Causality: Biblical Creationism, Why Kids Quit Church & The Smeller’s The Feller Argument

It’s becoming more and more common for those who to accuse Young Earth Creationists of causing people, particularly younger generations of falling away from the faith. I call it the “Smeller’s the Feller” [STF] argument. Basically, Biblical Creationists have pointed out that something stinks, that our people are leaving the Church just as they abandoned the churches of Europe and that a common thread is the teaching of millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution as scientific fact which undermines the ultimate authority of Scripture.

Of course, Old Earth Creationists, theistic evolutionists and others who teach that we can add millions of years and evolution to the Bible cannot accept that their teaching is to blame for this apostasy. After all, they compromised the clear teaching of Scripture in order to make the Gospel more palatable to those who doubt it based on its historical claims. So instead of examining the situation honestly, they pull the STF card and instead charge those sounding the alarm with being the cause of the problem.

The basic argument goes something like this:

  1. YECs teach an interpretation of the Bible that contradicts the claims of modern science.
  2. When people see that the YEC interpretation isn’t true (because modern science has proven otherwise), they toss out the baby with the bathwater.

Consider, for example, one critic’s argument:

“Why do so many of our young people leave church once they are on their own? I haven’t seen really good research on this, but I have no doubt that some of it is because they have been fed bad apologetics from young-Earth creationist organizations. Once they see that it just doesn’t work, many of them throw out their Christianity along with their Dr. Dino and AiG videos. Then whose fault is it?”

Is this critic right? Are Biblical Creationists the cause of our young people leaving the church? Are we inadvertently contributing to this apostasy by our efforts to defend the faith once delivered to the saints? Is there is a true correlation between Biblical Creationism and people leaving the faith, or do our young people leave the faith when they accept microbes-to-man evolution and/or millions of years?

I find it noteworthy that this critic mentioned that he hadn’t seen any really good research on why young people leave church when they home, because really good research on this subject has been available ever since Answers in Genesis commissioned America’s Research Group to find out why kids seem to graduate from church when they graduate high school, as it were. This research, summarized in the book, Already Gone: Why Your Kids Will Quit Church & What You Can Do To Stop It, revealed that while 95% of our kids attended church regularly during their elementary and middle school years, only 55% were still attending during high school. This means that about 40% of the kids in our churches are already gone before high school. Their decision to abandon the faith correlates with the educational level at which they first began to doubt the history of the Bible. In fact, of those who no longer believe that all of the accounts and stories in the Bible are true, 39.8% first had doubts in middle school, an additional 43.7% first had their doubts in high school, while a mere 10.6% had their first doubts during college. About 90% of those kids went to public school. And guess what they start teaching hot and heavy in middle school? Evolution and millions of years – the latter being the key issue here. After being presented with an uncritical, one-sided account of the all-natural origins of the universe [and, in many cases, being told that this all-natural origins account of millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution is compatible with the biblical account of supernatural creation], these kids began to doubt the authority and veracity of the Bible.

The research summarized in Already Gone makes it obvious that those wielding the Smeller’s the Feller argument are guilty of spurious correlation. Spurious correlation is essentially connecting the dots out of order. To give an example, let’s suppose we have a study which shows a commensurate increase in both the number of policemen and the number of homicides. One might conclude that increasing the number of policemen increases the number of homicides, but this correlation would be spurious because there is a third variable that effects both the number of policemen and the number of homicides: namely, population density, because in highly dense areas there are more police and more crimes [and in less dense areas, less police and less crime]. In much the same manner, those using the STF argument are claiming a causative correlation exists between teaching Biblical Creationism and young people rejecting the faith, but they have ignored a third variable, the subversive teaching of an all-natural origin and history of the world as an indisputable scientific fact through taxpayer-funded government schools. This third variable causes our publicly educated children to doubt the history and veracity of Scripture, ultimately causing many of them to fall away from the faith.

The STF likewise ignores another component of true causative correlation: temporal priority. Stated simply, in order to be the cause of Y, X must come before Y. If Biblical Creationism were the cause of young people falling away from the faith, we would not expect to see people abandoning Christianity in churches where Biblical Creation is not taught and evolution and millions of years are taught as being compatible with Scripture. We can look at the sorry state of the Church in modern Europe as an example of what happens to future generations when churches embrace the anti-Biblical concepts of millions of years and evolution. Those churches caved in to liberal theologies and yet they have experienced drastic decline rather than growth or retention. Likewise, liberal mainline churches in the US [most of which embrace and teach millions of years of evolution] have been experiencing a similar decline since the 1960s.

On the flipside, temporal priority might also predict that an increase in Biblical Creationist belief would result in this falling away from the faith. I wish I could say that Biblical Creationism is on the rise, but according to a Gallup research study, belief in Biblical creationism has dropped from 44% in 1982 to 40% in 2010. Belief in theistic evolution has remained steady at 38%, but belief in unguided evolution in which God had no part in the process has risen from 9% in 1982 to 16% in 2010.  This means that there is no temporal priority between a rise in Biblical Creationist belief and the rise in unbelief in our children, negating the possibility that this claim of true correlation is even remotely true; on the other hand, temporal priority can in fact be demonstrated when we look at the age our publicly educated youth are first exposed to an uncritical, exclusive indoctrination of millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution as scientific fact and the age at which they begin having doubts about that all of the stories and accounts in the Bible are true, anticipatory to their decision to abandon the faith.

As hard as it must be for Christian proponents of millions of years and/or microbes-to-man evolution to admit, the Smeller’s the Feller argument fails for the excellent reason that it is false. Despite their noble intention to make Christianity more palatable in light of modern science, these compromisers are actually contributing to the mass exodus of our youth rather than stemming the tide. We need to pray for these misguided brethren that they might see the truth of the problem. After all, I was once one of them, claiming that God could have used evolution if He liked and insisting that we had to leave room in the days of Creation for long ages. And if God can change the mind of this stubborn Appalachian, there’s hope for anyone!

God bless,
Rev Tony Breeden

19 Comments Add yours

  1. Cathy says:

    Actually, most kids I talk to leave the church simply because they find no real faith in God’s own house, and are deeply disillusioned about the ‘organized’ church. Very few seem to see the creationist/evolution views as good reasons to leave, at least on a conscious level. They are mostly concerned about the socialization of the church, which seems to be displacing the salvation message and the truth of the gospel at the pulpits.

    1. Cathy,

      You are most correct in noting that both hypocrisy in the church and disillusionment with the church [especially where it doesn’t practice what it preaches or evidence any good works apart from those committed in official church capacities] are major factors in why kids leave church. What I am noting here is that statistics demonstrate that their doubts about the veracity and historicity in the Bible coincide with their education into millions of years of goo-to-you evolution. These doubts about the Bible when coupled with their dissatifaction over a church that is somewhat less than the Bible advertizes, so the speak, convince many of our churched youth that there really isn’t anything authentic to Biblical Christianity.

      I am currently exploring the factors that cause folks to leave church, to return later [if at all], and how we can prevent this trend at

      God bless,

  2. Kevin N says:

    I’m the “Smeller’s the Feller” whom Tony quoted (“…Once they see that it just doesn’t work, many of them throw out their Christianity along with their Dr. Dino and AiG videos. Then whose fault is it?”).

    Thirty years ago I was a YEC majoring in geology at the university. Obviously, there was a conflict between much of what I was being taught in my geology classes, and what I was reading in the YEC standard works of the day. I had a few options:

    1. I could have rejected the Bible and Christianity along with it.
    2. I could have rejected the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and adopted some form of liberal Christianity.
    3. I could have somehow lived with an unresolved tension between the two belief systems.
    4. I could have found some way to re-interpret the geologic data to make it fit what I thought the Bible required. This is the YEC approach.
    5. I could have looked more closely at the Scriptures to see what it really did and didn’t say about creation.

    Perhaps there are other options, and there are variations on each one I have listed. I ended up going with option #5, and came to the conclusion that much of what they YECs had taught me about the age and history of the Earth wasn’t required by the Bible.

    Many students in similar situations have a crisis in their faith. By God’s grace, I came through that time with my faith intact. Not only did my faith in Christ grow stronger, I found the Word of God to be completely trustworthy as well. Unfortunately, many end up with a shipwrecked faith.

    Why is this? The YEC would say that it is because they have been ruined by evolution and/or billions of years. I would counter argue that the YEC movement shares much of the blame. Here are my reasons:

    1. The YEC movement has a history of really bad arguments, such as moon dust proving a young solar system, human footprints with dinosaur footprints, and a vapor canopy whose condensation would have released enough heat to boil the oceans. These were all taught as “proofs” of a young Earth and the truthfulness of the Bible. If the proofs aren’t valid, then perhaps the Bible isn’t true.

    2. The main YEC organizations have abandoned some of these arguments, but there are plenty of fringe YEC individuals and organizations who continue to use them.

    3. The current YEC arguments aren’t much better:
    –Accelerated nuclear decay (enough energy released in a short time to melt Earth’s crust)
    –Concentrations of elements in seawater (if carried to a logical conclusion then aluminum concentrations prove that the oceans are only 300 years old)
    –Attempts to explain fossil succession (all mammals ran faster than all dinosaurs to end up in the Cenozoic rocks)
    –Even the best YEC geologists use arguments that might appeal to the masses but don’t hold up to scrutiny (see my Six bad arguments from Answers in Genesis series).

    Could it be that bad apologetics (and that is what much of YEC continues to be) is partly to blame for driving kids away from the church? If our youth grow up on YEC materials that teach them authoritatively that sedimentary rocks were deposited by the Flood (something the Bible itself does not say), or that the whole Earth was a garden (again, something the Bible does not teach), or that there are dinosaurs living today in the Congo (Sasquatch apologetics), and then they figure out that it just ain’t so, aren’t the YECs responsible for the fact that many of our young people are already gone?

    Or is it OK to use bad arguments in defence of the Bible?

    1. Hi Geo,

      I just realized I failed to give you credit for that quote. The oversight was unintentional. I’ll fix it shortly.

      I appreciate you sharing your journey with us here, concerning how you came to accept millions of years without abandoning Jesus Christ. I will say this again: An adherence to a young earth and a rejection of microbes-to-man evolution are not necessary for saving faith; rather, you are my Christian brother because you have confessed the Lord Jesus Christ and believe that God raised Him from the dead. I disagree with you over the age of the earth, but I do think that the reason our discussions are so interesting [to me, at least] is because we are both motivated by a desire to see people saved and to remove any possible stumbling blocks to their acceptance of the Bible.

      For my part, I’m pleased that you came through your crisis of faith with your faith intact. I’d like to think it’s because you truly know and love Jesus, for how could anyone ever abandon Him over, well, anything if they truly knew Him?

      In any case, we both realize that many, many others have neither stood firm through this crisis of faith, nor yet returned after shedding the husk of youth.

      It is here that I must object to a statement you make, because it comes close to summarizing my position, but not quite. You stated: “The YEC would say that it is because they have been ruined by evolution and/or billions of years.” Actually my position is that the age at which churched youth are taught the claim of millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution can be statistically demonstrated to correlate to the age at which churched youth begin to doubt that all of the Bible’s stories and accounts are true, and that these unanswered doubts eventually cause them to abandon the faith. This means that essentially we agree on the problem: a lack of proper apologetics, a lack of a proper defense of the faith.

      Of course, you contend that the “YEC movement shares much of the blame” because we’ve used arguments in the past which have since been cast into doubt; that while mainstream creationism has abandoned these out-dated hyptheses, some still promote them; and that in your opinion current young earth arguments aren’t much better.

      To which I repspond:

      1. As much as I wished otherwise, you are correct in noting that some have doubted because past arguments have been cast into doubt or disproven, but such a crisis of faith never need have occurred. I often warn folks that while the claims of the Bible are not negotiable, our models of creation and the worldwide flood, as scientific claims, must needs be subject to revision and falsification. This does not mean there never was a world-wide flood or that God did not create the cosmos in 6 normal, calendar days, but that we need to revise how we suppose that happened. Of course, the time frame is not negotiable as you suggest, unless you’d like to make an arbitrary mess of numerical use in the Bible. The point is that we hold to the truth of the Bible, but scientific models based on the Bible are subject to change. The failure of YEC in this respect was not in proposing these models [for scientific models are disproven or modified all the time], but in not reminding folks of the dichotomy between the ultimate unchanging truth and authority of the Bible and the tentative nature of scientific models based on the Bible.

      2. I do admit that those who repeat out-dated models do cast doubt on the credibility of our position, which is why I roundly condemn them for this practice. The problem, again, is that many apologists get the Bible’s claims and the models we propose to explain those immutable claims mixed up. They suppose that by abandoning the model, they’re undermining the truth of God’s Word [an irony]. The visible church will always have those among us who promote fringe ideas; likewise, we get a lot of bad press from hypocrites, heretics and Christian cults, but this does not prevent Biblical Christianity from being true.

      3. I realize that you disagree with the current claims of YEC. If I may be bluntly honest, I would rather suffer the indignity of having our current Biblically-based models falsified and replaced anew than have to contend with the riddle OECs make of theology.

      4. No one’s ever said that its OK to use bad arguments in defense of the Bible, which is why we keep a list of arguments we think creationists should no longer use and roundly rebuke those who continue to use these out-dated arguments. You seem to be committing a genetic fallacy where you presume an apologetic bad simply because it supports the traditional Biblical YEC position.

      In any case, I admire your zeal, especially for the Gospel.

      God bless you,

      1. Kevin N says:


        Thank you for your gracious and excellent reply.

        Of course, I disagree with your third argument: that only the YEC model is Biblically-based and that old-Earth creationism makes a riddle of theology. Some OEC/TE advocates do indeed stretch or ignore the Scriptures, but not all do. Many old-Earthers are strong defenders of historical orthodoxy: a real creation from nothing by the triune God, a real fall by a real Adam with real spiritual and physical consequences, and in Jesus Christ as the only solution for our sin problem. These are Biblical truths that do not change if the Earth is four billion years old rather than six thousand.

        I’m not sure what you are getting at when you say that I “presume an apologetic bad simply because it supports the traditional Biblical YEC position.” I suppose I have been conditioned to be wary of new YEC arguments based on their previous track record, but I do strive to analyze and judge each argument based on its merits, not on whether or not it supports YEC.

        Grace and Peace,

  3. Human Ape says:

    I remember being here before. I noticed you’re still a science denier. I also noticed you’re a reverend. You remind me of this quote:

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair.

    Evolution (a basic scientific fact and the foundation of biology) has some serious religious implications. It shows that the Bible is childish nonsense. It eliminates the most important hiding place for the god of the gaps. And it makes heaven, which always was a cowardly insane fantasy, even more ridiculous. So of course the more educated a person is, the more likely that person grew up and threw out all supernatural fantasies.

    You’re solution for the religious implications of evolution is to deny more than 150 years of scientific progress. Normal people just grow up and throw out the Dark Ages myths. You can’t do that because then you would have to get a real job.

    You wrote “I wish I could say that Biblical Creationism is on the rise, but according to a Gallup research study, belief in Biblical creationism has dropped from 44% in 1982 to 40% in 2010. Belief in theistic evolution has remained steady at 38%, but belief in unguided evolution in which God had no part in the process has risen from 9% in 1982 to 16% in 2010.”

    This poll was for America. In more advanced countries (all of Europe, Japan, Australia, etc.) a much higher percentage of the population accepts the overwhelming evidence for evolution (without supernatural magic).

    You should not write “belief in evolution” because scientific facts are not beliefs. It’s OK to use the word “belief” for religious fantasies, but not for basic facts like evolution. The difference is the amount of evidence, massive powerful evidence for evolution, zero evidence for magic (or what you call creationism).

    In all countries, including Idiot America, the percentage of biologists who accept evolution (with out a god fairy’s magic wand) is virtually 100%, the only exceptions being incompetent biologists who have never contributed anything to science and who can only find employment at Bible colleges.

    16% of American non-scientists is a lot less than the 100% of American biologists who accept the foundation of biology (not polluted with magic). Why this huge difference in understanding? The problem is the Christian Death Cult. The solution: eradicate religion from this country.

    You’re an evolution denier because you think you’re smarter than all the world’s scientists. You think you’re more qualified to write about science than the best encyclopedia in the world. It’s no wonder that intelligent young people throw out the magic god fairy when they notice people like you who would rather throw out science. There is no better advertisement for atheism than science deniers like you.

    “There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms.”
    — Encyclopedia Britannica

    1. Human Ape,

      I recall you as well. You haven’t changed a bit.

      I notice that you still call me a science denier for doubting a theory of science. I suppose Galileo was a science denier for doubting geocentrism… Point being, if we’re not allowed to question it or doubt it, it’s not science – it’s dogma.

      Now why would you go and commit a genetic fallacy and then poison the well by presuming that I believe the things I do because, as you erroneously suggest, my job depends on it? You really have no clue who you’re dealing with here, do you? Listen, in my past 13-14 years of ministry, I haven’t even cleared $200. I’m not in it for the money. When I graduated from high school, I left the church. I became a blasphemous agnostic. After a decade, I realized that I’d never settled the issue of God, specifically this Jesus fellow, and that agnosticism was basically intellectual cowardice. So I began investigating. The probability of the resurrection, the evidence of purpose and design in the universe, and the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible convinced me that the Christian God existed in high probability, but in the beginning I supposed that we must allow for long ages in the days of the Genesis creation week and that, well, God could have used evolution. Obviously, I do not believe this now because I have continued to evaluate the evidence. You on the other hand… well, you just keep believing what they tell you to. Independent thought is over-rated after all. Just ask Galileo. Your insistence that I must have some ulterior motive for rejecting evolution is simply a cheap device to insulate you from considering the world-shattering possibility that I do in fact have valid intellectual reasons for rejecting fish-to-philosopher evolution.

      It’s funny to me how you toss around that word evolution without bothering much to define it. It’s true that some of the stuff we call evolution is a basic scientific fact [an observation agreed upon by a scientific consensus]. Of course, these are the bits that creationists agree occur: speciation, mutation, adaptation, natural selection, etc. Yet the larger claim of microbes-to-man evolution is an inference and does not carry the same weight as those things which are directly observable and subject to the scientific method. Of course, if we want to talk about what’s foundational to science, I suggets you read the following:

    2. Why Creation Is Foundational to Science – Not Evolution
    3. More On Why Creation Is Foundational to Science – Not Evolution
    4. I do agree that proposed microbes-to-man evolution has some serious religious implications. If it were true, the Bible most certainly would be false. Yet I caution you to ry for the origin of the life and universe does not mean that this is how things came about. By its very methodology science chained to naturalism cannot consider any non-natural causation. This means that it would not see non-natural causation even if all the evidence pointed to it; firthermore, it means that science is no longer the search for truth so much as all-natural answers which may or may not be true – and are most certainly false where non-natural or supernatural causation was actually responsible. The catch-22 is that science chained to pure naturalism has no means to determine whether pure naturalism is always true. It’s just gotta have faith.

      This being the case, God and His Heaven are only ridiculous if you eliminate them as a possibility a priori. You will have to make an assumption of faith in order to do so, for lacking omniscience [an attribute of deity, ironically enough] you cannot know there is no God. Not that we affirm a God of the gaps. As pointed out, the assumption of pure and absolute naturalism is questionable – unless of course you believe the faces upon Mt. Rushmore are products of erosive forces rather than intelligent causation.
      The don’t teach any good courses in logic anymore, do they? You make a spurious correlation when you say that “the more educated a person is, the more likely that person grew up and threw out all supernatural fantasies.” A great many persons are highly educated at levels commensurate with atheists and still retain a belief in God. What you ought to have said is that the more educated a person is, the more likely he has been indoctrinated into seeing the world in terms of pure naturalism.

      My solution for the religious implications of microbes-to-man evolution is not to deny more than 150 years of scientific progress; It’s simply to question goo-to-you evolution based on the all-natural presumption it is based upon.

      Thank you by the way for noting that I cannot in any way qualify as “normal.” Independent thinkers in any age are, sadly, far from the norm. On a side note, thank you for that gratifying stab at ad hominem. The more you resort to such tactics the more convinced I become that you protest too much. Your over-reactions remind me of the old joke about the sermon outline which read, “Point weak. Pound pulpit here!”

      Now, I note that you took issue with my poll. This is the only portion of your rant which is even vaguely related to the article above. Even then, it’s a bit off-topic. Yes, I’m talking about the state of affairs in America [which is why Europe is mentioned separately]. Try not to skim so obviously in the future. I am aware that the rest of the world is quite a bit more godless than America; we’re trying to determine the cause here, not merely describe the effect.

      You are incorrect when you say that scientific facts are not beliefs because a fact, as defined by science, is an observation which is agreed upon by a scientific consensus. Such facts are dependent upon circumstances and are even falsifiable. A scientific fact is as much a belief as any other, even if supported by a weight of arguments and interpretation of evidence consistent with said observation. Odd that evolutionists insist that people understand the difference between scientific vs popular uses of the word “theory,” but are notoriously silent when discussing such differences as applied to the word “fact.”

      Your statement “The difference is the amount of evidence, massive powerful evidence for evolution, zero evidence for magic (or what you call creationism)” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the origins argument. To wit, the origins argument isn’t about evidence because we have exactly the same evidence: the same earth, physics, rocks, plants, matter, universe – the same exact evidence. Evidence is not self-explanatory. It has to be interpreted. It is interpreted in a manner consistent with one’s presuppositions. No evolutionist is going to interpret the evidence contrary to his all-natural/anti-supernatural presuppositions any more than a creationist would interpret the evidence contrary to the existence of a Creator. Of course, as pointed out, the all-natural bias to your methodology prevents you from interpreting evidence in favor of or consideration of the supernatural, so it is unsurprising that your self-inflicted blinders prevent you from seeing any evidence for creation. Your knee-jerk denial of creation or even mere design prevents you from considering any evidence against evolution. Oh, and trust a preacher to recognize dogma when he see it.

      You employ the No True Scotsman fallacy when you state that “the percentage of biologists who accept evolution (with out a god fairy’s magic wand) is virtually 100%, the only exceptions being incompetent biologists who have never contributed anything to science and who can only find employment at Bible colleges.” How many times do I have to provide the link to scientists who affirm creation? Is there even any point to someone as close-minded as you appear to be?

      Your statistics are also in error. In fact, no one anywhere is stating that “100% of American biologists” accept microbes-to-man evolution without any intervention from God, because that’s simply not the case. Where in the blazes do you get your imaginary statistics?

      If you think that the solution is to eradicate religion from this country, then you’re simply daft. First of all, this country was founded on freedom of religion, guaranteed by the same Constitution that protects freedom of the press and speech for its citizenry. This in turn protects the populace from being indoctrinated by a suppression of dissenting ideas – exactly the sort of fascism you’re endorsing here. I submit that USAmerica is still the greatest nation on this planet and that a great part of its success is that its founders sought to preserve an open marketplace of ideas from the tyranny of folks like you. Suppress freedom of religion and folks will find excuses to do away with the other freedoms democracy ensures. It has made USAmerica strong, entrpreneurial and fiercely independent, qualities the rest of the world values when they need our troops, financial assistance and [in the case of dictators and facists states] non-interference.

      By the way, it’s irrelevant whether I think I’m smarter than you or anyone else. I admit that it appears quite arrogant to challenge the prevailing view, especially if men have been indoctrinated into it, voraciously promote it and have based their livelihood upon adherence to it. [btw, the whole “you believe it becaise not believing it is a threat to your job” gambit only works when your job actually depends upon adhering to said view. Kindly demonstrate how a biologist’s job is secure if he does not adhere to evolutionary dogma.] Is it not interesting to you how we view those who challenged past paradigms as courageous but those who do so presently as arrogant? Nevertheless, true science must answer any reasonable objections against it, no matter the source.

      As for Encyclopedia Britannica, whatever gave you the impression that they were an unbiased source in this area. Did you know that EB sells a science curriculum to public schools, where one is not allowed to promote God or intelligent design? Furthermore, it is impossible to be neutral where the ultimate authority of the Bible is concerned, which is what the creation/evolution debate boils down to.

      You said, “There is no better advertisement for atheism than science deniers like you.” An advertisement is nothing more than a piece of propaganda meant to endorese one product over another. Of course, you’ve committed a non sequitur because you have not demonstrated that being an evolution denier and being a science denier are equivalent. If this were so, then no radical element [ala Galileo] who challenged the current scientific paradigm could be considered pro-science. Yet you admit that those who have challeneged the prevailing consensus of the past have ever been those who most adhered to science!

      I stand in awe of your credulity.

      Tony Breeden

  • Cathy says:

    Christian Death Cult?? More than 16% of America is ‘non-scientist’, so what do you mean by this accusation? And do you mean that ALL America’s biologists are 100% evolutionist? Where is the link for this statistic?

    And God is not ‘magic’ in the least.

  • Human Ape says:

    I have one more comment for you to censor. The censorship is fine with me as long as you at least bother to read it.

    It’s obvious to me (but probably not obvious to you) that you’re afraid of something. How else to explain why you would completely ignore the quote I gave you from the Encyclopedia Britannica which was “There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms.”

    A normal person would want to know why the best encyclopedia in the world would be so strongly for something that you are strongly against. But you have no curiosity. You have made up your mind about the truth of your childish everything-is-magic fantasies, and you refuse to look at anything that conflicts with your idiocy, no matter how reputable they are. Do you actually think the molecular biology section of the Encyclopedia Britannica was written by pathological liars? Do you think the brilliant experienced scientists who wrote that section are incompetent? I wonder what your problem really is. You’re obviously not very bright but I think your worst problem is you’re a coward. You are terrified of reality because you need the childish heaven fantasy to keep from going completely insane.

    This comment might seem offensive to you but there’s no way to both help you and be nice about it. For example I can’t say your fantasies might be wrong when every real scientist knows they’re ridiculous. You have a serious disease and to make things even worse you will never admit how sick you are. And that’s why your disease is incurable. It’s not my problem but I think it’s interesting that there are millions of Americans who are equally insane and equally incurable. It’s really pathetic. All those wasted lives. Another problem is your kind have totally disgraced our country. It’s because of Christian extremists like you that America is an international laughing stock.

    1. Human Ape,

      I actually rescued these comments from my Spam filter. Having said that, you know full well that I have never felt obligated to approve every comment I receive. I don’t have time to answer every off-topic rant submitted to me. Since I am too busy with my real-live offline life, I moderate comments lest troll comments build up unanswered. I don’t want to give folks the impression that these cookie cutter arguments have no rebuttal.

      I’m not afraid of you or anyone else, sir. The thing is: with God in my corner, I’ve got no reason to fear you. And your arguments are pathetic. In all our history together, you have not even once come up with anything even vaguely resembling intelligence. You offer ad hominem and cookie cutter rhetotic you heard from someone else, thought was clever and parroted here without having had to think it through yourself. This is what we call weak kung fu on this site, precisely because it reminds us of folks who try to imitate a martial arts move they saw in a movie once but who inevitably and inenviably get their butts handed to them by folks who have taken the time and discipline to master the art.

      take for example you ridiculous argument that we must affirm microbes-to-man evolution because Encyclopedia Britannica claims “There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms.” Did it ever occur to you that this was gross overstatement? So no other notion – not Newton’s Laws, not anything in the fields of geology, astronomy, botany, physics, or any other branch of science – has been as extensively tested? So we are more certain of unobservable microbes-to-man evolution than we are of gravity, heliocentrism or photosynthesis? Of course not. It’s simply a zealous affirmation of dogmatic faith. Trust a preacher to recognize a rapturous religious testimony when he reads one. As I pointed out in the previous post, Encyclopedia Britannica isn’t an unbiased source; rather, they sell a product claiming to be an authority, so of course they affirm the current consensus view of science.

      Now if you think I came to my conclusions out of cowardice – because taking a stand against the modern consensus of science is the easy way, right? – then you are perniciously deluded. I came to my views kicking and screaming, very much opposed to them in every way. The very thing that drove me to examine the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, the authority [fulfilled prophecies] of the Bible and the existence of God is that I could not stand the intellectual cowardice of my agnosticism. If one thinks there might even be the slightest chance of the existence of a deity, intellectual honesty demands that they determine whetehr this is so, one way of the other.

      You on the other hand are the product of an anti-supernatural propaganda machine. Unlike me, you have never questioned evolution. Instead, you rail at independent thought and accept the consensus of science with credulity. Keep in mind, you fool, that I once thought as you. I rejected Christianity and became a blasphemous agnostic. I affirmed evolution and all the rest. I thought I was thinking for myself when I was only parroting the views of my teachers and professors. True independent thought is rare because it is an act of defiance, not cowardice. And science is built upon the audacity of a man’s right to question those in charge and to demand their strong reasons to his objections.

      If we’re really the product of mindless microbes-to-man evolution, how can you really know if your brain has evolved correctly in order to determine that I and millions of Americans are incurably insane? What if you and other atheists are simply wired wrong and nothing could be saner than religious belief? What if atheism is a disease that threatens social order, something of a sociological cancer eating away at society?

      On the other hand, what if God is real and He values free will. If He values free will, He is the sort of God who cannot be denied if He fully reveals Himself, so He would have to provide reasonable but not absolute evidence of His existence. He would realize that free will would cause some to reject Him and His will, so He would reveal it independently by authenticate it with something only He could do, like fulfilled prophecy. Since men might reject His Will, He would want to provide a way of redemption and to authenticate that means by something else as equally miraculous, like the resurrection of Christ. In Christ is found peace, love, joy and a myriad other blessings we were intended for. What does atheism offer anyone except a reason to live as you please before your candle burns out. It offers no hope, no beauty, no redemption, no purpose… nothing but an excuse for narccicism.

      Evolution tells people that they are the pointless products of an ancient and equally purposeless process of death, suffering, extinction, and that nothing they do is of ay lasting consequence. You’re telling me that’s not a cause of mental illness?

      Think about it,
      Tony Breeden
      “This comment might seem offensive to you but there’s no way to both help you and be nice about it. For example I can’t say your fantasies might be wrong when every real scientist knows they’re ridiculous. You have a serious disease and to make things even worse you will never admit how sick you are. And that’s why your disease is incurable. It’s not my problem but I think it’s interesting that there are millions of Americans who are equally insane and equally incurable. It’s really pathetic. All those wasted lives. Another problem is your kind have totally disgraced our country. It’s because of Christian extremists like you that America is an international laughing stock.

  • Neville says:

    I was a creationist, taught by a major international Christian organisation, until I did what most creationists don’t have the courage to do: go to a respectable college and study evolution properly.

    I saw every creationist argument effortlessly destroyed. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

    If creationist models were correct, the evidence would be screaming at us from every stone, every genome, every fossil. That evidence just isn’t there.

    I deeply resent the conceit that those who question science are automatically in the tradition of Galileo. Informed questioning of science is fundamental to its development. Wild, wholly uneducated speculation is valueless, and when it is motivated not by a desire for truth but in order to support some pet dogma, then it is positively immoral.

    1. Neville,

      I also studied biology and geology from ardent evolutionists. Oddly enough, I found their interpretation of the evidence less than compelling. Oh, if I presumed pure naturalism, I would probably come up with something very similar. But their all natural Just-so story requires several miracles. Everything must spring from nothing. Life must spring from non-life. Complex, specified information must spring from a non-intelligent source. Mutations must increase that genetic information so that a frog can become a prince over millions of years when natural selection works in the opposite manner. In other words, natural must do supernatural things, making the entire all-natural self-creation story you were taught… logically contradictory.

      The evidence for creation does scream from every rock, genome and fossil, so much so that even misotheists like Richard Dawkins become hostile witnesses to this truth when they dissemble that the evidence they see for design is only “apparent design.” I’m sorry that you bought into their selective presentation of the evidence. There were always answers to the “overwhelming evidence” for evolution if you had only bothered to look. the Bible calls this suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

      But you wanted to believe in evolution. It was easier. It was more intellectually acceptable.

      I mention the pride that motivated you because you accuse me of conceit. What makes you suppose the Bible isn’t true simply because men who refuse to consider the supernatural have come up with an all-natural creation story to replace it? What conceit causes you to dismiss creationist theories as wild, wholly uneducated speculation when they were conceived of by scientists [yes, scientists] who happen to reject evolution in favor of Biblical creation? What conceit allows you to determine that we are not motivated by a desire for truth rather than to protect dogma? What conceit allows you to suppose our dogma is not the truth after all?

      You see, your entire argument is that if creationists only understooooooooood evolution, we’d accept it. The problem is that we do understand it, and that we understand it well enough to know its fatal flaws. Your corrolary argument was that if we were better educated, we would accept evolution. Yet here is a list of highly educated scientists who know evolutionary theory very well and are creationists nonetheless:

      You came here with the conceit that you would simply tell us how ignorant we are to reject evolution and you only demonstrated your own conceit and credulity where it concerns the evolutionary dogma you were indoctrinated with.

      If you really have a desire for truth, stop uncritically accepting what your evo professors spoonfeed you and remember that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge, not the words of those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

      Tony Breeden

  • Neville says:

    We needn’t dwell on your argument from incredulity, the red herrings of abiogenesis and “information”, or the massive academic conspiracy that is implied by this. (All transparent, and you ought to be ashamed, but you probably aren’t. Ho hum.)

    Genesis comes from around the time of the Babylonian exile (and the Eden story may well be a metaphor for that exile), written by unknown writers, edited together by unknown editors, purporting to report faithfully on events that happened—by the Usher chronology—some 3,500 years earlier, with no supporting documentation or archaeology whatsoever. (Moreover, the Eden story simply doesn’t make sense.)

    You would rather believe this book than the 200,000+ peer-reviewed papers supporting evolution written by highly intelligent scientists.

    Evolution is a very fragile theory. One single, solitary, fossil rabbit in the Upper Cretaceous and the gig’s up. Of course, it’s not there, just as aren’t really human footprints in the Paluxi River strata.

    Who is more likely to indoctrinate: churches with a dogma to protect, or university scientists who don’t care what you believe?

    BTW, I fought evolution tooth and nail for thirty years and I’ve heard all the Creationist arguments. Eventually I had to face facts, and so should you.

    1. Neville,

      Your response makes me very sad. You don’t even see it, do you? The very fact that you “needn’t dwell” on my arguments is because you have stopped thinking. You have faith in the claim that science will eventually uncover all of the details so you treat their statements about the “fact” of abiogenesis or about the universe coming from nothing or from comic book multiverses with credulity. Yet you have no faith in the Bible.

      Now, you’ve mentioned bad arguments and the irony is that you’ve parroted your fair share in this comment.

      First of all, the idea that Genesis was written during the Babylonian exile comes from the discredited JEDP document hypothesis. It still makes good press in liberal circles largely because they refuse to let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

      Second, in what way does the Eden account make no sense? [You’re going to have to be more specific]

      Third, the bunny-next-to-a-velociraptor-would-falsify-evolution argument has been beaten to death on this site. See Transitional Forms: Dinosaurs and Bunny Rabbits, or Why the Speculative Nature of Darwinism makes it Unfalsifiable. Please don’t pull out this chestnut again. Thanks.

      Finally, any man who can honestly ask the question “Who is more likely to indoctrinate: churches with a dogma to protect, or university scientists who don’t care what you believe?” is living in a fairy tale universe where men in white lab coats practice science with a complete and total lack of bias or agenda. Yet these same university scientists are the very ones who are fighting tooth and nail to keep the exclusive, uncritical indoctrination of all-natural evolution in public schools [a fact I have dedicated many posts to on], proving that they DO CARE what we believe… and dismantling your argument with nothing more than casual observation.

      Whether you admit to a mass academic conspiracy or not, I do not care. Said conspiracy has been documented in documentaries like No Intelligence Allowed and in books like Slaughter of the Dissidents. Evolutionists admit on a regular basis that they refuse to allow a Divine foot in the door. Their presupposition is that the supernatural is false so they conduct their search for truth as if the only valid answers are purely natural. In doing so, all they can really claim is that they’ve come up with all-natural answers which may or may not be true and are most certainly false where the supernatural was involved. I’ve outlined the flaws in their thinking in a post called There Is No Science But Naturalism and Darwin Is Its Prophet!

      Start thinking again,
      Tony Breeden

  • Neville says:

    You’re a laugh. I’m someone who took the time to study evolution at degree level, which means I’ve done a hundred times more work, given a hundred times more thought and demonstrated a hundred times more commitment to truth that the average pew-warmer, including you.

    In your wacky world view “not thinking” seems to be confused with “not agreeing with my hokey opinion.”

    I dismiss topics that have been done to death and/or are irrelevant. We don’t yet know how life started, and we may never know. That doesn’t invalidate the subsequent 3.8 billion years of evolution that certainly followed. So abiogenesis is, as I said, a red herring. And you surely know that.

    Here is your problem: once you say of any natural phenomenon “God did it”, there is no reason to investigate and uncover its mechanisms, and ALL science comes to an end. Islamic science in the eleventh century was the highest the planet had ever seen, but a man called Al Ghazali declared that Allah did everything, that any knowledge they needed was in the Quran, and that investigation was therefore pointless. The Islamic world has been backward ever since.

    If Western scientists had listened to you we’d now be as backward as the Muslims. Fortunately for you Newton, Pasteur , and, yes, Darwin ignored people like you and Western science continued. As a result you didn’t die in childbirth but lived long enough and are rich enough to waste your time spouting superstitious twaddle onto computer screens.

    Here’s a test of your attitudes: Do you want research to continue into abiogenesis? Or would you rather we never found an answer? Be honest. Would you rather we stopped researching and just said, “God dun it.”?

    With regard to the genesis of Genesis…we don’t have any copies of Genesis prior to the second century BC. Moreover, the earlier (and thus more credible) documents that fed into Genesis, such as the Gilgamesh Epic, show an utterly different take on events.

    Genesis makes no sense because when the first two products off the production line both fail, it’s the fault of the designer, not the product. Genesis tries desperately to absolve God of responsibility for the world He created, and sending his son to patch things up later doesn’t change the basic irrationality of this story.

    It’s no good giving people free will and then punishing them when they use it.

    Furthermore, where is the horizon in the archaeological record that marks the Fall of Man? Such an event should have left a mark.

    Put humans in a garden with a door marked “Do Not Enter” and sooner or later someone will go through, because that is what it means to be human. What did God want, a world of Elder Brothers?

    1. Tony Breeden says:


      It is difficult to answer you because it is not easy to determine when you’re being quite serious. I’m sure that you feel your objections are novel, despite the fact that you’re merely parroting what you’ve been indoctrinated through public schools to believe, so I will attempt to answer you in brief… even though your post is quite off-topic to the article above.

      Abiogenesis is not a red herring; it is a critical link in the all-natural Just-so story of the universe. Those proposed millions and millions of years are proposed by imposing an all-natural bias upon scientific theories that rejects all possibility of supernatural agency or even grand catastrophism, such that one is simply begging the question of pure naturalism. Since the human mind is incapable of simply shrugging off mysteries, we tend to come up with all-natural explanations that may or may not have occured, and are certainly false where supernatural agency or grand catastrophism were involved… and science has no way to determine whether it is wrong in these purely naturalistic inventions!

      You compare applaes to oranges when you compare Islam’s effect on scientific progress and Christianity’s influence upon it. The scientific method was invented by Bible-affirming Christians who supposed that they could think God’s thoughts after Him. Read a few more history books on the subject and a few less internet memes, sir. At the very least, read these two posts on why creation is foundational to science rather than evolution:

      Keep researching abiogenesis. Thus far, you’ve only proven just how impossible it would have been to make even the simplest life on purpose, much less by chance!

      I wish you wouldn’t commit that chronological fallacy. It’s irrelevant whether you believe the Genesis account is older or not. An irrefutable fact of history is that later records are corrupted, yet the Genesis account contains more believable details, such as proper ship dimensions [Gilgamesh’s ARk is a cube for crying out loud] and a more logical order for sending out the birds [those who consume carrion first, then vegetation], for example. Even if we never find an earlier Genesis manuscript than our Gilgamesh records, only an idiot who still believed the refuted JEDP document hypothesis would believe that Gilgamesh came first and Genesis improved upon the account!

      Adam and Eve could have chosen to believe God instead of the Serpent. It was as simple as that. There’s no indication that their temptation would have gone on indefinitely as your objection presupposes. God is not at fault. It’s absurd to fault Him for the using the free will by which you reject Him, when the fact that you have free will condemns you for not using it to accept slavation He doesn’t owe anyone in the first place.

      If the Bible is true, the fossil record is largely the product of the Noachian Flood. Furthermore, earth’s history is less than 10,000 years old. Since Man fell at the beginning, at what point exactly would you expect to see a horizon?

  • jesusknight says:

    I do not understand the hostility when a Christian says “God did it”, when it comes to anything scientific. When God does something, that makes it worthy of study and analyzing (to me), to try to understand the bible better. I realize I am no scientist, but I am intensely interested in things that God ‘did’ at the beginning, and how He did them. Even before I was a Christian, I could not believe the hokey ‘my ancestors were monkeys, and theirs were fish from the primordial ooze’, to me it just never made sense.

  • Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google photo

    You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s