Creationist Group Answers in Genesis: To Deny That Unicorns Existed is to ‘Demean God’s Word’

SJust when I thought my opinion of creationists couldn’t get any lower, I ran across this article posted on the Answers in Genesis website (the group suing the state of Kentucky for $18 million) claiming that unicorns were real and to deny their existence is to “demean God’s word.”


No, seriously, that’s what this article claims:

Some people claim the Bible is a book of fairy tales because it mentions unicorns. However, the biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature. The Bible refers to the unicorn in the context of familiar animals, such as peacocks, lambs, lions, bullocks, goats, donkeys, horses, dogs, eagles, and calves.

The author of this piece, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, claims that the “biblical unicorn” is real because, you know, it says so right there in the Bible. She also went on to write, “Modern readers have trouble with the Bible’s unicorns because we forget that a single-horned feature is not uncommon on God’s menu for animal design. (Consider the rhinoceros and narwhal.).” 

Yes, you read that correctly. According to Mitchell, because rhinos exist that “proves” that it’s entirely possible that unicorns once roamed the Earth.

Sadly, that wasn’t even her most asinine argument in support of the existence of unicorns.

“The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.),” she wrote. 

And you know why we can say for certain that the dodo bird existed in the past? Because there are records of humans interacting with them and skeletal remains proving that they existed. 

But then the article got even more bizarre.

“Whatever it was, it is now likely extinct like many other animals,” Mitchell continued. “To think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, which is true in every detail.”

You hear that? If you deny the existence of unicorns that means you’re denying God’s word in every detail. Though I can’t help but wonder how she feels about the incest, slavery and degrading of women that’s also included in the Bible. Wouldn’t denying all of that also “demean God’s word” according to Dr. Mitchell?


Creationists are absolutely ridiculous. They really don’t seem to understand that the Bible is not a book filled with verifiable and indisputable facts, but that’s exactly how most of these people treat it. Take last year’s debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Numerous times Ham dismissed overwhelmingly accepted scientific evidence by simply asking Nye, “Were you there? Did you see it happen? Then how do you know”? Meanwhile, whenever Nye challenged his creationist views on something, Ham would simply cite the Bible as his “proof.”

It was utterly maddening.

And it’s essentially the same tactic that Dr. Mitchell is using here to defend the existence of “biblical unicorns.” Because the Bible says they were real, to creationists such as herself, that’s all the “proof” they need – even if there’s absolutely no physical evidence proving they ever existed.

They really don’t understand the difference between visual and physical evidence supporting a factual conclusion (dodo birds existed/rhinos exist) vs. believing in something simply because it’s written inside of the Bible.

Then again, it’s my belief that to be someone who believes the Earth is only 6,000-years-old and that humans roamed the planet alongside dinosaurs they have to be at least borderline insane. So it’s not really surprising that many of these people seem to struggle with reality and rational thinking.

As the popular meme says, “Creationism: The belief that Kirk Cameron knows more than Stephen Hawking.” And that pretty much sums it up.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • worrierking

    I’m so happy to know that I’ve found a medical professional willing to agree with me. I’m going to show Dr. Mitchell’s explanation about unicorns to the “so called” medical professional who insist I be locked in this padded room because of my religious beliefs. Or at least they might decrease my Thorazine dosage.

    • Miz Julia

      Ha!

      Next they’ll be asserting that the goat god, Pan, didn’t exist and further that he didn’t “pasture” the nymphs. But my reading of Tom Robbins (Jitterbug Perfume) tells me otherwise. ;-))

    • lara jon

      Sophie . you think Frances `s postlng is really cool, on wednesday I bought a brand new BMW M3 from bringing in $5063 this – five weeks past and in excess of 10k last-munth . with-out any doubt it’s the most-financially rewarding Ive had . I started this eight months/ago and right away startad bringin home at least $77, per-hour . see this website…………..

      ►►►►►►

      ►►►►►► http://BIT.LY/16FIfgM

  • Keith

    What Fundamentalist Christians dream up never ceases to amaze me.

    • ZillionairePoet

      I’ve found the book “I Don’t Enough Faith to be an Atheist” a major work which answers virtually every intellectual question from the origin of existence, the origin of life, etc. The evidence for an Infinite Intelligence is far more than reasonable proof, even unreasonable proof. The demolishing of Hume is worth the price of admission (Hume is a major influence on evolutionism — the theories that address the big questions from a purely naturalistic viewpoint). I would also recommend other books such as “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” which is extremely thorough. Another is by Anthony Flew, the former champion atheist, who wrote “There Is a God” with an appendix on Jesus; it also includes a debunking of Richard Dawkins. As you may know Flew debated Gary Habermas on the physical resurrection of Jesus (I also recommend his book on that topic), which Flew lost. They became friends, a milestone since Flew had been one of atheism’s champs for decades. A small note: Karl Marx said that humanism was the ultimate form of his atheistic communism, doing away with private property and the belief in God, etc. If one is an atheist, that makes dictators very happy. I would also recommend a study of the occult origins of evolution, but that’s enough for now! Returning to the first book mentioned, if you have a specific question I can look it up, as a sample of its veracity.

      • Keith

        I have no doubt that there is a God, I just do not believe in the Christian god.

  • Kovah88

    Invisible giant flying fire breathing monkeys, goats, sheep, chickens. There, all mentioned in the same context. Look out below!

    • ayungclas

      The flying monkeys are in Winkie Land in the land of Oz.

  • ChimiChanga

    I’m still waiting for the missing link to be found.

    • ZillionairePoet

      I’m still waiting with popcorn in hand for the proof of inert matter becoming life, which is one of the two major questions of the entire debate (the other is the origin of existence). Pasteur demolished the theory of spontaneous generation (he makes a lot of hilarious asides about it, btw) in the 1860s via undeniable experiments which stand to this day. Of course, we should just ignore what appears to be an immutable scientific law (only life can create life) and focus (don’t look behind the curtain Prof. Oz) on ‘lesser’ issues such as not only inert matter becoming alive, but becoming literally everything organic. Oops, we again run into an immutable law that dogs (etc) always remain dogs and never morph into something else. Oops, let’s not focus on that proven fact but focus on something else ….. You, there, behind that curtain! What are you doing!?! Shame on you, you bad, bad man!

      • ChimiChanga

        Lol… nice.

  • tm4justice

    I think unfortunately you have only seen “Creationists” speak who do not know what they are talking about and who use the Bible to debate in science. It seems you are assuming there are no valid scientific arguments in favor of intelligent design. That would be a wrong assumption on your part if you do make that assumption. Unfortunately there aren’t really people in the public eye who have made valid arguments, but I’ve seen people in person who have made intelligent design arguments so good (without ever mentioning God or the Bible) that their arguments even make atheists question their own beliefs. I think it is unreasonable for you to have a low opinion of all Creationists. You do not know what every Creationist believes. However, I also do not know how you are defining “Creationist” so I will refrain from actual judgment of your opinion until I know for sure what you mean when using that label.

  • Child of God

    You guys should read the article discussed. It shows other nonbiblical sources saying similar things. Don’t just take Allen’s word for it, examine it yourself!