The Word on Creationism

The Word is "Lie"

Published on June 16, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.

For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)

But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

Comments (Page 2)

lulapilgrim

on Jun 16, 2008

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of existing phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate phenomena under controlled conditions.

knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

Ya, this is what I'm taking about...not this nonsense from Leauki:

that science is not about finding the truth

science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors)

So both Evolution and Creationism call for belief by both faith and study. Faith proceeds all study. Creationism begins with Divine faith (in the Genesis account)that cannot deceive, whereas Evolution begins with human faith that is fallible.

Faith isn't blind blind submission to the unknowable. Rather, it's an intellectual assent of the mind to something not seen with the physical eye, the acceptance of a truth upon the authority of some one else. In Creationism it's faith in Divine authority, taking God at His word. God was the only One there at the beginning. In Evolution it's dependence upon human authroity that may or may not be right despite its personal integrity.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, ....(Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)

If you accept the fallible word of Steven Den Beste, then we accept the infallible testimony of God's word (that He was there as Creator of all) which is greater.

Smoothseas

on Jun 16, 2008

Ok so you defined science from a College Textbook so what does that have to do with Leauki's hypothesis?

No. I did a cut and paste of the definition from a few well known dictionaries.

Leuki is correct. Creationism is not science.

The Wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God." Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.

The strategy was originally brought to the public's attention when the Wedge Document was leaked on the Web. The Wedge strategy forms the governing basis of a wide range of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns.

As a humorous response parodying such listing of supposed supporters, the National Center for Science Education produced Project Steve listing only scientists with doctorates in relevant fields (as opposed to the Discovery's Institute's acceptance of signatories from a variety of disciplines, including nonscientists and those without PhDs) who had signed a pro-evolution statement, except that all had to be named "Steve", or its equivalent (such as "Stephanie" or "Esteban"). About 1% of the U.S. population has a name equivalent to "Steve". As of August 2, 2007, the "Project Steve" list included 820 Steves, and it continues to grow.[48] The DI's list meanwhile had eight Steves as of July 25, 2007.

Leauki

on Jun 17, 2008

My son is a Christian. He's also a Scientist. So what is he? You're wrong.

I don't know if your son is a Christian. All I know about your sons is that they are your kids and that you never did say that the penguin dude (remember?) wasn't your son.

I don't know if he is a scientist either.

What I do know is that there is no such thing as "Creation science" and hence no such person as a "Creation scientist".

A scientist who is a Christian is NOT a "Creation scientist".

Does your son really do scientific research into Creationism? What experiments has he done? Why hasn't he published any results that you could point to?

Leauki

on Jun 17, 2008

1:26, "And he said, "Let us make man to our image and likeness."

G-d's "image" is not a physical form. He doesn't have a physical form.

The image and likeness described is free will, not the body.

It doesn't mean that G-d made our eyes like His eyes.

Leauki

on Jun 17, 2008

Turns out the incompetent engineer gave my friend Diabetes because of somebody else's (Adam's) sin.

Is that what you mean, Lula?

Leauki

on Jun 17, 2008

1:26, "And he said, "Let us make man to our image and likeness."

I have addressed that issue before.

The Hebrew word for "god" is "el" or "eloh". The form used in the Bible is "elohim", which is a plural but doesn't refer to a fixed number. Hebrew doesn't use the plural like English does.

There are two different plurals in the Hebrew language. One is a plural for a fixed number that is part of the things definition (called the "dual" because it usually denotes a number of two, but it also applied to the four legs of a dog or any number of teeth). The other is what you would think of as a normal plural, referring to a number of things (that are not part of the definition). The second plural is also used as method to denote rank.

"Elohim" is spelt 'LHYM (transliterated). (The dual would be 'LHYYM.) It's a normal plural (not a dual as would be used for a fixed number inherent to the thing described). It refers either to many gods (i.e. the Creator is referring to Himself and other gods) or to the majesty of G-d.

Typically, when referring to Elohim, verbs are placed in the singular in the third person (talking of G-d) and here in the plural in the first person (G-d talking), a plural is also used as a modifier for objects manipulated. I.e. "Elohim" (gods) "bara" (he created), but "btzeleynu" (in our image).

The exact statement you are talking about reads "v'amar elohim n`aseh 'adam btzelmeynu kdemoteynu".

Word for word:

"v'amar": and he said (singular, conjugated form of "lomar", "to say")

"'elohim": "gods" (NOT a fixed defined set plural as explained, here a name for G-d)

"n`aseh": we will do (conjugated form, there is no actual "we" pronoun in there, the word le`asot means "to do" or "spend time", as in "ani `oseh haim" = "I am enjoying life")

"'adam": a variant of "red", here meaning "man"

"btzelmeynu": in ( our (-u) image ("tzel" means "shadow", "tzelem" is presumably a variant of it)

"kdemoteynu": like (k-) our (-u) shape (still referring to the same "our" (-u) that is not Elohim)

The words "us" and "our" indicate nothing because they are NOT in the text. There is no "us" ("'et anachnu" or some conjugated form of the preposition "'et") or "our" (doesn't exist in Hebrew) in that sentence.

G-d ("elohim") is here, as usual, described in the singular, addressing the universe (or perhaps a group of angels or other gods, it's not obvious from the grammar). The only plural is the "-u" suffix of "btzelem" and that doesn't refer to the speaker but to the group he speaks to.

It doesn't say "let us create". It says "we will create". Future tense is here possibly used as an Imperative but it is a conjugated verb form that matches the grammatical form of the speaker, it does not refer to an object "us". The only object is 'Adam.

The Hebrew language has a perfectly usable word for "three" ("shalosh"). If the Bible wanted to refer to a trinity, it could have. But judging from the words used and how Hebrew grammar works a specific number is just about the only thing we can rule out. "Elohim" refers either to one or to an unspecified many, but it CANNOT refer to a fixed number inherent to the word.

Does it make a difference to you that the two words you made bold in your text to show your point are not actually in the text you refer to?

I also checked the Luther translation. It's even bloomier than the English translation:

"Und Gott sprach: Laßt uns Menschen machen, ein Bild, das uns gleich sei"

Word for word: "And G-d spoke: let us make man, an image, that be equal to us"

As you can see it's even further from the original text. "Btzelmeynu" is best translated as "in our image". Seems like that sort of thing has been going on for quite a while in Christianity.

I am sure Luther knew what the Hebrew said. And I doubt he thought that Christians after him would interpret the translated text rather than the original text.

Summary:

1. If the Bible referred to a trinity in this sentence, a different plural would be used.

2. The word "us" is not in the text. The verb it is assigned to in the English translation is not in the Hebrew text.

3. The word "our" doesn't exist in the Hebrew language.

[edited to correct a grammar mistake]

[edited again to include "kdemoteynu"]

Leauki

on Jun 17, 2008

And just to freak out Trinitarians, I suppose, 1:27 adds:

"vyebara elohim et haAdam btzelemo"

"And will create G-d the man in his image"

Word for word:

"vyebara": and (v-) he will create (singular third person future tense)

"'elohim": G-d

"et": (preposition for a direct object because Hebrew has no Accusative case)

"haAdam": the man

"btzelemo": in his image

It continues:

"Btzelem elohim bara oto zakher vneqabah bara otem"

"In the image of G-d created him male and female created them"

Word for word:

"btzelem": image

"elohim": G-d (here a Genitive case, i.e. "of G-d")

"bara": he created (conjugated form, past tense first person SINGULAR)

"'oto": him (conjugated form of preposition "et")

"zakher vneqabah": male and female

"bara": he created

"'otem": them (ironically could mean "you" if the unwritten vowels were different)

lulapilgrim

on Jun 17, 2008

Leauki posts:

You tried to show that Muhammed's Allah and your god are not the same god because Muhammed didn't speak of a Trinity. Well, guess what, neither did Moses.

Lula posts:
Oh yes, Moses spoke of the Blessed Trinity right here in Genesis 1:26...

1:26, "And he said, "Let us make man to our image and likeness."

Here, the words, "us" and "our" indicate the plural number...to insinuate the plurality of Persons in the Deity.

Leauki posts:
The Hebrew word for "god" is "el" or "eloh". The form used in the Bible is "elohim", which is a plural but doesn't refer to a fixed number. Hebrew doesn't use the plural like English does.

This is good enough for me. "Elohim" is a plural.

The word "trinity" is not found in Sacred Scripture just as the word "incarnation" is not....however both doctrines are [I]in the Holy Bible.

In ordinary language, trinity means a triad, a number or set of 3. In theological language, it means a threefold personality, existing in substance, in one Divine Being as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It's the doctrine of the Catholic Chruch, that was proclaimed by Christ as recounted by StMatthew 28:19-20. The Church also announced in the Apostles'Creed, pronounced explicitly in the Nicene Creed, and defined in a more explanatory way in the Athanasian Creed.

The unity and triunity of God runs all through the New Testament. Belief in the Trinity permeates the New Testament to so great a degree, that denial of it places one doctrinally outside the pale of Christianity.

The Jews reject the implication it embodies that their Law was fulfilled and thus their mission was ended. Judaism was a battle for monotheism, the doctrine of the oneness of the eternal God against the polytheism of the people who surrounded and persecuted the Israelites during 20 centuries before the Christian era. This necessitated their stressing the oneness of God to such a degree that any but the formal explanation of it met with resentment, the spirit of which still abides in Jewry.

This attitude of the Jews isn't surprising for the full revelation of the nature of God didn't come to man until the Advent of the King of the Jews, the Messias. Today, they fail to appreciate the simple fact that the teachings of the Christ, the Messias, are an acknowledgement and not a denial of God's oneness as proclaimed in the Sh'ma--"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one." The eternal law in the Sh'ma (hear) is more fully expressed in the Trinity, for it tells us that the ONe God manifests as the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier without impairing His ONeness.

Catholics believe in one true God and one only; that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; that He functions as 3 distinctive persons--Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This is the unity and plurality of the one true God inferred in Genesis v. 26.

Isias understood the plurality mentioned by Moses in Genesis. Three distinct persons are named in the Godhead, "God the Eternal, God the "Spirit" and "Lord the Redeemer" is quoted in Isias 47:16-17.

Leauki

on Jun 17, 2008

This is good enough for me. "Elohim" is a plural.

I know it's good enough for you. That's the problem. You avoid even the most basic reading by deciding that you know enough at a point.

"Elohim", the word, is a plural. But it isn't the plural that Hebrew would use to refer to a Trinity. Plus the word is never treated as plural but as a name. The verbs it commands are singular.

My word-for-word translation above shows you that "Elohim" always commands a singular verb form. It is always "Elohim says", never "Elohim say". Sometimes Elohim speaks and includes the addressees of his words in the pronoun.

If Paul (some guy) announces to a group of strangers something like "Let's have dinner together", it doesn't mean that Paul is more than one person, and it certainly doesn't imply that he is three people.

If that same Paul is earlier and later in the story clearly referred to as a singular ("Paul says"), we can definitely be certain that Paul is not three people.

"Elohim" is, as I said, plural. But it is NOT the correct plural for a Trinity. Hebrew has two different plurals, and that's not the one you need.

I am beginning to think that we do not only disagree on theology but also on how important it is to study scripture. You think a superficial glance is enough, I think that a certain level of study is required for us to understand scripture.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 17, 2008

I don't know if he is a scientist either.

Well he's a Neuro Scientist working on his Ph.D. He's also a very strong and solid Christian believing in Creationism.

What I do know is that there is no such thing as "Creation science" and hence no such person as a "Creation scientist".

ok, from your POV and it's your opinion. But there are many out there who would disagree with you. Have you ever heard of Answers In Genesis? Many, many scientists worldwide believe different Leauki. Here's the Link.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

So Leauki....you totally ignored my post #9 when I asked you to defend your hypothesis. You made a claim and I have yet to see how you back it up. I asked you:

You made assumptions with NO facts. I gave you literature. I've given you solid scientific fact. Where are your facts? Don't just say things.

Show me where the more Christian the nation, the stupider the science......show me the money!

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 17, 2008

I know it's good enough for you. That's the problem

no the problem Leauki is NOT the Hebrew. The problem is your interpretation of it. My gut feeling/guess is you are listening to very liberal Hebrew scholars givng you their interpretation. Because what you've been writing here and there shows me you are not adhering to the traditional Jewish literal translation of the Hebrew.

Elohim is plural. Ok, we know that. We see in scripture that God was the maker of the world. We see in scripture that Christ was the maker of the world. We see in scripture that the Holy Spirit was the maker of the world. How can that be? Three in one.

How about the shema? Deut 6:8

"Hear O Israel; The Lord our God (Elohim-plural) is one Lord."

Now notice this:

We know Elohim is plural right? How about "one"...as in the Lord is one?

If you go back to Gen 2:24 you'd read this:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be ONE flesh."

The word one is the same word as in the Shema. The word one is used of the union of Adam and Eve to describe two persons in one flesh. That's a pictue of what the trinity is. They are three Gods in one. One God revealed in three ways.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 17, 2008

They are three Gods in one.

Hmmmm....saying "three Gods" is a confusing way of explaining
it.

There are three Persons in one God....One God revealed in three ways.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 17, 2008

Leauki,

We both agree Elohim is a plural form of the Hebrew word for God. I arrived at that conclusion from reading Genesis 1:26 and its use of the words "us" and "our" and understand that to mean that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

I seem to understand the plurality as stated by Moses in Genesis in the same way that the prophet Isaias 47:16-17 understood it.

Smoothseas

on Jun 17, 2008

Well he's a Neuro Scientist working on his Ph.D. He's also a very strong and solid Christian believing in Creationism

Good luck to him finding new breakthroughs in neuro science without using embryonic stem cells.

Leauki

on Jun 18, 2008

ok, from your POV and it's your opinion. But there are many out there who would disagree with you. Have you ever heard of Answers In Genesis? Many, many scientists worldwide believe different Leauki.

Actually, my point of view doesn't come into. Science has a definition and it is not dependent on my point of view.

Show me where the more Christian the nation, the stupider the science......show me the money!

I didn't say that "the more Christian the nation, the stupider the science", KFC.

Italy is a perfectly Christian nation, Catholic and everything, and they are at the forefront of scientific research.

It's _Creationism_, not _Christianity_ that holds science back.

Want examples for that? Look at any majority Muslim country that doesn't teach evolution and instead relies on "Islamic science" (which happens to teach EXACTLY the same, word for word, as the Bible about creation, and, like you, they also take it literally).

And if your son happens to mention in his research that there is no explanation for something he found except that "G-d made it", we'll see whether he will get his Ph.D..

I, for one, am really curious whether there is a university in the US stupid enough to certify "research" based on faith rather than reproducible facts as "scientific".

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!