It’s Time to Say it: Creationists Aren’t Christians – They’re a Cult

creationism-1I think by now most who follow my writing know that I am not a fan of creationists.  In fact, the more I speak with several of them, the more I think these people are suffering from severe mental illness.  They’ll literally say that all scientific data is “just a theory” and that none of it is provable, yet they’ll cling to the “truths” inside of the Bible because they view the Bible as some kind of factual history book.

Except none of them were there to see any of it.  You know, the same argument they use against a lot of proven scientific facts.

Heck, I’ve had several of them tell me that science is some giant, corporate sponsored conspiracy to keep scientists employed.  Seriously, that’s what many of them believe.

The biggest problem I’ve seen with these people is that they simply don’t understand what science is.  When evolution is mentioned, they don’t understand the complicated scientific research that’s gone into the study of evolution to call it a “scientific fact.”  When the age of the universe or Earth is talked about, they don’t understand the science behind what brought scientists to these findings.

When I attack creationists, they think I’m attacking Christianity – which isn’t true at all.  As most people who follow me know, I’m a Christian.  I’ve probably written nearly 100 articles defending my faith.

Because I believe Christianity goes far beyond the Bible.  In fact, while I won’t deny that I do believe the Bible does have some basis for facts hidden within its text, I see it more as a guide book for those who might need direction.  I don’t see the Bible as a word for word factual depiction of history.  That’s ludicrous.

To me creationists aren’t Christian (though they might believe in God and Jesus), they’re something entirely different.  I see them more like a cult than a religion.  A brainwashed grouping of people who reject all proven science for the sake of unrealistic beliefs.

See, as a Christian, I believe God and science can co-exist.  Why isn’t it feasible to believe God created everything to evolve into what it is today?  Perhaps God knew the best way to make life was to create something, and then let it shape itself over billions of years.

But the fact is, Christianity is a faith – not science.  That’s something creationists fail to understand.  That’s why creationism doesn’t belong in a science class, because it’s not science.

While these people might call themselves Christians (and they’re more than free to do just that), I can’t view these people as Christians.  I see them as people suffering from some form of mental condition.  And while that might sound harsh, it’s just the way that I feel.

To really believe that dinosaurs and man walked the Earth together; that a man named Noah built an ark that housed every animal on Earth and lived to be 900 years old; that the science behind the speed of light isn’t valid; that the Earth is only 6,000 years old; and the Earth was made in 6, 24 hour days is insane.

But there’s a drastic difference between Christians and creationists.  Sure, they might use the same book and even have similar beliefs, but Muslims and Christians also have similar beliefs – and most wouldn’t say they’re the same thing.

It’s the same way I feel about creationists.  To believe what they believe doesn’t require faith, it requires some kind of mental delusion.  To deny almost all proven science for the sake of a book that’s been translated over centuries is absurd.

And that’s the mindset of most who join cults.  They ignore all the reality outside of their system of beliefs and convince themselves (despite all facts to the contrary) that they’re right and everyone else is a part of some massive conspiracy to cover up the truth.  Just like creationists believe that science is some conspiracy to “get rid of God.”

Because these people, like most who follow the Bible, pick and choose what they want to believe.  Because the Bible allows for incest, the stoning of women and all sorts of other horrific acts.  But I don’t see any creationists condoning those practices.  In fact, to believe that we should stone women who have affairs would seem barbaric and insane.

You know, just like believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs roamed the planet alongside humans.

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.


Facebook comments

  • Luke

    I really enjoyed your article, but I wouldn’t discard the POSSIBILITY that dinosaurs roamed the planet alongside humans. Not because dinosaurs existed 5000 years ago, of course they didn’t, but because Humans may have been here for longer than we think…

    dinosaurs roamed the planet alongside humans
    dinosaurs roamed the planet alongside humans
    dinosaurs roamed the planet alongside humans
    dinosaurs roamed the planet alongside humans
    dinosaurs roamed the planet alongside humans
    dinosaurs roamed the planet alongside humans

    • Gary Menten

      While I readily admit that scientific research regularly makes new discoveries that completely startle us, the fossil record as it stands would not seem to support your suggestion.

      • Pipercat

        … by at least 64 million years or so. Give or take a few eons!

      • Gary Menten

        Yeah, give or take.

    • DoctorButler


      • Eddie Krebbs

        And Alley-Oop. Although I also seem to remember that that cave man also had a time machine! (But there was also quite a run where Fred and Barney had the help of an alien). And one of the Jurassic Park films definitely seems to show a dino running through ?LA?. How can you ignore this photographic evidence ??

    • PeedroPaula

      Except that there’s absolutely no evidence for your assertion.

    • Wicked Red

      Mammals, in general, weren’t a big presence. The possibility of humanoids palling around with dinos is incredibly remote.

  • Luke

    Please forgive me and ignore the repetition of “dinosaurs roamed the planet alongside humans”, my computer got a weird virus and sometimes it does that!

  • Gary Menten

    The problem with what you say my dear Allen, is that there isn’t one bit
    more of scientifically valid evidence to support your religious view
    (that God created the everything to evolve into what it is today) than
    there is to support the creationist view that God created the world as
    it is less than 10,000 years ago. Christ may have been a nice guy with
    some very good ideas, but there is no more evidence for his divinity
    than there is for the whole biblical package, great flood and all.

    Now if you want to accept God in the same way as say, Albert Einstein and Baruch Spinoza did; as being the sum total of all the physical and natural laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a god, though he (it) is a very uncaring and indifferent one at that. This god would not hesitate to send a giant asteroid hurtling towards the earth with no regard whatsoever for the life already on it. In fact, this god already has done exactly that, and more than once. As Carl Sagan would have put it, it makes no sense to pray to the law of gravity.

    • Tiffany

      While it’s true that there is no scientific evidence that PROVES the existence of a Creator, at the same time, there is no scientific evidence that DISPROVES it. My grandma used to say, “Science explains the how….faith explains the purpose/the why.” There are many people, such as myself, who have spirituality but also believe in the scientific process. I’m Wiccan, and in my faith, I view the Divine as being within oneself and all Natural things, as well as without (the Universe). Science has shown that we are comprised of star dust as well as organic matter here on Earth. My particular spiritual path that I have been following for 20 years, well, one of the reasons I was drawn to it was for that very belief….that we are all comprised of the stuff in the Universe as well as here on Earth. Science and spirituality can go hand in hand and the thing about most faiths, Christianity included, is that they must evolve as we evolve and as more information becomes available. It’s when those of certain faiths refuse to grow and evolve, that’s the problem.

      • Gary Menten

        Granted that nothing in science disproves a creator, precisely because this idea rests on an an something which cannot be tested or falsified by any scientific means. This being said, whatever can be claimed without evidence, can as easily be dismissed without evidence.

        Christianity, as indeed all revealed religion, tends to rest on arguments from authority rather than physical evidence. They are concepts that humans find particularly hard to let go of I think, chiefly because the concept of “post mortem, nihil est” (after death, nothing ) is a difficult one to accept when offered a belief that after death some part of us may live on in some sort of afterlife. The idea provides a mental cushion for us to rest on, and like the existence of a creator, cannot be disproved and as long as it cannot, we will certainly have people who chose to believe in God and life after death for these reasons.

        Can science and religion be reconciled? Yes, to some people at any rate, but not without compromise on the part of religion as science by its very nature cannot make compromises no matter how uncomfortable we might find its conclusions. Thomas Jefferson, whose spiritual beliefs were in some ways similar to your own, understood this and compromised by separating Christ’s philosophy from any references to the supernatural or his supposed divinity with the aid a razor and glue and pasting them into his own version of the bible. What remained has been called by at least one well-known scientist and agnostic, (Sagan again) an inspiring document. Jefferson liked Christ, but I don’t think he prayed to him. But then again, Jefferson was fluent in science.

      • spookiewon

        There’s no scientific evidence disproving garden nymphs either; or unicorns, fairies, or bridge trolls. Do you assume the existence of everything that isn’t proved by science to not exist? The how is the why; non-overlapping magesteria is silly. We are, indeed, made of the stuff of the universe; because that’s matter/energy and can be demonstrated to exist. This “spirit” of which you speak shows no evidence of existing. Believing in it when no evidence exists makes no sense.

      • Spanner uk

        Religion is a burden of proof logical fallacy. Atheism is the absence of a belief. If I claim there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, I should not expect the rest of the world come and prove I am lying.

  • Greg PJR

    I totally believe that stegos were here just 5 thousand years ago. My bread turns into rock after 1 month of sitting on my counter.

  • Sara

    Of course creationists (at least this brand) are Christians (some are Muslims, some Jews, you know). What kind of silly nonsense is that headline? They believe in the divinity of Jesus, his virgin birth, his death on the cross for sins, and his resurrection. Can we dispense with the No True Scotsman nonsense?

  • Eddie Krebbs

    Of course, there is the problem of defining who is or isn’t a Christian. But how many Christian denominations have made their peace with evolution ?
    And about your Stegosaurus banner: Stegos living 5,0000 years ago is needed to fit the terribly flawed methodology that computed that the world was created at a certain date and time around 5,000 BC (I need to look up exactly where they fell – I believe Cretaceous or but possibly Jurassic era as well as the exact Fundamentalist calculated time of creation) – then what about the animals that lived earlier, even in the Triassic or even Permian and therefore lived before the creation of the earth ? (Of course, there was the end-Permian extinction, but one can’t have Noah’s flood there as it would both predate the creation of the world as well as mean that it wasn’t the dinos being unable to get on the ark which led to their extinction.

    • Gary Menten

      Indeed many Christians denominations have made peace with evolution; certainly the Church of England has, and surprisingly to me, so has (mostly at any rate) the Church of Rome. But the God they speak of is increasingly a God of the Gaps, responsible only for what we cannot (yet) explain through science. This god can only grow smaller as the breadth of our scientific understanding continues to grow. This leads to the whether Christianity will every die out as a faith and while I admit the possibility my guess would be no, because humans have a history of gullibility, because science is unlikely ever to have an answer for everything, and because Christianity, in common with other faiths, sets forward some very appealing ideals.

  • Cori Wolvesbane

    ya know, though i am a non believer I take critical thinking into faiths sometimes and ask the question “how can this be possible” rather than just saying “this is impossible”
    Now, with that I have actually been able to explain the Noah’s ark thing. You see, the world at that time was all that they knew existed and could see. There was no world news, no one knew China or asia even existed, in the times of Noah i doubt they even knew of the roman empire. The world was a small area that is a desert in the middle east. Now you have a smaller world for god to flood. Which also, with that smaller world comes actually fewer animals. On that ship… you needed room for some camels, some foxes, maybe coyotes, rabbits, turtles, lizzards… bunch of small animals with maybe 2 or 3 more bigger ones… and that’s it. As for flood, flood doesnt mean miles deep, or even feet deep. Heck that flood could have been more than likely 5 feet and it would have still been a flood. the ship didnt have to move so much, it just needed to keep the animals and people dry, so again it was ok if it was really heavy. There may have been a little bit of movement because there was a lot of wind if it was that big of a storm, and even if there wasnt that much water there would still be enough to make wood float a little bit, even if its scratching agsint the ground. push something along the ground and push it under the water… things slide easier in the water. Who really knows, I am not a scientist, but i know that anything is possible, and that the story was more than likely exaggerated when passed on through the generations as well.

    • Gary Menten

      Again, what can be put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

      • Zzz

        There is the Black Sea deluge theory to explain the cultural memory of the flood. Since the story comes from The Epic of Gilgamesh and the early Christians just parroted it. The narrative of Noah’s story is total bunk(flooded planet, saved all the animals), though the may have been an epic flood in the past that displace the original population that our culture has risen from. There is at least some evidence for that. BTW I’m not Christian and Ive always hated the Noah story.

      • Gary Menten

        I don’t think it’s the Christians who borrowed from Gilgamesh; they didn’t exist yet.

      • Spanner uk

        The Bible was supposedly written by Moses in 1405 bce or so. The Epic of Gilgamesh dates to around 3000 bce

      • Gary Menten

        Perhaps you failed to correctly understand the humorous nature of my remark?

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        Or the flooding that created the Mediterranean sea. That was once a fertile valley. Once the Gibraltar straights mountain range was breached by the Atlantic, it was only a matter of time.

  • Louisiana Mitch

    Gary nailed it: Your (very sensible) idea that Creationism is bunk but that you consider yourself a Christian makes about as much sense as Gabby Giffords supporting the proliferation of ammo clips. I was raised religious too but say it with me Gary: Religion is made up. There is no invisible space man in the sky and there never was.

    • D.j. Maverick

      Actually I think it is more plausible that there ARE spacemen in the sky that are from other planets; than there being a lake of fire that people that don’t believe in certain religions will go to upon death. 🙂

    • Gary Menten

      Once again, I turn to Sagan who’s thoughts best sums up my personal philosophy.

      “My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it . . . An agnostic is somebody who doesn’t believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I’m agnostic.”

      Carl Sagan, 1996.

      • spookiewon

        Which doesn’t answer the question of what you believe. Belief is binary, like a light switch. You either actively believe (the light is on) or you passively don’t (the light is off). Agnosticism addresses a different question altogether. “I am agnostic” is not an answer to “Do you believe in a god?” You may be agnostic, but you’re also theist, like your creationist cousins. The vast majority of atheists are also agnostic. The difference is we actually choose, like Sagan, to withhold belief until there is evidence.

        Believing in things for which there is no or inadequate evidence leads to all variety of sloppy thinking. Not all religion is equally dangerous, but all religion, in so far as it represents believing things on inadequate evidence, is dangerous.

      • Gary Menten

        What I believe is that what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. While science provides falsifiable hypotheses for the existence of the universe and our place within it, religion does not. I therefore choose the explanations that science has thus far provided for the origins of the universe and our place within it over those provided by (any) religion.

        “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course or that man should tell a lie? We have never seen in our time, nature go out of her course. But we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time. It is therefore at least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”

        Thomas Paine.

      • Domush

        Well, you’re half right. Science does make testable claims, but so does religion. Ask someone to describe their preferred deity and you will hear all manner of testable claims. Then read their Holy book and you’ll find it is filed to the brim with testable claims, bats laying eggs, rabbits chewing their cud, talking snakes, boats so big they physically aren’t seaworthy, geocentric universe, flat earth, plants existing before sunlight, a firmament for a sky. All of these things are fully testable and have tested false.

        It is entirely rational to be a gnostic atheist regarding every impossible claim while still being open to learn of a logically possible deity. Atheism doesn’t mean believing there are no gods, it means the descriptions of gods presented aren’t believable. It’s okay to take a hard stance against that which cannot be as logic itself is a test just as evidence and physics are tests. Something cannot logically be all powerful. Something cannot be both outside space and time and yet interact with them at the same time. Something cannot be immaterial and yet interact with the material world. These things are logical impossibilities, failing the test of logic itself, the absolute beginning point of testability.

        Just as you would not shy away from saying the notion of a heavy weightless object is impossible or an opaque clear object is impossible, so should you not shy away from confidently asserting an immaterial material manipulator is impossible and an all powerful anything is impossible. These things are paradoxes, fundamentally opposing concepts which cannot be true. We are gnostic about many concepts, don’t be intimidated into backing away from gnostic atheism simply because your stance is currently a minority one. Reality is not dictated by popularity.

      • Gary Menten

        I’m not saying that the Bible (or other holy books) are not full of falsifiable claims; I think we can easily agree that they are. What I’m saying is that creationists explanations for what we might call the birth of the universe are not; i.e. that it was the work of God, are not.

        I prefer to call myself a skeptic or agnostic–and I prefer the term skeptic– for the same reasons as Sagan did; I say there is no evidence for the existence of God, but if I say that there IS no God, I should be able to prove this. As I can’t prove it, I prefer the term “skeptic,” though by some people’s definitions, I would be called an atheist.

      • Domush

        I think you managed to miss the entire point of my reply. Quite the feat considering two entire paragraphs went into detail regarding it.

        What is this God you find no evidence for?

        You assert given evidence or a means to test for this God you speak of you would begin to believe it exists. How do you know what evidence to look for if you have not even defined what you’re looking for?

        I think you’ll find answering the most basic question of all, “What is this God people keep referencing?” is the positive evidence against such an entity.

        Let’s put this another way..

        If I said “Do you believe Flubazzler is controlling you right now”, would you assert you are agnostic as to that claim? If you answered yes, how can you know you don’t know either way? You don’t even know what Flubazzler is yet. You are making a positive claim that you don’t have enough information either way, but that is wrong. You might have all the information you need but you have no idea what Flubazzler is to make that determination.

        “Until I know what Flubazzler is, if anything, I have no reason to believe that claim” is the only rational answer to such an assertion.

        If I then described Flubazzler as a square circle, would you then say “Well, I’ll wait for the evidence, but a square circle might be controlling me”?. Not if you’re goal is to be rational.

        The debate would end the second you realized there can be no such thing as a square circle, as they are mutually exclusive descriptors. The test is logic itself. Just as “God existed before the big bang” is a nonsensical statement, as time began with the big bang. Just as there is nothing north of the north pole, there is no such thing as before time. They fail the test of logic and can be summarily dismissed as a result.

        To remain agnostic regarding impossible things is an irrational stance in these cases, just as much as remaining agnostic regarding a square, flat earth which can be circumnavigated, orbited and projects a round shadow on the moon is an irrational stance.

        It is the case to say “I have no knowledge one way or the other” (the definition of agnosticism) is not an answer to the question of “Do you believe the claim of a god existing?”. You may as well answer that question with “Spaghetti is yummy” for all of the relevance “I’m agnostic” has to the question of belief.

        If I were to guess, your being shy regarding admitting you are atheistic has more to do with fear of persecution (the mythology of fence sitting) than disagreement with the answer of “No, I am not convinced a god exists” (the definition of atheistic).

        The label you use for yourself does not alter your position. It simply works to undermine intellectually honest discussion on a topic of utmost importance to over a billion people, affecting everyone on the planet.

        By some peoples’ definitions, I’m a white male human living on planet earth in a country called the USA, but I choose to describe myself as agnostic and a skeptic, because i feel that describes my position much clearer.. uh huh.

      • Gary Menten

        Incorrect. I used to define myself as an atheist and was completely open about it, however my definition of “atheist” has changed somewhat over time, my personal beliefs have not. By the definition I currently use, an atheist should be able to sufficiently disprove the existence of God, in any form, including the way that Einstein and Spinoza defined God; as being the sum total of all the physical and natural laws that govern the universe. That person who prove that they are NOT (an indifferent and unsatisfying) God, must know far more than I do.

        As to the omnipotent God of the Bible or other holy books, I think it should be pretty obvious from my other posts that I have seen no convincing evidence of his existence. I repeat; what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

      • Domush

        By your logic you must be able to disprove gnosticism in any form in order to call yourself agnostic. Have fun disproving all knowledge of absolutely anything.

        Goes to show just because someone isn’t theistic they aren’t necessarily rational regarding anything else.

        The second you put “my definition” should have sounded alarm bells regarding you exiting reality.

        The question remains, were you being dishonest to avoid admitting you were wrong or are you that disconnected from reality you’ve invented your own personal etymology of language?

        I won’t expect you to understand this seeing as every word likely has a different meaning for you.

      • Gary Menten

        Not only are you arguing over the colour of an orange you are arguing, somewhat pointlessly as to what to call it. I do not accept your logic.

        A Gnostic theist “knows” there is a a deity. A Gnostic atheist “knows” there are none. So if you posit that God or a god does exist, this would be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

        On the other hand, I as a skeptic don’t need to disprove anything in order to say that I do not have any special knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God. I can simply say that there is no valid evidence to support the first position so we can forget about it; science offers better explanations for our place in the universe. Further, since there is no valid evidence to support the existence of deities, we don’t need to worry about disproving their existence. We do need however to be prepared to carefully scrutinize and debunk pseudoscience that might be presented as valid evidence.

        Now if one says KNOW deities don’t exist, then logically, they must have evidence as compelling as the other side of the coin. It’s not merely enough to debunk the creation myths contained within the bible and other holy scriptures or to destroy pseudo-scientific or fraudulent arguments. This only brings you back to square one; tabula rasa. If you say that something doesn’t exist, you must also be able to prove it and I don’t know of any way to do so. I wish I did though.

      • Mr President Sir!

        Atleast you are not abandoning your scientific principles. As many have to bash religions by claiming science has proven there is no God. That is a very unscientific statement made recently by other wise known analytical minds to condemn religions. Atleast you realize the point is no where near resolved.

      • Gary Menten

        There is no-one I know of in the world of science who claims that science has proven there is no God. This is not the same thing at all as saying that there is not verifiable scientific data to validate the existence of God or that one does not BELIEVE in the existence of God, or that science offers better answers to questions concerning the origins of the universe, or that many stories in the bible CAN be disproved.

        I do not believe in the existence of a deity, however that is not the same thing as saying that I can prove he/she/it does not exist.

    • Felicity Coombs

      Only some folk think God is invisible. I thought he lived happily with his wife Asherah. Most of the above suppositions do not seemed to be based on any in-depth study. I come from a place that has many dinosaurs, not too far under the ground, and there are human footprints underneath some dinosaur footprints. As scientists are basically guessing when they existed I’ll go with what I see on that one. Dino bones never seem to be deep down under a coal seam.

      • Al Hubbard

        You need to understand plate tectonics. The surface of the earth is constantly in motion, often portions below rise and overlap others. You’ll find sea bed fossils at mountain tops, they didn’t climb up there, sea floors have been pushed upward. If you find footprints under dinosaur remnants it’s because layers of the earth have overlapped others. Simple science.

    • Sunnyhorse

      That happens to be my personal belief, but I’m not asshole enough to inform other people that they are wrong when I can’t prove it. When I still considered myself a Christian, I was an evolutionist, and virtually every Christian I know believes in evolution.

  • Trell West

    I see the story of Noah’s ark went completely over your head. See, this is why Jesus spoke in PARABLES “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.” (Matthew 13:35) stop assuming everything in the bible is devine truth. It’s not a politically correct book. That’s where you fault in this article lies.

    • Gary Menten

      If “this” is a parable, and “that” is a parable, then who is to decide what is and isn’t parable? Is God himself a parable? Can you prove that he is not? If we cannot prove that he is not, does it make any sense to pray to him?

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        as the 1960’s /70’s rock musician billy preston crooned
        ” lets go ’round in circles”

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as another iconic disturbed ( and delightfully disturbing) rocker( jim Morrison) said ” you cannot petition the ‘lord’ with prayer”
        unless the “prayer” is asking for knowledge of(his)will and the power to carry that (will) out,,,,,,,,,
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,prayer is simply begging ( selfishly)

    • Wicked Red

      The problem is not that the author is treating the Bible as literal divine truth. The stereotypical creationists he is responding to consider it to be literal divine truth. He’s meeting them on their own territory.

  • SPStewart

    The creationists’ problem is that they insist on putting human limitations on God. As the psalmist said, “A thousand ages in Thy sight is like an evening gone.” Plenty of time for God to use evolution to execute His creation.

    • Gary Menten

      Again, there is simply no evidence to support the existence of God. Aside from that, I agree with you perfectly.

      • John Masters

        I don’t presume to speak for SP Stewart, but perhaps the point he/she is making is that man lacks the intellect to truly comprehend “God.” We try to fit him into a box or shape that fits into our tiny minds…old guy with a beard and flowing robes sitting on a cloud. I’m Christian, but I don’t believe in that God. I don’t think that even the word God is the right word. It carries a lot of baggage and inference. I usually go with “creator.” I don’t try to create a concept of what that looks like or how it functions, but I think it includes both physical forces and moral forces…a connectedness to all things in creation, and hence a requirement to care for all those things. Not unlike some of Tiffany’s beliefs expressed above.

        The problem we humans have is trying to define God. Anne
        Lamott said, “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” My creator coexists very comfortably with science, in fact, likely created science in the sense that he/she/it created the physical universe and the laws that make it all work.

      • Gary Menten

        That’s a thoughtful reply John, but I think that when we say that man lacks the intellect to comprehend God, it’s a sort of a cop-out in the same way it is to say “God works in mysterious ways.” It may be a necessary theological position if one accepts a the notion of a supreme creator, but it is also an argument from authority. I reject this as to state that we cannot possibly comprehend something is virtually a guarantee that we will never try and that we will never question authority.

      • John Masters

        Because my concept is admittedly vague and nuanced, let me clarify a little. I don’t view the creator/creative force as some sort of supreme being (benevolent or otherwise). One has to admit that there are creative forces at work in the universe, and how did it all start. Again, be careful you don’t assume I believe in some “being” having created the speck from which scientists believe the big bang started…my point is, I certainly don’t know from whence that came, and scientists are only starting to get some inkling. And that is my point.

        The forces at work “in the beginning” are are so massive and incredible as to be beyond my comprehension. Scientists tell us the universe went from nothing to this massive something in a fraction of a second. How could that have happened? The difference between people of logic and creationists is that creationists use that gap of data to support their position that “God” did it in a few days. People like me say, it’s just something we don’t yet understand, because we don’t yet fully understand the creator/creative process. I don’t need to rely on/create superstition and theology to make myself more comfortable. I’m comfortable not fully understanding the vastness of the universe and everything in it. I don’t completely understand how a moving TV image arrives on my TV Screen, but I do know how to turn it on (most days). I do, however, accept there are people smarter than me who do understand it, and I don’t have to create a fable about that devil’s box, in order to live with TVs. And that is what I’m afraid creationists do.

      • Gary Menten

        Your beliefs seem somewhat in line with aspects of deism, which seems to posit a creator but rejects revealed religion and the intervention of God into earthly matters, and holds that the creator can only be revealed through observation of the natural world. Would this seem like an accurate description to you? I’m just curious.

      • John Masters

        You know Gary, since I do accept that the Bible can offer some spiritual and moral guidance (as can many other holy books), I never really thought of myself as a deist, but when you define it that succinctly, I guess my beliefs do fit that model.

      • Gary Menten

        Thomas Jefferson certainly was a deist, and he liked Christ also, though not Paul. He therefore excised the Pauline parts of the New Testament and any references to miracles or divinity of Christ from his own bible by cutting our the parts he liked (Christ’s ideas and philosophies) into a unique document now called Jefferson’s Bible. There really wasn’t much left when he was through, but some find it to be an inspiring document.

        My point is that one can like Christ without believing in his divinity. I like many of the ideas attributed to Christ also, though I clearly do not have any reason to accept his divinity. By the same token, there are aspects of other religions I also find admirable but I think the concepts were put forward by enlightened men and not divinely inspired.

      • John Masters

        I would agree with your thinking here Gary. I have read the Jefferson Bible. I actually teach an adult Sunday School class which is not afraid to approach difficult topics. In my studies, I to have also become much less enamoured of Paul.

        I think if Paul were alive today, he’d be either a mega-church pastor, televangelist or both. I think he holds such prominence largely because he was prolific in his communications.

        Jesus never planned for a new religion. He was born and died a Jew. Paul was having a hard time finding Israelites interested in “converting,” so he went after the gentiles, and in effect, created a Christianity Lite. No need for circumcision (that would have certainly kept away a lot of gentiles), and your acts aren’t that important. Just ask forgiveness and say you’re saved, and you’re done.(I exaggerate, but you get the point.)

        Jesus talked about how people should know him based on his deeds, and told his followers they would go on to even greater deeds. Even the Old Testament God called on people to actually “do” things…love mercy, do justice, and walk humbly with God. That’s all stuff you have to do.

      • Gary Menten

        I rather like what the late historian Will Durant once wrote, claiming that Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter, while fundamentalism was the triumph of Paul over Christ.

      • John Masters

        I will definitely be using that! Love it.

      • Gary Menten

        I have always rather liked Durant’s insights. My favorite line of his is “Inquiry is fatal to certainty.”

        As to Paul, over the years I have had many an interesting internet exchange with people far fluent in the New Testament than I, and they have all said pretty much the same thing as you.

      • Domush

        With all of your explanation of what you mean when you say “God” all I can discern from your dancing around is you use the word God as a placeholder for your ignorance. How, exactly, is that useful in any way? Not to mention your use of such a word simply emboldens those who see you use it and assume it means what they define it as, lending yourself as a material supporter of their fallacious belief that billions of people can’t all be wrong.

        I fear your attempt to take the teeth out of the word God simple adds to its teeth by your continued use of the word itself, as everyone has their own meaning for the word because it’s a useless, nondescript word. It has become the sound people emit when they don’t have a reason for their belief.

      • John Masters

        Since the word god is such anathema to you, what word would you suggest I use?

        Also, I do have a reason for my beliefs, and am constantly fleshing that out. Calling my belief system and understanding of the universe “ignorant” does not serve to support whatever argument it is you are trying to make, nor does it give strength to whatever position you hold. I wish you well with whatever your belief system is, it would behoove you to be a little more respectful of the belief systems of others.

      • Spanner uk

        “If God did not exist, man would have invented him.”
        – Voltaire

      • Gary Menten

        The evidence for God’s invention by man is I think, somewhat stronger than the evidence for man’s invention by God.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        ive been saying it for decades: “GOD” is too (unlimited) big to be defined by a finite creature ….such as man”

  • mcollins

    DRUMMOND: if you take a law like evolution and you make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools? And tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it. And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we’ll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!
    — Lawrence & Lee, “Inherit the Wind”

  • mcollins

    BTW, just as an aside: Lawrence & Lee wrote “Inherit the Wind” not about creationism, but McCarthyism. It was written in 1950, a very dangerous time, and first produced in 1955. (The film version with Spencer Tracy and Frederic March was 1960, when McCarthyism had pretty much passed.) The film incorporates more of the original transcript than the original play. In fact, William Jennings Bryan (presented as ignorant of Darwin in the play/film) actually had read “Origin of the Species” and quoted from it at Scopes’ trial. At the end, it it still about ignorance and intolerance.

    • EK Hornbeck

      The “Gone…” quote rings very true again today, as we must deal with the “New McCarthyism”: the Tea Party/American Taliban

  • Falcon

    The idea that you call yourself a Christian is hilarious. You are wrong in so many levels that even entering an argument will only serve the purpose of feeding your ego to the point of gluttony. What science is telling us today is a fact, tomorrow could be found to be false. It happens again and again. And not for that reason people should call You an imbecile who believes in any fantasy coated writing too fancy for most to prove. Get a hold of yourself man. You don’t know; you just can believe in anything you feel comfortable believing, like everybody else

    • Gary Menten

      The difference being that what science is telling us today, there is empirical evidence to back up. What the bible (or any holy book) tells us, it argues from authority, not scientifically gathered and tested evidence. Science furthermore has little to do with comforting thoughts. Much of what we learn from scientific inquiry is in effect, very disquieting.

      As for Mr. Clifton’s beliefs, they are no less valid than yours. You can no more provide valid scientific evidence of your version of Christianity than he can of his. The question should not be “At what point did God get involved in the process and at what point did he quit it?” The question should be “What evidence is there that God took any part in it at all?”

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        falcon is flightless and sightless

    • Lance Desker

      Falcon: I would remind you of these wise words: “You an imbecile who believes in any fantasy coated writing too fancy for
      most to prove. Get a hold of yourself man. You don’t know; you just can believe in anything you feel comfortable believing, like everybody else”. The same could be said for you and your beliefs as a Christian.

    • Brian

      Scientific fact is revised and rewritten as new evidence comes up. That makes it much more accurate than fables written 4000 years ago by Middle Eastern goat herding nomads.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      hey flightless falcon: please show me the “miracle” of your voodoo healing an amputee
      until then? go pray and give your money to another prophet(profit)

  • Terry63

    I think that many times Christians tend to see the Old Testament at face value. We dont take into account that this old text has been translated many times.
    I would like to invite both sides of this argument to listen a few minutes to a man who taught me alot about the Bible. His name is Arnold Murray of the Shepards Chaple. We lost Mr. Murray last year, but his knowlege and his gift lives on. He will take you back to Hebrew and Greek. He will keep you in context and the bible will begin to come alive. You Tube, Arnold Murray, the first Earth age. I sincerely hope that you will give it listen. Thak You.

    • Gary Menten

      The number of times it’s been translated is not so important as that what it rests on, chiefly the existence of an all powerful God who created the world and man, is a something that cannot be demonstrated by scientific means.

  • Isidis St Claire

    Sorry to say that Dominionists, Creationists and other right wing Christian nut jobs ARE on their way to condoning stoning of women, gays, “unbelievers”, the re-institution of slavery (recently, a tea party “Christian” mentioned that slavery was in the Bible so it was therefore, not evil) and other archaic Biblical practces. They would love nothing better than to destroy scientists, people of other faiths, “impure” women and sexual sinners.

    • Gary Menten

      Indeed, if Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Muslims could put aside their differences as to which faith contains the final revelation of God, then they would likely find they have much to talk about.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        such as how to “divvy” up the monies generated

  • julylaura

    Why do people cling to a literal belief in the bible? Fear (of death, the unknown, the devil.) The need for acceptance by a group. The ego-boost of feeling special or chosen. One day our descendents will look back at this whole issue and laugh.

    • Gary Menten

      As I expressed in an earlier post, probably the single greatest reason (out of many) is the difficulty in reconciling ourselves to our mortality and the notion that after death comes nothing. I would be lying if I said that this was not something I had to overcome myself in choosing to reject the notion of divine intervention in the universe.

      • spookiewon

        Odd. During my cancer treatment I found the notion that after death came nothing to be of the utmost comfort. As Isaac Asimov said, “Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.”

      • Gary Menten

        Your argument very closely mirrors the classical Epicurian argument that death is the absence of pain and therefore not to be feared, though I strongly suspect that it is much harder to reach this conclusion if one has not been subject to something analogous to your ordeal with cancer.

      • Al Hubbard

        God forbid there actually is this thing called heaven. An infinity of nothingness is surely hell.

      • spookiewon

        Did the infinity of nothingness before you were born bother you a lot? Because I wasn’t bothered by it at all. Death is the same.

      • John Masters

        Gary, I understand your point completely, and I agree, people are often raised from birth believing in some afterlife in which there is either reward and punishment. I remember a couple of Easter Sunday’s back seeing a young man on the side of the road at an intersection holding his Bible, and a big sign about people turning away from Christ, and the awfulness of hell that waited them, and though, what a terrible God he’s been taught to worship.

        I’m Christian, but don’t share his view of the afterlife. I do however have some sense that there must be something beyond this. There is a scientific law…I think it is called the preservation of energy…which says that energy can not be created or destroyed…just changed. Given that our bodies consist of some amount of energy, I’ve always wondered what becomes of that when we die.

        I admit my thoughts aren’t (and probably never will be) fully formed. Until we get to experience it, we can’t know. I don’t dwell on it as many do. I think my time is best spent in the here and now trying to make the world just a little better, and don’t think my beliefs on the subject are any more valid than yours.

      • Gary Menten

        The moment we die, we start to decompose, which involves a number of chemical processes and these involve the transformation of energy. I don’t think there is much to ponder here, scientifically speaking.

        A question that has troubled many, though probably not many scientists for a lot longer is what happens to our consciousness when we die? There however is no scientific answer because there is no real way to test this. If I had to guess, I’d say it’s a bit like wiping a hard drive and destroying it, but I can do no more than guess. I would love to be able to believe that some part of my consciousness will live on after I die, even just to float around there someplace and think deep thoughts, but the evidence for this is pretty thin.

      • cimmo

        “Given that our bodies consist of some amount of energy, I’ve always wondered what becomes of that when we die.”

        Heat. For a little while.

      • spookiewon

        The law of conservation of matter/energy (matter and energy are the same thing, in different forms) applies only to closed systems. We don’t know that the universe is closed, and much of the evidence indicates it is not.

        Either way, no afterlife is needed to account for the energy. It’s still there in the physical universe; again, in different form. Your body decays, and provides the energy for other life.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      and cry,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as they will wonder how such VOODOO could have such a stranglehold upon mankind

  • Jon boy Walton

    Well Allen it looks like you put your faith in science. Whereas I put my faith into the One who created the earth that you theorize about…

    • Gary Menten

      You are confusing faith and science. Faith is a system of thinking that doesn’t require evidence in order to believe something. Science is a way of thinking that requires masses of evidence in order to believe anything.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      and that is why scumbags such as you remain darkened of rational thought

  • Wicked Red

    I actually can understand and respect Allen’s position here. I have read several of his posts and it appears that he is aware that his religious beliefs are a matter of faith. He acknowledges that & separates it from science. IMO, religion is best left as a personal guide for how to live your own life and not hurt others. If he was actively out trying to take science out of schools or use his religion to deny rights to others, there would be a problem. But, I haven’t seen that.

    I don’t agree with his religious beliefs, though I once held similar ones myself. But he is at least being intellectually honest about them.

    • Gary Menten

      In response to this, I think I would argue that there are only three positions one can take regarding the Bible. One can believe:

      A. That is is completely inaccurate and the living word of God, (the position of creationists)

      B. That the Bible provides no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God or miracles or the stories within it. (my personal view)

      C. That some of what’s in the Bible is accurate and the rest is maybe a set of parables. (Mr. Clifton’s view)

      This third, middle view is perhaps the most popular of the three but not I think, intellectually honest. We have to ask ourselves honestly what the intention of the authors was, especially in the case of the Old Testament and if meant as a parable or allegory, why then is there no disclaimer within the covers? Warning: the events recounted in this book are highly dramatized and we aren’t sure if they actually took place. Quite contrarily, the Bible opens up with 10 commandments, the first four of which all command the reader to obey authority. And the Bible of course, is authority, as are the priests.

      But let us assume now for a moment that God creates the universe then just decides to let nature evolve as it may. Not only would this in no way guarantee the survival (non-extinction) of humans, it in no way guarantees humans would have emerged at all. We must in that case ask ourselves what would be the point of that? Consider now the thoughts of Thomas Paine on the issue:

      “From whence then could arise the solitary and strange conceit that the Almighty, who had millions of worlds equally dependent on his
      protection, should quit the care of all the rest, and come and die in
      our world because, they say, one man and one woman ate an apple? And on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the boundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent and a redeemer?”

      • Spanner uk

        The mere existence of the bible in all its forms over the years IS a scientific fact. As to the truth of its contents, that is an entirely different matter. I think there is a certain level of historical evidence in it, but much has been twisted, distorted or simply invented.

      • Gary Menten

        In no place do I question the general existence of the Bible. It is purely its accuracy and veracity that I challenge.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        the same with fire ants— I do NOT question their long-standing existence in history
        I do; however steadfastly question their “contribution(s)”

  • Sean_Clancy

    None of this creationist b.s. has a single thing to do with Christ or his message — to love your neighbor, be kind, treat others the way you’d want to be treated, to be peaceful, to care for the poor and the sick and the hungry, not to judge others, and not to cast stones at others’ sins unless you are without sin (which you aren’t). Creationists are so busy trying unsuccessfully to debunk science that they ignore this, and have forgotten it.

    Creationism is foolishiness.

    • Gary Menten

      Creationism is an argument from authority and this authority has historically been very useful as a tool for controlling the masses and imposing one’s will on them. It is therefore not entirely foolish to argue it if doing so puts you in a position to profit from this. It is on the other hand pure foolishness to follow these arguments from authority if all you get in return for adhering to them or surrendering your money and worldly goods to those who preach them is a promise of an eternal life in a place whose very existence cannot be proven.

      But as P.T. Barnum said…..

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        THAT EXPLAINS IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gary; I luv’ ya!!!!
        now we know exactly WHY religious cretins ( see: pseudo Christians) want NO ABORTION!!!
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,, a bigger flock to financially capitalize on!

  • pixeloid

    Creationists are delusional, many of them completely insane. Not very intelligent either.

    • Gary Menten

      Some of them are intelligent enough to imitate the language of science and pass off pseudo-science as science, fooling the faithful and collecting large amounts of money from them to build idiotic things like replica’s of Noah’s ark, or less idiotic things like multi-million-dollar mansions for themselves. The majority however, are dumb enough to believe them.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      some of them are brilliant enough to parasitize mankind for big financial profit and control

  • pixeloid

    “they don’t understand the complicated scientific research that’s gone into the study of evolution”

    Evolution is probably the simplest, most intuitive and easily understood scientific concepts ever. Even small children can understand it. Why can’t creationists?

    • Gary Menten

      In order to understand something, one needs to want to understand it. If you reject it flat out because it clashes with a long held theological view, the chances are that you will never understand it.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        the operative word being “WANT” ( dba: desire)
        there are none so blind as those who will not see

  • Billy Howell

    I have to say I disagree with getting into the “you’re not a real Christian” debate simply because they are taking the religious text more literally. Christianity is believing in salvation through Jesus Christ. So, their beliefs do align as Christian. It is perfectly ok to say that a certain sect is crazy though. 😉

    • Domush

      “It is perfectly ok to say that a certain sect is crazy though.”

      Coming from a religious person it would simply be ironic.

      “Those creationists are crazy! Okay, off to eat me some jesus flesh in cracker form, washing it down with some jesus blood in wine form.”

  • GJS

    I am a practicing Catholic who is actually is an instructor for those wishing to join the Catholic faith. That being said, the fact that there are individuals who actually believe in the literal translation of the Bible is insane. People should realize that the Old Testament was written for a people who were nomadic and uneducated. Of course the story of creation was simplified to what the understanding of the time would be. Many years ago, there was a show on PBS about scientists who held Christian beliefs. One astronomer in particular was interviewed and asked how he reconciled his belief in evolution with his faith. The answer was simple and brilliant at the same time. He simply replied that however the world was formed, it was obvious to him that God had done it. With that view, does it really matter if the world were formed in 6 days or millions of years? In the eyes of God, who is forever, does a single day or a million years truly have any meaning?

    • Gary Menten

      Except that there is no evidence whatsoever that God had any part in the process to begin with.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        unless god is too big to be defined; thus GOD simply “is”……
        maybe GOD burped and the big bang happened

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      So it was written for an ignorant people and dumbed down?? I don’t care whom a fraud was written for.

  • Wally Unger

    Wow…I never heard of someone calling themselves a Christian and not believing the Bible…that has to be the biggest oxymoron I have ever heard.

    • Gary Menten

      You are behind the times then: The Church of England, and for the most part, the Church of Rome now also accept Evolution as fact. Perhaps you can take it up with the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury. But if that’s all too recent for you, you might also want to read up about Thomas Jefferson’s Bible.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      well; a true CHRISTIAN might follow only how CHRIST “lived” and not what Christ said

  • Spanner uk

    Sorry, but all you are doing is differentiating between one pile of total bunk and another. If you believe in a god, then you cannot by definition take science seriously because of the massive conflicts involved. Evolution theory is simply one area of the scientific arena. Science requires evidence, and the only thing that says the bible is true is the bible, and cyclical proof is no proof.

  • cimmo

    I would argue that any xtian that does not accept creationism isn’t really a xtian at all.

    If creationism is not true, then there is no Adam and Eve. Therefore no Garden of Eden, no Original Sin and no Fall. Therefore no need for salvation and Christ becomes irrelevant.

    Of course xtianity is the most selectively interpreted religion in the world, so many people pick and choose to believe only in the good bits. By the same token, one can obtain nourishment by picking out sweetcorn from a turd.

    But I’d rather not.

    • Gary Menten

      Does your list of people who aren’t truly Christian include Pope John Paul II who admitted the Bible was mostly allegory? Does it include Pope Benedict XVI? Does it include the Archbishop of Canterbury and pretty much all of the Church of England? Just curious.

      • cimmo

        Since I have been told numerous times by TruXtians that the Pope and Catholics in general are not xtian but devil worshippers, then yes.

        I do understand how the bible can be taken as allegory. But the problem then becomes one of interpretation – which parts are allegory and which parts are actually ‘word of god’ and to be followed to the letter?

        Who does the interpreting?

        In a perfect world the whole bible and the belief structure built on such flakey foundations would be thrown out as being fractally wrong. But until then, I perhaps have *slightly* more respect for a fundamentalist – what they believe IS bullshit but at least they are more honest about it.

        A ‘compromise Xtian’ seems to know intuitively that the bible is full of sh!t. They pick out the good bits and skip over the crap, but IMO they need to just go one more step and realise that they can be just as good a person without having to hunt for and pick out the sweetcorn.

      • Gary Menten

        Let me in on a little secret; even the most conservative pick and choose what parts of the bible they follow and how to interpret it. I doubt if you’ll find anybody living the way the Bible dictates.

      • cimmo

        Exactly. If a zealot really did try to live precisely as his bible dicates, he’d be incarcerated.

        So why just follow the good parts?
        Why can’t people be good without all the baggage?
        Just for the hope of eternal life?

        Nope. Not necessary.
        But the core of xtianity is based on the dogma of original sin that can only be fixed by belief in Jesus. And as I said before, this whole dogma comes crashing down once you accept evolution – because salvation is only needed in the context of a very literal interpretation of Genesis.

        I know a lot of organized religions and many individuals have accepted evolution as real/Genesis as parable – but all that means is that they are fundamentally liars.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        except at tea party rallies

  • grandgremlin

    This is the book that has a talking snake, a floating zoo, a talking donkey, walking staffs that turn into snakes, food falling from the sky, Samson’s magic hair, living in a belly of a fish, men magically walking on water, and Christian zombies that was wrote back in the bronze/iron age and it explains the universe?

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      don’t forget the virgin birth or ignoring the Asian and indian cultures

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      praise jeeeeeeeeeesus——–and pass the tax free tithe again

  • Preacher son

    Many Bible scholars understand that the word “day” does not mean a 24 hr. period. It takes an insecure individual to hold onto Creationism as tightly as they do. The real question is where did all this come from. What started the “Big Bang”. And when science figures this out, I’ll be okay with that.

    • Gary Menten

      No, many creationists “pretend” the word day does not mean the same thing as it did the ancient Hebrews whose only definition of a day was the same as our is. This is not the same thing.

  • Socialmedic

    Religion is the worlds most popular excuse to be a lazy intellectual slob and to fornicate.

  • 1Greensix

    Is it easier to be a religious con man, or get up and work in the fields? Or, punch a time-clock? Or, go off to war and fight? The first “man of religion” was a lazy con man who convinced simpletons that he knew something that they didn’t. Religion IS the con. It’s Believers, are the suckers.

  • Ray Campbell

    When it’s just one man waxing on, he’s called crazy. When it’s several people, it’s called a cult. When it’s thousands, or even millions, it’s then allowed to be called a religion.

    So tell me once more, what’s the difference again?

  • Jacob Marks

    I just read a great article in Pop Sci about Bill Nye and the creationist debate and after a google search I came here. And I totally agree. I’m a scientist and a catholic and I really hate it when every single christian is grouped into one “religious” group. Even all the Catholics I know believe radically different things!

  • Mr President Sir!

    I agree only I think you are being to easy on them Mr Clifton. I will also add that the meaning of Christian is to be Christ like. So not only are the creationists not Christians but all who call on his name and sanctify his death. While living by the Old Testament rather than by his teachings. The ones who believe they will go to heaven thanks to His Grace given to them by his death. After living their entire lives ignoring and doing the opposite of his teachings. None of them are actually Christians.

  • Robyn Ryan

    All Abrahamic religions look alike to me. sorry….

  • Paul Crowley

    Creationists are aware of something for all the nonsense they do believe: You accept (what most will recognise as reality) this, then it renders Adam and Eve as allegory. This renders original sin as allegory. Evolution is accepted in the Catholic Church, but on meeting Catholics who have trouble putting their mind around evolution as a concept or having a similar thought process to the above, I have gotten some people to accept evolution not by presenting facts which seems a fools errand but by merely pointing out that the Pope accepts, and previous Popes have accepted evolution. As soon as a religious person can see they can take on this and still maintain belief, it’s much easier to accept evolution. This is not merely a religious phenomenon. It’s a human one. Beliefs we cherish can lose peripheral aspects as long as the core can endure.

  • h_ph

    Thanks for a good article, Allen!

    First of all, I support you strongly on every aspects regards to the creationists and their views on science and the whole of reality; their insanity is beyond belief. But, when you say you are a Christian yourself, I guess it follows that you believe, not only in Christ, but also in his purpose, namely that he died to atone for the sins of the world?

    If so, there´s certainly a paradox occurring, this: The sins of the world is rooted firmly in the story from The Garden of Eden, The Fall of Man and Original Sin. So without Adam & Eve, the Snake and everything that is included in this narrative, the sole reason for Jesus being crucified falls apart an evaporates. Here the creationist have some (at least internal) logic added to the story.

    As the infamous young-earth-creationist Ken Ham puts it: “Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory, the need for a Savior is an allegory, and Adam is an allegory—but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.”

    He certainly got a point, does he not?

  • Kenneth Browning

    This sounds like musliks who spam all over Facebook about how ISIS aren’t muslims.

  • Brian

    There’s no god. He was invented by Jewish nomads 4000 years ago. If you are aware of that and still think he exists, you’re delusional. No Jesus either. Wholly invented by Constantine who was pagan all of his life. No record of his existence until thirty years after his death and only one recorded crucifixion in Roman Israel. But hey, Muhammad was probably real. His God isn’t though.
    It’s all bullshit and if you seriously believe it, I am smarter than you by default.

  • Caleb Hubbell

    I don’t understand how people can believe Christianity can possibly be
    compatible with Evolution or even heliocentrism and globular earth for
    that matter. If evolution is true, then there was no Adam (Because we
    came from a gene pool of an ancestral population and by genetic drift,
    allele frequency and gene expression changed until we genetically
    diverged that we could no longer reproduce with neighbouring divergent
    populations becoming a new species)
    If there was no Adam, there was no original sin
    If there was no original sin, there is no need for atonement by human
    blood sacrifice. If evolution is correct, Christianity must be wrong. It
    has to be either one or the other. To think otherwise is logically
    inconsistent. If you can accept that the creation story and the story of Adam and eve weren’t literal, why even think anything in the bible is
    literal or truthful?

  • Fernando Perez

    Well,if people chose to believe that God dose not exist,then how can anyone explain the thousands of demonic posessions that are documented and videoed? I wonder what any of these people would do in the precence of a demon? I bet that,beside shitting in your pants,the first word out of your mouth will be ” my God !”