It Takes An Atheist to Deny Evolution

It is truly a marvel of foolishness that sincere Christians, who deny well-established geological and biological facts, rest their case upon a foundation of atheism. A good example is prominently displayed among the propaganda offered to the world by Answers in Genesis. At the heart of all AIG’s denial of plain evidence and sound science, not to mention twisting of Scriptural truth, lies a statement by the well-known atheist, Richard Bozarth:

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”

How sad. This statement appeared in ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30., 20 September 1979. No reputable scientific journal would publish such unverifiable rubbish. Christians should not be giving credence to this nonsense by devoting time and effort to denouncing it. Rather, we should laugh at it, get a good night’s sleep, and wake up in the morning, refreshed and ready to go on living the Gospel as best a falliable human can do, confident that by Jesus’s birth, life, death and resurrection, we are saved. What has evolution to do with that fundamental truth?

Bozarth’s statements do not even qualify as a lie. They do not rise to that level of integrity.They are a series of false premises, which lead with perfect logic to a perfectly wrong answer. Bozarth first strips away 99% of the significance of Emmanu-El, which means God With Us, then asserts that evolutionary theory destroys Adam and Eve, which it does not. Finally, Bozarth suggests that if life developed from simpler to more complex forms over billions of years, then Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins. It is not evolution, but Bozarth, who says that “Christianity is nothing.”

Why was the human baby Jesus born to a Jewish family? Why was the Holy Spirit not incarnate of a virgin in China, or South America? After all, God can do anything that God pleases. This child was to be, among many many other things, “a light to the Gentiles.” The Covenant that God had made with one people was to be expanded, and made available to all peoples. That began with a human child learning the Scriptures of the Covenant, among the chosen people.

Human reason might suggest that the Son of God, by whom all things were made, would know this without needing to study in a synagogue or at the Temple. Beware reliance on human reason in spiritual matters. Remember that Jesus, “became fully human,” among the people God had chosen as his own. Suppose there had been no original sin. Would Jesus as a light to the Gentiles have been of no significance? Would God have been silent when Moses climbed to the summit of Mt. Sinai? Would the Ten Commandments have been moot?

I once heard a highly respected pastor, who preaches to three packed services every Sunday, teach from the pulpit “Let me tell you why I am a Christian, because there is a lot of truth in other religions. But when I pray, I know I am praying to a God who has been through what I am going through.” Is that not one of the unique and marvelous features of the Gospel? God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, the first, the last, beyond all things, but this incomprehensibly mighty God chose to take on human flesh and dwell among us! Is this nothing?

Evolution does not, and cannot, deny even Adam, or sin, much less the need for salvation. Human origins are neither so precisely known, nor so vaguely defined, to provide a foundation for such denial. Genesis does not in fact specify that a single man and a single woman were the ancestors of all human life. The word “adam” in the original Hebrew means humanity, all of humanity. It is not the name of an individual. Only in European cultures is “Adam” given as a name for an individual baby boy.

Genesis 1:27, in English translation, says both “in the image of God created he him” and “male and female created he them.” Genesis 5 refers to “the generations of Adam” and verse 2 refers to “when God called their name Adam.” Adam could have been an entire tribe. There is a lot more to Genesis than our cherished Sunday school stories cover. More important, there is a lot more to Genesis than Richard Bozarth cares to answer to.

The Word of God cannot be reduced to the limitations of the human mind, either by human science OR human theology. We should not let our faith get wrapped up in empirical details. Bozarth and his ilk find those details a convenient snare for the weak and the unwary, but why should we walk into this semantical trap? We already know that we fall short of the glory of God. (And that is the real meaning of “sin.”)

The honest truth is, we don’t know exactly what Adam was, who the first people were, because God didn’t really care about revealing those details to Moses. There are many pious paintings, but no detailed revelation from God. That there were first generations of humans, that they made some bad choices that still afflict their descendants, is all we need to know. Mark Twain has written a humorous account of Eve’s diary, but God did not give us an account of daily life east of Eden.

The geological record is full of humanoid species that seem more and more like humans, but they were NOT human. The genetic record suggests that OUR ancestors emerged from a “genetic bottleneck” in the last 50,000 to 200,000 years. That means a very small number of individuals was separated out from all others of their kind, for a prolonged period of time. Perhaps only two, but science cannot tell us that. Nor can science tell us anything about what preceded that genetic bottleneck.

Genesis makes a very significant distinction between the creation of adam and the creation of all other life. Verses 11, 20 and 24 reveal the command “let the earth bring forth” and “let the waters bring forth,” – God watched it happen, then intervened over some period of time in the results. Verse 27 says “So God made man in his own image.” The creation of adam, man, male and female, was a distinct and different act. How was it different? Only in this: it was a direct act of creation by God, not a call for the waters and the earth to “bring forth” life. Whether it was spiritual or physical or both, is a matter we can study and speculate on.

None of this tells us that there was, or was not, an original sin. Nor did God bother to tell us exactly what the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was. Genesis does not even satisfy human understanding or curiousity as to why adam was not to eat of the tree. Most Bible-believing Christians settle for “because God said so.” We don’t know any more than that.

The first and most important requirement of faith is NOT that God did this for us, or that God did that for us, but recognition of what God first told Moses in the desert, out of the burning bush: “I AM.” Jesus taught that the first and most important commandment is “Hear Oh Israel, the Lord our God is one God, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind.” Praise for what that God has done for us, even to giving his only Son, follows immediately after. But if God never did anything for us, he would still be the Almighty one and only omnipotent creator.

Most Christians find salvation in the precious blood of Jesus through their own painful life experiences. How low we have sunk in our own lives, not the intellectual recognition of some abstract doctrine, is what leads to a born-again experience. Sin is, on the one hand, a very singular definition of the gulf that separates mere mortal man from the glorious infinity of God. But individual humans are more intimately familiar with their own sins, and revere Jesus as the Christ because of “What he’s done for me.” If Richard Bozarth hasn’t found that, that is his problem. Don’t blame the fossils.

Friends And Foes of Christmas

The Most Unnecessary Holy War

Perennial politician Jerry "Grinch" Falwell, is always clever at reducing the church to a political base for his own advancement. This year, Falwell has called for a "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign." Next we can expect a video game called "Battlefield Christmas"? Christian writer James Watkins rightly notes that Falwell is "launching a holy war" (in Arabic that translates "jihad") for a season when certain angels proclaimed "peace on earth."

To give Falwell his due, there is a kernel of truth at the heart of this misbegotten nonsense. Falwell calls on people of faith to oppose various attempts to "intimidate school and government officials by spreading misinformation about Christmas. Celebrating Christmas is constitutional!” Indeed it is. (If you want details, check out What's Your Problem? It's Christmas! ). That is so well established under existing Supreme Court decisions, one wonders why it provokes any controversy.

In fact, we should be more specific about who has what constitutional right to celebrate Christmas. Individuals and families have an unchallenged right to celebrate Christmas any way they choose. That is called free speech, free expression, free exercise of religion. Neither congress nor any state may pass a law to prohibit any of the above. Neither may the courts. If several families want to get together for a communal celebration, that is called freedom of association. The only limitation is, none of us can break a law, by committing murder, robbery, trespass, assault, or creating a public nuisance (like blaring carols over a sound system at 80 decibels in a residential neighborhood), in the name of celebrating Christmas.

Churches have an undoubted right to celebrate Christmas also. This is called freedom of religion, freedom of speech, free expression, freedom of association. This right includes putting up Christmas displays on church property, which may be visible for hundreds of yards, or even for miles. The fact that some atheist may be offended is legally irrelevant.

Businesses have a right to observe or not observe any holiday. That is basically the right to advertise your wares in whatever language you choose. There are some grinches of the anti-religious variety who consider it inappropriate for a business to observe a religious holiday. These grinches are entitled to their opinion, but it has no legal force at all. "Establishment of religion" is indeed prohibited by the First Amendment, but "Establishment" is something done by government, not by private businesses. The law insists that a commercial enterprise must serve all customers, without regard to religion, but it doesn't regulate what a business puts up in its windows for which holidays.

Falwell apparently wants Christians to target businesses that do not celebrate Christmas. That is his constitutional right, as a matter of free speech, and the right of any individual who chooses to follow him, (as distinct from those who choose to follow Him). Reportedly, Target Stores prohibits employees from wishing customers "Merry Christmas." That is silly. It may be good for business, it may be bad for business, it may have no impact on business. But it is Target's choice. If enough customers turn away from Target at Falwell's call, Target may revise their policy. I don't shop at Target, so I won't have any impact either way. Target is denied by law the authority to require employees to say "Merry Christmas," if an employee has religious objections to doing so.

Most Americans have enough sense and courtesy to be pleased when a member of any faith greets any other person in the name of a holiday. If the well-wisher is Jewish, "Happy Hannukah" is a compliment, whether expressed to a fellow Jew or to anyone else. Out of the mouth of a Christian, "Merry Christmas" is as good as "have a nice day," whether the person who hears the greeting is a Christian, a Buddhist, an atheist, or a pagan. And yes, Christians should accept "Happy Solstice" as a greeting of good will, and reply "Merry Christmas." Its not competitive, it is from the heart, of the person speaking.

There isn't much room left in the law for nuisance litigation about this stuff by self-righteous grinches. Check out the Freedom From Religion Foundation's web page Other Court Challenges. You will find that these enemies of religious freedom, implacable foes of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, have abandoned any attempt to file cases in the courts of Wisconsin, the state where FFRF headquarters are located. Why? Because some years ago, they lost a case over the display of a manger scene in a public park in the city of Waunakee. (Awwwwww...) They have also lost their Ten Commandments litigation, since the last time the web site was updated.

There are two key cases decided many years ago by the Supreme Court of the United States, which clear the way for federal, state and local governments to join in and recognize that large numbers of Americans are indeed celebrating Christmas. One case is Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668. The Supreme Court allowed a city-sponsored downtown display that included a manger scene, Santa Claus, a Christmas tree, and a banner reading "Season's Greetings," in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. This is not an "Establishment of religion" by the city. The other is Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573. The court ruled that a manger scene sponsored by a religious organization in the main front stairway of the county building is unacceptable, because it amounts to the county expressing preference for a specific religion, and a specific denomination, over all others. But the Pittsburgh city display of a tree, a menorah, and a star, was perfectly acceptable, and most likely could have included a manger scene also.

Since this is all so well established, why is it that Falwell finds it necessary to whip up a holy war? Maybe his empire just needed a good controversy for a fundraising letter? Spiritually, Falwell has made Our Father's House into a den of thieves. Constitutionally, he presses for the church to embrace the profane hands of the civil magistrate, which James Madison called "an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation."

Churches in the Denver, Colorado area showed a better way last year. The city and local businesses were sponsoring a very secular tinselly Christmas parade. A number of churches simply exercised their undoubted constitutional right to walk peacefully downtown singing Christmas carols, offering free hot chocolate, and passing out calendars of holiday worship services to anyone who wanted one. That is sharing the love of Jesus, expressing peace on earth, good will toward men, with an open invitation to salvation. It requires no campaign, no fundraising letters, no friends or foes, just Christians doing what Christians do. All well, no Fall.

George Bush's Paper Tiger

Murtha and Hastert are both correct
about the war in Iraq

As reported in the New York Times, "Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Vietnam combat veteran who voted for the Iraq war, said that after more than two years of combat, American forces had united a disparate array of insurgents in a seemingly endless cycle of violence that was impeding Iraq's progress toward stability and self-governance." He called for a withdrawal of American troops in six months.

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, a Republican, called this "a policy of cut and run." Both are correct. This should bring us to an understanding of why George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in the first place was so terribly wrong.

There are two times to fight a war. One is when the nation's survival is at stake, and there are only two choices: win or perish. The last war where that was the clear-cut situation facing the United States of America was World War II. Our parents and grandparents (for younger readers, great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents) acted like it. Blackouts, civil defense, rationing of gasoline and meat and sugar, victory gardens, scrap metal drives, liberty bonds, saving fat from cooking meats to be turned in for making ammunition... Not so with Iraq. Has anyone given up one cup of latte for the war effort this year?

The other time to fight a war is when a nation sees something to gain by going to war, and has the power to win. That may or may not be a moral choice, but what is going to stop us? Morality depends on what is to be gained, and the nature of the enemy. Hitler thought he had an invincible military machine, that is why he went to war. He was wrong. Moral or immoral, no anti-war movement has ever prevented such a war. It is too easy to go along, and enjoy the ride. Win the war, and drink your latte too.

A majority of Americans believed that in Iraq, we faced one of these two situations. Frankly, most Americans, and most of the Bush administration, leaned heavily on the second possibility: hey, we can run right over anything Iraq can put in the field, so why not do it? Colin Powell knew better; that is why he isn't in the Bush cabinet any more. He warned the little boy in the White House that once we took out Hussein's armies and government, we would be responsible for everything that happened in Iraq. George didn't want to hear it. He never had a plan for what to do next. It must have made his head hurt to try to think about it.

The truth is, nothing going on in Iraq inspires Americans to make any and every necessary sacrifice to win. There are many forces in Iraq that are willing to make any sacrifice to win. That is why we are not winning against them. Most of them are pretty nasty characters, but they are willing to do whatever it takes to win. We are not. Some of those Iraqis are currently allied with us, some are fighting against us, none of them particularly respect us. Any sane, rational, well-informed leadership should have understood that before going into Iraq in the first place.

There was no such thing as "the Iraqi people" waiting for us to liberate them from Saddam Hussein. There were several factions of religious Shia Muslims, several factions of religious Sunni Muslims, some secular-minded men and women (who all have loyalties to clans that as a whole are either Shia or Sunni). There were Christian minorities, Jewish minorities, two competing armies of Kurds. Most of these groups were represented by open or clandestine political parties, many of them ready to bring armies or militias into existence once Hussein's government was knocked over by the U.S. Not exactly a foundation for a pluralistic democracy to flourish within six months to a year.

We could have, possibly, flat-out conquered Iraq, if we put sufficient resources and effort into it. We conquered Germany. We didn't go in to "liberate the people of Germany from Adolf Hitler." They were the enemy. We conquered their land, we established our armed forces as THE source of law and order. We called the shots. Nothing moved on any large scale unless we said so. We set up military occupation zones. THEN we picked those we wanted, and established them as the nucleus of a new, more or less democratic, German government. They set up elections that elected the government we appointed.

In Iraq, we went in "to liberate the people of Iraq." So, we had to deal with whichever Iraqi politicians and would-be politicians came out of the woodwork to say "Here we are to represent the people of Iraq." Our legacy may be an Islamic Republic. It might be Shia, aligned with Iran. It might be Sunni, aligned with al-Qaeda, or hostile to al-Qaeda. Whatever we leave behind, whenever we leave, it will not be a free, happy, prosperous, democratic nation. We are already being undermined by our own Iraqi allies. Aside from wanting our troops to die for them, they would like us to get out of their way as soon as possible.

The best thing for the United States about a Shia-led Islamic Republic is that bin Laden and Zarkawi despise the Shia, as heretics to Islam. They love each other the way the Spanish Inquisition loved Dutch Protestants, or the way Sir Francis Drake loved the Spanish Armada. Under Shia rule, Iraq will not be open to use by al-Qaeda as its base, but it won't remain close to U.S. policy either. That is about what we had to deal with when Hussein al-Takriti was running Iraq. Back where we started from, with over 2000 dead.

Murtha is correct: our armed forces have done everything that has been asked of them, that could be asked of them. Our soldiers are doing their job superbly, but our nation is not willing to make real sacrifices to back them up. Oh, there are many Americans collecting videos and DVDs for the troops, putting together care packages, sending emails to encourage them. All very good. But how many people have volunteered to give up half of their tax cuts, to buy the troops armor? Yellow ribbons don't stop explosives.

When American forces started moving into Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh said that as American soldiers came home dead, American mothers would want to know why. He knew that there was nothing going on in Vietnam which would pose a serious threat to Aberdeen, South Dakota. It took some time for most Americans to recognize that. As with the Iraq war today, civilians didn't have to share the sacrifices being made by the troops on the front lines. In the end, we weren't willing to make any real sacrifices to win.

The Republican leadership correctly says that we may suffer some losses in the war against al Qaeda if we pull out of Iraq. But they cannot inspire themselves, much less their constituents, to actually commit to do what it would take to win. It would require money – but we won't raise taxes to pay the bill. It would take a mobilization of troops – but we can't get that many volunteers, and we won't support a draft. It would take industrial output and massive overtime – but we depend for our industrial goods on China, Korea, and other nations that cannot be mobilized for our war effort as American industry was mobilized for World War II.

All of this should have been considered before we went into Iraq at all. If we had never invaded, Iraq would not be the free-fire zone for al-Qaeda that it has become. Saddam Hussein was brutal, ruthless, self-centered. So are most of the likely future leaders of Iraq, those we have brought to power. Saddam Hussein was a mortal enemy of Osama bin-Laden, who called his regime socialists and apostates. Now, Iraq is wide open for al-Qaeda, because we took Hussein out, and we cannot keep al-Qaeda out.

We should not have gone into Iraq unless we were either prepared to conquer the country, which would not have come cheap, or we had reliable allies to fight for, who could govern the country successfully. We didn't have any allies worth fighting for, but our president sold us on a cheap and easy war. There used to be an argument that "I opposed going in, but now that we are there, we have to finish the job. It would be even worse if we pulled out." It is becoming clear that we can never "finish the job," no matter how long we stay, and the longer we delay, the worse it will become.

And so, the Bush administration have shown themselves to be that classic Maoist cliche, a paper tiger. Rep. Murtha is more than correct to say of Vice-President Cheney, of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done." Murtha knows from personal experience what it takes to fight a war, what it takes out of the men and women on the front lines, and what it takes to win. Nobody in the Bush administration has a clue.