to believe in the scriptures and what we do not! Evolution is a theory based on faith; it is not true science that can be replicated and observed. Creationism is also a belief based on faith: however, it is based on God’s Word and not Man’s opinions.

    John 14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    Colossians 1:16-17: For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

    1. Please explain to me how believing that the universe is 13 billion years old, that the earth is about 8 billion years old or that man shared a common ancestor with monkeys interferes with believing in the Gospel.
      Where does the Bible state that you must believe in Creationism in order to be saved?

        1. How about John 5:46-47?

          Jesus says “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

          Moses wrote that God created the world in the space of six days. God confirmed that creation account again when He gave Moses the Law. (Exo. 20:11) Jesus repeatedly affirms the historicity and reliability of the Pentateuch.

          So what Jesus is saying is that if you don’t believe Moses, you don’t believe Him.

          Also, what version of the creation story did Jesus of Nazareth grow up believing, hearing, understanding and preaching himself? Do we have any reason to believe that Jesus accepted or even knew any other account than the one that says the cosmos was created by God in the space of six days?

          If Jesus believed in creation in six days, then how am I ignorant or stunted or deficient by believing the same?

          How hard is it just to believe what God says? And not repeat the sin of the Serpent… “did God really say…?”

        2. Interesting you mention that.

          To set the stage, remember God promised, “… but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

          “In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

          They ate. God put them out of the Garden. They did NOT die “in the day that you eat of it.” Adam lived for 950 years.

          NO, this was not “spiritual death.” There is NO concept of “spiritual death” in the whole Old Testament. Nothing about personal salvation in the way we think of it, either. Nothing about an eternal hell of fire and brimstone and everlasting suffering.

          In fact, the word “die” there is the same as used for physical death elsewhere in the first few chapters of Genesis.

          Now to the serpent. “The serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” (3:7)

          So they ate. And after God was through not killing Adam and Eve (v. 22) “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:” he drove out the man.

          In other words, a clear reading of the text without theological presuppositions demonstrates that God lied and the serpent told the truth.

          Shocking! I know. But the text is plain, even if you don’t want to believe that is what it says.

          How many of us tell our kids, “If you do [such and such] I’m going to kill you!” I know mine did. And while I didn’t threaten death to my own kids, I threatened mayhem that didn’t happen. And when I did act, it was never as severe as I had threatened.

          What the story told to the Israelites is that disobedience brings consequences, but God, like a parent, is really never as severe as He threatens to be. And the people each remembered the time when they, deciding that they could make their own life decisions, was sent out of the house to make a living on their own. Life was never as easy as when you were a child and had everything prepared for you.

          And the relationship of God to His people is not that of a Tyrant, but of a loving parent. We sin, and God does not exact the full price of our sins. He lets us learn our lessons. He even puts up with strained relationships while we go out on our own.

          We damage our understanding of what we read by our preconceptions. If we can learn to read what is there for what it says, and not try to tie it to all sorts of later theological interpretations, we will be the wiser for it.

        3. The “sin of the serpent” definitely was not what you characterize it as. Wanna try again? Remember your rule for interpreting to stick to what is actually written when reconsidering your error.

        4. Duane is asking questions as if the answers are what he assumes them to be. I’ll suggest that Jesus may have an idea of what Moses says different from what Duane’s questions suggest. For determining what Moses really meant by Exodus 20:11, why not actually inquire of what ancient Hebrews actually understood about the text?

        5. He’s doing a LOT of really unfair and I would argue rotten things to Jesus, Genesis, & Moses in that post.

        6. Duane, I don’t fault anyone for believing in a six day creation – that is your choice, and I know many fine people who would agree with you. But Duane, Jesus didn’t say that Moses wrote about six literal creation days. He said Moses wrote about him. #missingthepoint

        7. + there’s no indication in scripture that the serpent was guilty of sin. In fact if you follow through the story of Adam & humanity through scripture, you’ll find that it was ADAM’s sin, not Eve’s or the serpent’s that cause The Fall.

          If you believe the serpent was Satan as is a traditional teaching, Satan’s sin is clearly listed in Scripture not as lying about the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good & evil, but Satan’s sin was that of arrogantly/proudly equating himself/itself to God.

          Serpents are not capable of sin, any more than the ground was capable of sin which also was cursed. Serpents were not commanded to tell the truth or lie, or anything.

          Not imposing our own beliefs onto scripture is key to understanding what God has for us in the Bible.

    2. Good point. Have to agree here. I don’t think Darrell was saying that Evolution was true, but that the song regarding evolution was more insulting and degrading to those we’re supposed to minister to.

      If someone came to my office and believed in evolution, the first thing I wouldn’t say is, “You’re an idiot…you believe that we all were swinging from trees.”

      I’d hopefully demonstrate the love of Christ and listen to them and point them to Christ of the Bible. Then I’d let the Holy Spirit doing any changing in their lives if He deems it necessary.

      1. If you think I need “ministering to” because I happen to believe in evolution based on my God-given intellect, then I am not sure I would want ANYTHING of what you are selling.

        Also, when you point them to Christ of the Bible, will also point them to part of the Bible where Christ says that you cannot believe in evoluition and be saved?

        1. Scorpio…If they needed ministry for any other issue, the first thing I would not bring up would be their belief in evolution.

          I didn’t mean to imply that because they believed in evolution they would need ministering to.

          Plus last time I checked, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” did not include the words, “…and creation.” So I never implied they had to believe in creation to be saved either.

        2. Admiral – I see now what you were saying. I apologize as I appear to have read between the lines when there was nothing there.

          I think my tin-foil hat needs adjusting :mrgreen:

        3. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. To me, creation is an orthodox requirement. How does this relate to saving faith in Christ? Part of believing that Christ is the Son of God is a correct belief in God Himself…and one of the primary attributes of God is that of the Creator. I understand that there are many different interpretations of the Genesis account (I myself believe that Days 1-3 were probably several million years and the 24-hour day did not begin until the creation of the sun on Day 4) but to ascribe most of our human development to evolution robs God of His due credit.

        4. “…but to ascribe most of our human development to evolution robs God of His due credit.”

          I am not sure it does. My take is if God is who we say He is, then he can use any means he sees fit to develop humans.
          I would give God full credit whether he created us in His image out of dust or if he chose to create us in His image over millions of years. Either way, He made us and none of us were there when it happened.

          BTW Bro Bulto, are you any relation to our dear Bro Bluto? :mrgreen:

        5. Bulto: So you interpret 3 verses one way, the next set of verses the other way, and then support that by a … feeling? Based on…..

          C’mon. That is just ridiculous. You can do better.

        6. Bluto/Bulto has been going back and forth on the spelling for quite a while. The autosaved name seems to have switched to Bulto a long time ago, but when he signs his replies he spells it Bluto. I’ve been watching with fascination for some time. :)

    3. If your argument depends on the “six literal days” part, you are going to have a tough sell. Plenty of doctors of the church have disagreed with you on this point, and frankly it borderlines on abuse of Hebrew to demand six literal days in the first creation narrative in Genesis.

    4. Sorry mate, but you have no authority to decide who is a real Christian and who is not. That one’s for God. Just as well given how primeval the attitudes of some His accredited representatives are.
      I disagree with you on your take of the first couple of chapters of the Bible. Here’s my take: A short discourse on how the cosmos and life was created is of no use whatsoever throughout the bulk of human history and is of limited use even now – the couple of pages it takes up in my Bible (even the KJV one) is just too short for even a scientific synopsis. What was and is far more useful is something that tells us why it was all created, what kind of God did the creating, and what the role of humanity has vis-a-vis this God and God’s creation. Now that’s mindblowing. That’s a great God, and great literature.
      The problem is, in Fundistan, God is just too small and unimaginative. Sorry!

    5. I actually don’t believe in evolution, but I find myself having to defend your charicature of it like I often do with my believing friends. It is not based on faith. It is a theory developed to explain and predict how the natural world is and will be.

      Charles Darwin saw the changing of species on an island and developed a theory based on that. Scientists have been devoping the idea of evolution by natural selection for a long time. Changes within species are actually observable over time. Here’s some examples.

      Humans are much taller than they were 1000 years ago. Every wonder why we have trouble curing a cold or the flu? It’s because the virus’ mutate so much that it actually ensures their survival. Nobody ever heard of a killer bee until African bees met honey bees. Thus, changes are observable.

      It also predicts the fossil record. If we were to find a human fossil in the precambrian period of our rock layers, evolutionary theory would fall like a house of cards. Nothing that complex and diverse would have existed so early according to the theory.

      lol and I hope I did some of you evolutionists justice. I don’t believe it myself for various reasons, but I thought you were being grossly missrepresented.

    6. Evolution is a theory based on faith; it is not true science that can be replicated and observed.

      Except that it isn’t based on faith, because it can be replicated and observed. Here is my empirical evidence. Where is yours?

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.Ue8Tu6Qo78Q

      http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345247/description/E_coli_caught_in_the_act_of_evolving

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

        1. Admiral, but you still have to demonstrate why the quote is wrong. You are engaging in a fallacy that is the inverse of the “proof from authority” argument.

        2. I never said the quote was wrong. I was making the point that quoting wiki doesn’t represent scholarly research.

    1. Are you sure that is the correct video? It just shows images of things that I have heard preached against in the IFB.

    1. Actually, we didn’t descend directly from apes, either.
      But we are much more closely related to apes than to monkeys (or seaweed, for that matter).

  6. It interests me that many apologists currently refuse to engage in this fight, and will almost initially concede, “ok, let’s assume evolution is true'”. They then proceed to point out issues with ATHEISTIC evolution. The point: it’s more important to win a person than it is to win an argument.

    1. I thought it was probably an Oklahoma thing when I saw that, but I googled them and it looks like they are from Boomer, WV, and got their name from the town name.

  7. I can just see the apes in the zoo groaning “You mean we’re related to THAT! No way, talk about DEscended from monkeys!” No wonder they fling poop at us. :roll:

    1. You remind me of this old poem:

      Darwin’s Mistake

      Three monkeys sat in a cocoanut tree
      Discussing things as they’re said to be.
      Said one to the others, “Now listen, you two,
      There’s a certain rumor that can’t be true.
      That man descended from our noble race-
      The very idea! It’s a dire disgrace.

      No monkey ever deserted his wife,
      Starved her babies and ruined her life,
      And you’ve never known a mother monk
      To leave her babies with others to bunk,
      Or pass them on from one to another
      ‘Til they hardly know who is their mother.

      And another thing! You will never see. . .
      A monk build a fence ’round a cocoanut tree
      And let the cocoanuts go to waste,
      Forbidding all other monks to taste.
      Why, if I put a fence around the tree,
      Starvation would force you to steal from me.

      Here’s another thing a monk won’t do. . .
      Go out at night and get on a stew,
      Or use a gun or club or knife
      To take some other monkey’s life,
      Yes, Man descended, the ornery cuss. . .
      But brother he didn’t descend from us!

      .
      I found several versions of these verses on the Internet, but nobody seem to know who wrote the original.

  8. A fight on the internet about evolution?

    *picks up 10 foot pole*
    *mutters to self “not long enough”*
    *picks up 12 foot pole*
    *mutters to self “still not long enough”.*

    I am going on Amazon to see if I can order a 15 foot pole with expedited delivery. Be right back.

    1. Family joke: my folks use to talk about Stretch Kowalski. When anyone asked, they would say, “You know, Stretch Kowalski, the ten-foot Pole.” Yeahhhh, they were corny, but I still remember.

    2. “A fight on the internet….”

      That never happens. Does it? :wink:

      Save your money and just tape your 10 foot pole and 12 foot pole together.

  9. I don’t believe in evolution, but I’m doing a major research project on Darwin right now for grad school. The more I learn about evolutionary theory (and yes, I know, evolution has come a long way since Darwin), the less I believe it. I’ve given it fair consideration and couldn’t find it plausible based on the factual knowledge I have of how our universe works. But also, the more disgusted I become with the way evolution was presented to me growing up. Darwin was mischaracterized as a type A evil villian (rather than a somewhat bland, inoffensive man who was disillusioned with people and preferred to hang out with worms). Poor man. I can’t say his lack of faith in humanity was entirely unfounded.

    1. Which grad school? Is it accredited?
      So do you find a story about a talking snake, two naked people and two magic fruit trees more plausible?

    2. http://ncse.com/evolution/science/evolution-primers

      You might want to start here to learn about evolutionary theory. I assure you, you cannot learn evolutionary theory using Creationist-oriented materials.

      The fact is that evolution is change over time. It is documented. It is not instantaneous morphing into teenage mutant ninja turtles. It is not an organism “deciding” it needs another organ.

      When I hear someone talk about how they don’t believe evolution, are studying Darwin and evolutionary theory, I just know that they are getting their misinformation from creationist sources.

      And creationist sources lie about science.

      Darwin’s observations helped other scientists of his time to put their own observations into an understandable kind of order. But science is a long way from Darwin. We don’t talk about “Darwinian evolution” because there is no such animal. Darwin is important, but evolution would have been presented from other sources even if they had used different words.

      You need information from science, not theology. If you are honest, then understand the reasons why good men — even Christians — accept evolutionary theory. It is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of understanding the connectivity and breadth of the evidence.

      Once you understand what science really says, you will have some choices, but you won’t be able to malign people who believe evolutionary theory any longer unless you are just patently dishonest. You may or may not accept the evidence, but you should be able to see why people with good consciences do.

      My faith has changed. I see Creationism as patently dishonest. I still trust Christ.

      In any case, more real knowledge can’t hurt you.

  10. Thought the song was great!

    It’s fun to see adherents of the “religion of science” get all stirred up once in awhile!

  11. Alright, so this is a place where many Christians in different walks come together based on the fundy foibles we’ve experienced, and some of us have different views on things, including the creation of the world. As someone who does his best to take God literally in scripture, I have a few nagging questions for those that adhere to evolution:

    1. If you do not believe the Genesis 1 account, at what point do you start believing the Bible is true and accurate?

    2. How do you reconcile your views with the Gospel? One of the primary tenets of the Gospel is that the penalty for sin is death, both physical and spiritual. Romans 5 states that by one man sin and death entered the world, therefore one Man, Jesus had to pay that sin debt. How does this gibe with the view of evolution?

    3. This dovetails off the last question. If you believe that God allowed evolution to occur, do you also believe that death is not a byproduct of sin? From my understanding, death is crucial for evolution to occur, over thousands of generations.

    I hope I was able to ask these questions in the right spirit. We have enough ignorant trolls that like to take potshots around here. I look forward to responses!

    1. I believe in the Genesis 1 account, and in the seemingly contradictory and different Genesis 2 account. God teaches us truths about himself in both accounts. He did not intend them to be scientific treatises, and wrote them in the context of the physical world as it was understood by the people of that time. Question 1 is therefore a false dilemma / “when did you stop beating your spouse?” question.

      The argument that “no death before sin” precludes physical death of animals is not convincing. I don’t find a contradiction with what I think the best interpretation of the text actually is.

      With that said, I can’t escape the fact that the earth is way more than 6,000 years old, and that animals have been here far longer than humans. Animals were dying with shocking regularity long before humans came on the scene. This is one out of several reasons why I believe the range of acceptable interpretations of “no death before sin” must be culled to include only interpretations that fit with what actually happened in the history of our planet.

    2. I don’t know everything but I will answer your questions to the best of my abiltiies based on my beliefs.

      #1 – Genesis 1 should not be read as a science book. It should be read as a story book. This is possible unless you belive that everything in the Bible should be translated literally. I think it is important to try to understand what the original writers of the Bible were trying to portray and not how we interpret them in our society.

      #2 – Since the Gospel has no conditions other than belief in Jesus as the Son of God and our Saviour, how I view the Genesis account of creation should play no part in my salvation.

      #3 – Romans 6:23 states that the penalty of sin is death. That death is not literal death as in you stop breathing and cease to exist. That is a figurative death. Literative death has occurred to all living things. Including Jesus. Yes he has risen, but on earth he died.

      I am not sure if I made any sense or answered your questions.

      1. Thank you!! IMHO, you’ve said all that needs to be said. If there were a “deep bow in admiration” emoticon, I would use it.

    3. As far as #2, creation views have never been considered part of any orthodoxy or in anyway related to the Gospel. 5 fundamentals of the faith developed in the early 20th century well after Darwin’s views of the origins of the species were known, and never mentioned anything regarding one’s view of the creation story as being fundamental to the Christian beliefs/life.

      http://www.stufffundieslike.com/about-2/ seems to me to be a good & relevant discussion of what actually is and isn’t fundamental to the faith.

      For #3 both Peter Enns & NT Wright have a lot to say on death before the fall & the what to make of the Adam/Even story both in Genesis & Paul’s treatment of them as historical humans.

      1. As for #2, how can this even make any sense if you demand hereditary ancestry of the singular sinner, Adam, as a prerequisite?

        Illogic:
        1. Adam sinned
        2. I inherited his sin, biologically somehow
        3. Jesus was righteous
        4. A christian inherits… his righteousness… biologically?

        In short, biological heritage has nothing to do with the issues raised by the biblical account of sin and salvation.

        1. Teachings on original sin are not part of the fundamentals of the faith, nor part of any of the solas, nor part of any creed, nor part of Paul’s presentation of the gospel, nor part of Christ’s teachings.

    4. I think I would point you toward your presuppositions, Polish Guy. In #1 you presume a rational-empirical epistemology in which factual precision determines truth. Now, it could very well be that truth is determined by precision of empirical evidence within a plausible logical construct, but you would have to prove that first.

  12. I’m a creationist,

    but I have to call you on this one. The concept of evolution predates Charles Darwin by thousands of years. (Reference the history of evolutionary theory). Creationists, like myself, do a disservice when we try to defend our beliefs through logic or by quoting the Institute for Creation Research (which hasnt put out any scholarly research, as far as I can tell, in well over a decade…and a powerpoint slide show is NOT scholarly research).

    Creationists, like myself, must start using our heads to defend a defenseless threory using our faith–just as the Evolutionists must.

    1. I’ve never been a big fan of the whole “defend creation against evolution” battle. Ultimately it must be believed by faith; it was not designed to be proven through logic or “evidence” (God did that on purpose). I don’t feel any more comfortable with the Creation Museum/Ken Ham’s take on the fossil record than I do with an evolutionist’s–they have more money and more research, and I’m not going to be dumb and pretend that ours is somehow more scientifically accurate than theirs because we’re Christians!
      Evolutionary theory has been around since ancient Greece and probably longer, and I have no problem with believing that the world has evolved since God made it, or that the world’s older than a few thousand years. I do have a problem with people claiming to be Christians but denying the biblical account of creation. Can’t we strike a balance between making up stuff that isn’t in the Bible and holding people to it (like KJV-only and women in pants) and denying stuff that’s clearly in the Bible?

  13. I don’t think it should be taken for granted that people who believe in creationism are ignorant yokums. After all, on this and on several other issues (death penalty, for a major one for me), I’ve changed over time, and I don’t think I was dumb when I was committed to creationism. (By the way, I am using “creationism” as an abbreviation to refer to six-day, young-earth creationism. I have not lost any faith in God’s involvement in creation. I’ll observe that in the New Testament, God is said to still be creating this world–which suggests an on-going process.)

    Historically, some major Christian figures believed that the creation is told to accommodate to human’s limited understanding–in other words, that Genesis 1, especially, relates not the process of creation, per se, but its divine value, “and it was good.” Who held this view? Insofar as the issue was discussed at all, probably most theologians before the eighteenth century, but to drop some names: Augustine, Aquinas, John Calvin, John Milton (who has, in other ways, probably most deeply influenced the ways we read Genesis 1-3), and John Wesley.

    Creationism arises from the work of Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656), who first calculated the 4004 B.C. year of the creation by working through the biblical genealogies. In some ways, his procedure is an example of the status of the scientific method in his lifetime–not bad, but limited in its assumptions.

    Scientists prior to Darwin, especially geologists, including many Christians, began to argue for a much older earth in the eighteenth century. They did not believe they were toppling the gospel to reach these conclusions as the accommodationist view still held sway.

    Much of the accommodationist argument was based upon the idea of the limited nature of our knowledge. So what happens when we get more knowledge? Well, we get the split we have today. Creationism did not precede Darwinism; it followed Darwinism. On the other hand, other Christians have largely begun to argue that Christians need to reexamine the ways by which they read Genesis 1-3. This has occurred before: Read Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, in which he argues that when scripture and science seem to be in conflict, the science isn’t wrong, the scriptures aren’t wrong, but the interpretation of the scriptures have been wrong.

    The questions being raised in the comments above are fair and good questions … but they have been addressed. I am not the best person to address the questions, but I can recommend some readings IF a person approaches them in good faith, with an intention to learn and have those questions resolved to some degree:

    Francis Collins, The Language of God.
    John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (about what a literal reading of Genesis 1 should be).
    John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science.
    Preston Jones and Greg Graffin, Is Belief in God Good, Bad, or Irrelevant?
    Karl Giberson has written on some of these issues.
    Any thing on the Biologos website, which several have linked above.
    C.S. Lewis has occasional comments on evolution, showing that he believed it was the process of creation.

    I’ll invite others to suggest titles for reading.

    1. Good grief, I didn’t mean to write an essay! Sorry about that. (However, if you’d like an essay, I have a real one on my blog, click “J Heller” to get there.

    2. By the way, while I assume that fundamentalists are creationists, I don’t assume that all creationists are fundamentalists, though they tend to be conservative.

    3. Thank you for this! I’ve been looking for that Galileo quote for a while now. :) The rest is very helpful too – I’ve only recently begun to really examine this issue, it wasn’t really as big a thing for me as some of the other theological assumptions I’ve had to re-examine, so I’m still putting pieces together as to where and how and why YEC viewpoint is so flawed; discovering that theistic evolution was actually a thing made a great many things make a lot more sense. My homeschool science education was abysmal, so I’m still playing catch up on a lot of basics as far as things that we actually know and aren’t just ‘theory’, as everything even tangentially related to evolution was always dismissed when I was growing up. I will definitely check out your recommended reading!

    4. “I don’t think it should be taken for granted that people who believe in creationism are ignorant yokums.”

      Thank you for saying this. I’ve grown and changed on a lot of things, too, but I don’t like to have my intelligence insulted about what I used to believe. Some of us do try to do the best with the information we’re given, and sometimes even smart people are creationists.

  14. Those poor girls… Each one of them looked like they would rather have a root canal…. Shoot, I’D rather have root canal :grin:

  15. Oh dearie me. YE Creationism depends on anachronistic, literal readings of an ancient manuscript. IE, it disrespects the author, and his intent.

    As old Ian Paisley used to say (no I don’t like or agree with the man, but this is a gem):

    A text taken out of context becomes a pretext.

    I guess the next song would be about the pillars under the earth? Or the sun orbiting around us every 24 hours? Etc etc.

    1. “it disrespects the author, and his intent.”

      this really is true! But, is there any room for authorial intent in the fundy hermeneutic?

      1. “..fundy hermeneutic.”

        aka your pastor’s interpretation of a given verse mixed in with what pissed him off this week.

  16. It’s easier to believe that water can turn into blood than it is that so many who came out of fundy land suddenly believe in evolution. *sniff sniff* Just sayin’. I think it defies logic that you’re all (at least most of you) are so convinced of what coincidentally is the opposite of what those at PCC and BJU believe as fact. Me thinks I smell fibbers fibbing so that they’re not embarrassed around their cyber friends.
    Don’t be offended. It’s just my observation. I mean, am I alone to feel this way?
    If I’m wrong about this, I will still believe I’m right just in case you want to argue this.

    1. I would argue (1) it’s more of a wider movement than just amoung ex fundies, and (2) that some of the people who are more YEC’s or creationists of some sort are not necessarily expressing so, or just not currently blog commenting. In the past we’ve had more regular commenters who were more towards creationism of some sort, not so much today, but lack of comments, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

      1. I can see your first point. Your second point is interesting, but I have never known young earthers to be silent. Maybe it is the calm before the storm. Hunker down.

    2. My agnosticism precludes me from believing creationism. I also don’t believe in evolution. So this is about all I’m gonna say about either.

      1. Say more. I am most curious to hear from people who believe what you do. Creation, evolution, combo of the two… Heard it. I would love to read a paragraph or a book by someone who holds your position.
        I you truly don’t want to comment, could you point me to where I could read about this?

        1. Nothing more to say, sir. At my Catholic school decades ago we were taught evolution, much to my mom’s dismay. As a resident of Fundystan, I held to creationism. Neither case makes a strong point to me. Believing in creation means believing in a deity, which I can no longer do. So I don’t believe in evolution or creation because I have no proof of either.

    3. John, I’m with you. In this and some discussion of homosexuality a couple days ago there seemed to be a sudden silence from more conservative viewpoints that in my opinion is probably respectful disagreement and recognition that: a) neither side will convince the other, and b) thankfully God doesn’t base our entrance into His kingdom on a flawless score on an exam of doctrinal minutiae.

      My opinion (since those are being tossed around) is that if God had really wanted us to know how long the 6 “periods” of creation lasted, He would have told us with a specific word accepted to mean a specific period of time (millennium for instance, or century or maybe day) and then if He really meant what He said He could possibly throw in corroborating hints like telling us how many mornings and evenings would fit into said period, for example. :grin:

      I don’t believe that any death–of microorganisms, plants,animals, humans, physical or spiritual–would be called “very good” by the Author of Life. If it were so, then I’m not sure I want ANY (let alone every) good and perfect gift from the Father of Lights.

      That said, I have long thought that the two trees in the Garden story just has an allegorical feel to it–tree of life and tree of knowledge of good and evil, 2 people named Man and Mother-of-all-Living/Came-out-of-Man. I would not be surprised if the story of the Fall was more an executive summary with the clarity of Creator/human relationship implications and heart motives given priority emphasis rather than precise chronological photographic details, but slavishly literal would be just fine by me too. My Soteriology, however, keeps me convinced that Adam was the first guy and his sin brought death.

      I have dug under the foundations of Dispensationalism to find the roots of Pretribulation Rapture and found that theory seriously wanting, to say the least. I ended up still Premillennial but heavily leaning toward 1Cor15 and 1Thess4 events happening after the Tribulation. What’s funny to me (and germane to the Creation discussion) is that fundies who are so willing to die on the hill ofSix Literal 24 Hour Days, are so quick to reinterpret the Day Of The LORD, mentioned way more in the Bible than the Creation week, to last as arbitrarily long as they wish to make it fit their Pretribulatonism. :wink:

      Haven’t had the chance to go as in-depth with Creationism, but it seems to me that evolutionists, Christian or not, also want to toss or radically reinterpret the equally plain biblical language of the Flood narrative. Is that story false too? My suspicion, again without comprehensive study, is that acceptance of the biblical Flood answers many problems with the evolutionary theory.

      1. If we see the death of remote stars from millions to billions of years ago, I would think you at least have to concede that there was *evidence* of death prior to the existence of any Adam, no?

        1. Yes, no. :smile: It’s fundamentally the same as accepting that fruit was ripe on the tree for Adam to eat as soon as he woke up from being created. No need to wait for it to grow from a seed or for a mother tree to produce and release the seed, etc. And Adam was created fully formed–didn’t need to wait 9 months from his creation while incubating in a womb-like thingy to develop a fully functioning body to enjoy Creation and fellowship with his Creator. Apparent age wouldn’t be a big deal. After all, God created light on day 1 (I mean “period”1) before creating light’s current sources on day 4. Why couldn’t He have created “in-transit” starlight before creating its stars? Or what somebody else said about the BB being less an accidental explosion and more the beginning and rapid expansion of Space/Time–I could go with that being day 1 and the apparent age of the remotest stars being an artifact of space and time as we know them not retaining their conventional constant values throughout all of history. God is not bound by time just as He is not limited by space–why couldn’t He exceed the speed limit He imposed on the light He created? “c” may be our theoretical speed limit but it cannot confine the Creator.

          You could similarly have “created” a paper airplane in NY and carried it with you on the Concorde to London and then amazed a child by truthfully saying that your paper airplane flew at Mach 2 the whole trip-something it clearly isn’t physically capable of doing. Probly not the greatest example, but kinda?

          Why can’t Deus pull a deus ex machina? I expect and anticipate that from Him. Sheesh, I HOPE He’s more powerful than His Creation! :grin:

        2. And I wouldn’t equate a star running out of gas, euphemistically called “death”, with the death of animals or humans. Same word, different idea.

        3. Animals would’ve had to consume at least grasses & fruits & vegetables. Fish would’ve had to consume plankton even accidentally. We don’t believe God created parasites after the fall, and there’s no revelation of parasites being altered as the snake with the curse.

        4. BTW, if Scriptures are to be believed seriously then Jesus in a resurrected body ate dead fish. I don’t know of anyone that would argue that Christs abilities/appetites (carnivorous) post resurrection wouldn’t have reflected Adam’s pre-fall. Maybe you can say Adam/Eve didn’t eat dead animals, but they certainly had a jaw/teeth structure to eat meat.

      2. Respectful disagreement, or maybe doubt. I hope the first, but I understand the latter.
        Many say “It doesn’t matter what we believe about the Genesis account.” My spirit, or at least my mind, wants to know the truth of this. It seems it would help me in many areas of life and especially of the Scriptures.
        I would love to have a few years with a few who are willing, good communicators, knowledgeable of the Scriptures, and knowledgeable of other views. A very large room with white boards all around.

        1. If God is not bound by space or time, how can he create in a specific number of days? Space time implies a where and a when to an action–day 1 was here and within this 24 hours; day two was here, and within a second set of 24 hours. This explicitly means God is in fact a function of space or time, and is working within the parameters of them. But you just conceded that God doesn’t work within the confines of space or time.

          Can you explain the apparent contradiction?

        2. Phil, thanks for the link. I’ve begun reading, it’s very interesting, but I must get back to work.
          “We ain’t goin’ study war no more.”

        3. Argo, I’ve only considered this briefly. The explanation is usually that he created “time” to point us to the Sabbath or the Christ. I don’t know if I’d take it to the point defining it as a contradiction.
          Are you saying that it’s possible that in God’s eternal existence that time has always been?

        4. Time is essentially the forward connection of events, effect preceding cause.

          The ball does not bounce before it hits. My wife isn’t mad before I make the dumb statement. The glass doesn’t shatter before it is struck.

          If time did not exist, then there would really be no eternity, either. There would be no events. I am not even sure there would be being.

          I could see moving out of one time stream into another. But again, the idea that God is Outside of Time is a statement that essentially means nothing. If God knows the number of the hairs on our heads, then He must also be very aware of time, since such things change from minute to minute (mine moving in the minus direction). Again, since our prayers are bound in time and space, so must the answers to those things be.

          I would have no trouble with attributing the Big Bang to God. There is nothing in Physics that requires divine intervention. But since I pray to God, my understanding is that He hears no matter where I am.

          But God is not the God of Unreason and Illogic. We have a big universe with knowable laws. And if we can be looking at effects determine cause, there can be no sin in doing so as we look deep into the structure of the world and universe.

    4. I don’t think any of us “suddenly” believed anything after coming out of fundamentalism. Generally, it’s a long, arduous struggle to examine what we’ve been taught in the light of truth we were denied. The simple realization that AIG/ICR is very disingenuous about the way they present what evolution means and teaches is enough to rattle the foundations of literal creationist thinking. And many who have that foundation shaken find their way to some form of evolutionary thought. Others do not. But nothing about it is “sudden.”

      1. ReneeD, it just seems that, relatively speaking, one year to believe something like this is sudden.
        I’m not nearly as smart as most here, maybe that’s all it is. I’d like to think it’s because I’m so awesome and wise. :smile:
        My new website will be slowtoknow dot com.

        1. I think you’re making assumptions about how long people were questioning and how long they’ve been out of fundamentalism. Furthermore, by the time someone takes active steps out of fundamentalism, they’ve usually been mentally leaving for a long time.

      2. You hit the nail on the head. It does take time and energy in determining what we believe — if what we believe is worth anything, that is.

        The problem in fundamentalism is that there is all this you are handed to believe, but there is no work in doing so. You are simply told to believe it. Then, when you really, really need to have an answer for the hope that lies in you, you often do not have it. The gospel becomes this big impersonal “Belief System” that you hold onto like a ticket for the eternal life ride. But other than that, it doesn’t really mean much.

        When I told a deacon at my IFB church that I was going to “prove” what I believed, that I wanted to be able to validate the doctrines by the Scripture, he was shocked. He told me that was a good way to lose my faith, and that he had known many who had. I replied that if the doctrine was important to be believed, it should be able to be demonstrated from Scripture (he did not dispute that!).

        Well, I didn’t lose faith, but faith changed — slowly. But I think even my slow progress was faster than many because I was working at it steadily.

        You don’t come out of fundamentalism all at once. Even if you stop going to a fundy church, the fundy influence is still there. In many respects I am still coming out of fundamentalism. The process is not complete. And in many areas, people retain fundamentalist beliefs even if they don’t realize that is what they are.

        1. I see your point. You and Renee makes sense I guess. I am a freak I guess. I met with our MOg and pointed out a few things I was seeing that were in conflict with our written doctrine. He began praying, “Lord, I sense the ol’ devil is in this…” I was like, “seriously?”, I called him on it. It basically ended up with him stating clearly scripture that supported his position, and claiming that everything that disagrees with him can’t be understood.
          I was gone the next week.

        2. I would have been “Seriously?!” right with you! Unfortunately for me, the church I went to after graduating from FundyU was less direct, and the pastor more able to couch the man-centric, unbiblical teaching in incredibly logical ways. I started questioning privately a while before I finally left. And my leaving was delayed by loyalty to my family. Fortunately my dad saw that I was unhappy and encouraged me to leave. By the time I actually walked away from the fundy church, my heart and mind had been gone a while. I rather wish I would have had a “the ole devil’s in this” experience. It would have truncated my stay in that church, that’s for sure!

        3. Renee, I am thankful I was a first generation fundamentalist. I am sure my children won’t find their way back into an IFB church. I will do what I can to encourage my grandchildren with the truth of God, rather than intimidation and fear.
          Sounds like you have a good dad.

        4. John, let me assure you, you are no freak. Every person comes from their own unique perspective, and your perspective is different from mine.

          It has to be.

          And some people are quicker to catch on than others. It took me so long because I had built up an expectation of abuse, a feeling of deserving it. I stayed, endured, hoped for God to bless me, kept feeling punished.

          And finally, finally I’d had enough.

          Life has been getting better since.

      1. Actually he’s evolved beyond us and that’s what makes it so easy for him to mess with us.
        He’s toying with us just like we do with ants. :shock:

  17. In regards to the song, I’m not sure why anyone would say anything about seaweed swinging in the breeze. Yes, it will wash up with the tide and perhaps if you wrapped it around a stick like a flag it would swing in the breeze, but seaweed is more likely to wrap around your foot than blow in the wind. That’s been my experience, though perhaps I’ve been around reprobate seaweed. I need to go to the beach now in my modest swimwear and check this theory.

    1. That was my thought exactly. Maybe the girl on the far right was at the beach, observing the seaweed, and that’s why she keeps scratching at her belly. Sand gets everywhere, you know.

    2. Could someone have sneaked a peek at the forbidden SpongeBob cartoons? Seaweed swings and sways in the breeze quite a lot down there, but then, the “breezes” are ocean currents. :wink:

      1. I’m too holy and separated to have ever watched that show.

        Okay, I think the show is trash. I’m about as holy as pond scum and the only separation I do is when it comes to laundry.

    1. Yeah, the cheezy rhymes and lack of accompaniment made me think these three actually made up the song themselves. However, the tune and the way they’re singing it seem to be more inherited than original.

  18. The Monkey Speaks His Mind
    Bymgstill5,483 views
    Here’s a much better view on the subject. (And a much better song to boot). I tried to link to the YouTube site, but I don’t think it took. If you look it up, be sure to get the Dave Bartholomew (original) version. Enjoy!

  19. For some reason, when I first read the song title, I put those words to “We Didn’t Start the Fire”. I doubt the rest of the song would work but that line did!

  20. My first major intellectual challenge to creationism came at Bob Jones University.

    Yes, read it again. That is what I said.

    I was taking Physical Geography. The teacher was a lady, and tough. She told us at the beginning of class that she knew most of us were going to be dealing with the sciences after we left BJU. Most of us were in education of some sort. She said she was going to teach us what we needed to know for the outside world.

    She was pretty cagey about her own personal beliefs. She said that she wasn’t saying she agreed with the secular scientific interpretation of things, and yes, the Bible said thus and such. But again, she wanted us to know what the science said about the topic, and why.

    And so began a whirlwind course, easily my most favorite, in which we had to learn all the countries and their capitals in the World. And we were tested on them! Furthermore, we learned about geologic processes, sedimentation and erosion, plate tectonics, climate and other ideas.

    We then had to do an extremely detailed report on a section of the world typifying a particular geographic feature. I chose the Columbia Basin Region of the United States, and for over a month the living room was cluttered with papers, articles, and pictures all over the floor and furniture. My wife and I scoured junk shops for National Geographics, old textbooks, etc.

    I made an A in the course. I don’t know if the teacher was there very long. I rather doubt it, because it was my sense that she was at heart a scientist and believed the physical evidence.

    It got me to thinking. So when, some years later, one of my deans handed me a biology text and told me to read it, I began to see what a cheat creationism is.

    1. “because it was my sense that she was at heart a scientist and believed the physical evidence. ”

      As if nothing in the physical evidence supports the biblical account of creation.

      1. Could you please provide one example of the physical evidence that you can tie directly to the biblical account of creation?

        1. Sure, the earth exists. Genesis 1. :grin:
          I’m not in this discussion, I just wanted to be a smart ass.

      2. Actually, nothing in the physical world supports the creationist model in any way. There is NOTHING suggesting an instantaneous full-blown, 6-day creation of the complete earth.

        Nothing. Nothing at all.

        Now there are people who believe in “old-earth creationism” and those who believe in “young-earth creationism.” YEC is the worst at denying the physical evidence. YEC does a complete hatchet job on science, geology (or “flood geology”), paleontology, physics, and the like in an attempt to make physical phenomena justify Scripture. OEC takes the other direction, stretching Biblical interpretations way out of line to try to fit physical realities.

        In truth, the Scripture says practically nothing of value about the origins of the earth because Genesis was not intended to be a scientific explanation of origins.

        The Hebrews were not a literal-minded people, and trying to make them data and fact oriented like we are today merely means we mangle the Scripture and miss its meaning.

        To the ancients, the creation stories they grew up with set their expectations, their societal structure. The Babylonian creation myth had men created to serve God by tending a garden as slaves. Their escape from the garden set up a kind of animosity with the gods. The Egyptian creation myth had men created by accident, springing from the tears of a god, of little value.

        But what Moses taught the Israelites coming out of Egypt was that God had created man specially, to rule, not to be slaves. The Garden was a place of preparation. Every Israelite could identify with the idea that at one time, when they were young, they had their needs met. But when they decided they should make their own decisions and not just accede to the will of their parents, they were thrust into the world to make their own way in it.

        The Creation stories allowed them to walk with confidence that God had created the world for them, but with respect, knowing that disobedience would bring hardship. The people of the land, however, saw their origins as either slaves or as accidents. The differences in theology allowed the Israelites confidence as they inherited the Land.

    1. There are certainly some examples of it. But don’t be thinking that because there is politics surrounding science that scientific results are determined politically.

      Science advances because science works. We observe, measure, guess, and experiment. We throw away the ideas that do not work. In this way we get closer and closer to the truth.

      For example, there is a hugely diverse field of study we lump into “climate sciences.” Why do we believe that the earth’s temperature on average is climbing? Because we can measure it. And yes, there are direct and indirect methods of temperature measurement that do very well for us. Nearly every field of science has some contribution to the study.

      And the great consensus is, the earth is warming and it is a result of man’s activities.

      Yes, there is a small group of naysayers who get an inordinate amount of attention. Still, they are useful because if they uncover a methodological or interpretive flaw, we can correct things. Science does a lot of redundant work. We like to check and recheck our results, often doing the same experiment in different ways to see how variability affects results.

      And the conclusions we come to provide real-world imperatives. Either we change behavior or we face the consequences of doing nothing. That is politics.

      But those who try to manipulate results or falsify data for whatever reason are almost always caught. It doesn’t matter if they are trying to support the “establishment” (whatever that means!) or not. Fake results cannot be validated or reproduced. The researchers trying to get grants for “cold fusion” were exposed as frauds publicly, even though it would have been a politically popular idea to fund and support.

      Scientists are human. They make mistakes. They don’t know everything. But the fact that they don’t know everything does not imply or infer that they know nothing.

      In fact, that you can type on your computer and communicate how you do is proof that science *works.* Ultimately, the same science in your cellphone is the same science at work in climate science, and in a huge number of other areas. The different branches of science all share the same roots, the same principles, and methodologies. Discoveries in one branch often spur discovery in other branches.

      Science works. No need to be so skeptical or fearful that the terrible, awful scientists are out to destroy your faith in God by lying about the world around us. That is NOT what they do.

    2. “They are certainly inseperable today.” Come on Loren — don’t act like a bonobo! The scientific method is inherently apolitical.

  21. I am rather vocal in my support of science and my rejection of creationism.

    Please understand. I did not come by this lightly. I was, in my youth, an ardent believer in creationism. It took time and study and a lot more time to arrive where I am now.

    I do not sit in judgment of those who believe in creationism. I do, however, soundly object to those who create the lies, think up the obfuscations, and create fear, uncertainty and doubt to support this doctrine.

    If you cannot bring yourself to believe about evolution, at least ask the Lord to let you be open to the truth. Be willing to listen. Be willing to learn about science and its principles.

    No one thinks of believing in science as a substitute for believing in God. They are entirely two different things. “Faith” in religion is acceptance without validation. “Faith” in science only comes from validation of experimental evidence.

    And the evidence does not lie — unless you wish to believe that God makes His Creation to lie to scientists to deliberately deceive them and send them to hell. Would a truthful God do that?

    And if the evidence of the physical world contradicts your interpretation of Scripture, it is quite likely that your interpretation of Scripture is wrong. God may have inspired Scripture. That does not mean He inspired your interpretation of it.

    Many scientists who accept evolution are very sincere and real believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. Many are believers in other religions or faith traditions.

    Paul said this: “I press on toward the goal for the prie of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained.” Philippians 3:14-16.

    1. Amen, my friend. :grin: :smile: Took me too a long time to think things out, and I could be insufferable both times.
      Sometimes I call the process of evolution “God’s Cookbook”; doesn’t matter the process used, but here we are.

  22. Who do I see about getting my dignity back when this & the “I’m no kin to the monkey” song get stuck in my head and someone overhears me mumbling them and thinks I don’t understand evolution? :)

    1. Sorry, Rob. We all lost our dignity on this subject a long time ago — no matter what position we approached it from.

      1. I supposed I’ve made it this far in life without much, there’s no point in getting overly agitated for it now.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>