Cretinism vs. Evilution: young earth creationism

Showing posts with label young earth creationism. Show all posts

Who is the "Lord of the Flies"? Satan or God?

Who is the "Lord of the Flies"? Satan or God?

Martin Luther's View

The father of Protestant Christianity, Martin Luther, thought flies were noxious, sent by the devil to vex him when reading. He may have gotten that idea from the New Testament, where "Satan" is connected with "Beelzebub" - from the Hebrew, "baal-zevuv," meaning literally, "lord of the flies." Of course, I'm not sure if calling Satan "lord of the flies" was originally meant as more of an insult to flies or to Satan.

Needless to say, Luther saw "Satan" lurking everywhere. According to Luther, "Snakes and monkeys are subjected to the demon more than other animals. Satan lives in them and possesses them. He uses them to deceive men and to injure them..."

"Demons are in woods, in waters, in wildernesses, and in dark pooly places ready to hurt and prejudice people; some are also in thick black clouds, which cause hail, lightning and thunder, and poison the air, the pastures and grounds..."

"In my country, upon a mountain called Polterberg, there is a pool. If one throws a stone into it, instantly a storm arises and the whole surrounding countryside is overwhelmed by it. This lake is full of demons; Satan holds them captive there..."

"How often have not the demons called `Nix,' drawn women and girls into the water, and there had commerce with them, With fearful consequences."

"I myself saw and touched at Dessay, a child...which had no human parents, but had proceeded from the Devil. He was twelve years old, and, in outward form, exactly resembled ordinary children." [Editor's note: Referring to children that were believed to have been produced as the result of "commerce" with the devil.]

"A large number of deaf, crippled and blind people are afflicted solely through the malice of the demon. And one must in no wise doubt that plagues, fevers and every sort of evil come from him..." [Editor's note: Boy that Satan, what a designer! He must work longer hours than God! See the section above, "Why We Believe in a Designer," for examples of what Luther might have called "Satan's handiwork."]

"Our bodies are always exposed to the attacks of Satan. The maladies I suffer are not natural, but Devil's spells..."

"Satan produces all the maladies which afflict mankind for he is the prince of death..." [Editor's note: So, who needs antibiotics, or modern sanitation and health and building practices? We just need more good Christian exorcists to heal "all the maladies which afflict mankind."]

"As for the demented, I hold it certain that all beings deprived of reason are thus afflicted only by the Devil..."

[All the above are from the collection of Luther's speeches with his friends, titled, Table Talk, a volume in The Collected Works of Martin Luther]

"I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist..." [Luther, letter to Spalatin, Oct. 10, 1520]

"When I was a child there were many witches, and they bewitched both cattle and men, especially children." [Luther in his Commentary on Galatians]

"I would have no compassion on a witch; I would burn them all." [Luther, Table Talk, a volume in The Collected Works of Martin Luther]

"The heathen writes that the Comet may arise from natural causes; but God creates not one that does not foretoken a sure calamity."
[Luther, Advent Sermon]

For further quotations see Heiko Oberman's acclaimed recent biography, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil

Mark Twain's View

Like Martin Luther, Mark Twain held an opinion of the "fly" that was lower than Lucifer's hooves. Unlike Luther, however, Twain did not give "Satan" the credit for wondrously designing all manner of harmful hateful creatures and natural disasters. Twain didn't think God would have allowed Satan such near-absolute creative license, allowing him to "re-create" the whole of nature. So, concerning the fly, Twain wrote:

"Can we imagine a man [much less a God] inventing the fly, and sending him out on his mission, furnished with these orders: `Depart into the uttermost corners of the earth, and diligently do your appointed work. Persecute the sick child; settle upon its eyes, its face, its hands, and gnaw and pester and sting; worry and fret and madden the worn and tired mother who watches by the child, and who humbly prays for mercy and relief with the pathetic faith of the deceived and the unteachable. Settle upon the soldier's festering wounds in field and hospital and drive him frantic while he also prays, and between times curses, with none to listen but you, Fly, who get all the petting and all the protection, without even praying for it. Harry and persecute the forlorn and forsaken wretch who is perishing of the plague, and in his terror and despair praying; bite, sting, feed upon his ulcers, dabble your feet in his rotten blood, gum them thick with plague-germs - feet cunningly designed and perfected for this function ages ago in the beginning - carrying this freight to a hundred tables, among the just and the unjust, the high and the low, and walk over the food and gaum it with filth and death. Visit all; allow no man peace till he get it in the grave; visit and afflict the hard-worked and unoffending horse, mule, ox, ass, pester the patient cow, and all the kindly animals that labor without fair reward here and perish without hope of it hereafter; spare no creature, wild or tame; but wheresoever you find one, make his life a misery, treat him as the innocent deserve; and so please Me and increase My glory Who made the fly.'" [Twain, "Thoughts of God," early 1900s]

"We approve all God's works, we praise all His works, with a fervent enthusiasm - of words; and in the same moment we kill a fly, which is as much one of His works as any other, and has been included and complimented in our sweeping eulogy. We not only kill the fly, but we do it in a spirit of measureless disapproval - even a spirit of hatred, exasperation, vindictiveness; and we regard that creature with disgust and loathing - which is the essence of contempt - and yet we have just been praising it, approving it, glorifying it. We have been praising it to its Maker, and now our act insults its Maker. The praise was dishonest, the act is honest; the one was a wordy hypocrisy, the other is compact candor...

"We hunt the fly remorselessly; also the flea, the rat, the snake, the disease-germ and a thousand other creatures which He pronounced good, and was satisfied with, and which we loudly praise and approve - with our mouths - and then harry and chase and malignantly destroy, by wholesale." [Twain, "God," 1905]

E. T. BABINSKI

The "Death of Darwinism"

The "Death of Darwinism": Reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated

The "death of Darwinism" has been predicted by at least one scientist or popular journalist every decade since Darwin first proposed his theory. (For that matter, there are still a few college trained individuals today who continue to argue in favor of geocentrism! They are emphatic Bible believers of course. See Cretinism or Evilution?, No. 2)

In Darwin's own day, creationists were predicting that his book would be forgotten "in ten years." Darwin replied, "That may be so, but I don't think the subject [of evolution] will be [forgotten]." (See Cretinism or Evilution No. 1 for the quotation.)

Darwin's theory continues to be supported by recent evidence and by the vast majority of biologists. Take the recent book that details the decades-long study of Darwinian evolution of finches on the Galapagos Islands, The Beak of the Finch: The Story of Evolution in Our Times by Weiner. Or see the recent study of the Darwinian evolution of bacteria and viruses, titled, Why We Get Sick by Nesse and Williams. Or see George C. Williams' Adaptation and Natural Selection. "A beautifully written and excellently reasoned essay in defense of Darwinian selection" -- R. C. Lewontin in a book review in Science magazine.

Without Miracles: Universal Selection Theory and the Second Darwinian Revolution by Gary Cziko (MTT Press, 1995) is another "strictly Darwinian presentation that balances the current attack on evolution."

Some other recent works dealing with Darwinism include:

Evolution and Its Influence: The Herbert Spencer Lectures, 1986, edited by Alan Grafen, "reviews the impact of Darwinism on art, philosophy, sociology, psychology, and other fields."

Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism by James Rachels, "shows how the theory of evolution influenced Darwin's own moral and religious views - especially his concern for the welfare of animals - and describes the controversies that followed in Darwin's wake."

In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought by Carl N. Degler, "offers a history of the impact of Darwinism (and biological research) on our understanding of human nature, providing a fascinating overview of the social sciences in the last one hundred years."

A final word on the French. Modern day French scientists appear to be giving Darwin his due. Presses Universitaires de France has recently published (as of March 1996) a three volume Dictionary of Darwinism and of Evolution, edited by Patrick Tort. A work of 4912 pages, it was composed by an international team of specialists in the biological and human sciences. It will contain "The history of transformism ['transformism' being the French term for 'evolution']; the history of the Darwinian theory of natural selection in particular, as well as of adverse theories; the history of theories developed with reference to Darwinism in the various sectors of biology and the human and social sciences; the history of the influence of these theories on society [on a country by country basis]."

Creationists take note, the French are coming! And the next time you hear a creationist tell you that some French scientist called evolution a "fairy tale for adults," tell him that the University of France Press has just published the Dictionary of Darwinism and of Evolution. Evolution is not a "fairy tale" to French scientists.

Besides which, Jean Rostand, the fellow who said, "Transformism [evolution] is a fairy tale for adults," also wrote that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was also an atheist who would have viewed the Biblical account of creation as a "fairy tale for adults."

E.T. BABINSKI

Looking At How Creationists Quote Evolutionists: The Revised Quote Book

About ten years ago the Creation Science Foundation of Brisbane, Australia, produced The Quote Book, which contained quotations from some mainstream evolutionists, some anti-Darwinists, and a few non-Biblical (“New Age”) creationists, that appeared to raise grave questions regarding the validity of the theory of evolution. Soon afterwards, it was pointed out to the editors of The Quote Book that some of the quotations were “somewhat different from the originals.” The Creation Science Foundation then produced The Revised Quote Book (copyright 1990). And the editors claim they have “Painstakingly checked each reference ... New and better quotations have been added ...

Efforts have been made to replace quotes from older publications with near-identical ones from modern sources ... [and]

Great care has been taken to avoid charges of quoting out of context.

“Great care?” We shall see. In each issue of Cretinism or Evilution? we will examine one or more quotations that appear in The Revised Quote Book, not merely for accuracy of reproduction, but in order to determine their scientific significance and context to see if what each quotation says is what creationists think it says.

Remains of Warm Weather Hippos Have Been Found in the Tundra's Frozen Muck?

Remains of Warm Weather Hippos Have Been Found in the Tundra's Frozen Muck?

While researching the "frozen fruit trees" question, I ran across a second case where statements made in The Waters Above did not accurately reflect original data (and that's putting it mildly):

Along with the fruit tree, the remains of a woolly rhinoceros, a mammoth, and a horse were found by Toll. The warm-weather hippopotamus has also been found in the tundra's frozen muck. (Dillow, The Waters Above, P. 346)

The "tundra," as defined by the Webster's New World Dictionary (2nd College Edition), is "any of the vast, nearly level, treeless plains of the arctic regions." So, naturally, the passage about the "hippopotamus also" being found "in the tundra's frozen muck," seemed intriguing, so I checked the reference that Mr. Dillow gave, which was Karl W. Butzer, Environment and Archeology (Chicago: Aldine, 1964), p. 325. And here is what Mr. Butzer actually wrote:

One of the few animals of possible interest [in ascertaining just how warm certain Interglacial periods may have been] is the hippopotamus, a warm to warm-temperate species requiring perennial waters, and unlikely to be found in seasonally frozen rivers. Interglacial hippos have been recorded from southern Europe, France, England, Germany, and Hungary. Lack of evidence from Scandinavia or eastern Europe may indicate that no radical weather changes in winter temperatures need be assumed. The extinct water buffalo (Buffelus murrensis) found in Germany and the monkey Macaca sylvana ssp. found in different parts of temperate Europe during the Holstein [Interglacial period] may however be more suggestive of warmer conditions.

Mr. Butzer was merely explaining that hippopotamus bones had been found as far north as England (but not as far north as Scandinavia), and that, between times when the glaciers descended, [i.e., "Interglacial periods"], the earth may have been warmer than it is now, but not "tropical or sub-tropical" from pole to pole. Obviously, there is nothing in this passage about hippopotamus bones being found "in the tundra's frozen muck." The Waters Above by Joseph Dillow inaccurately represented what Mr. Butzer originally wrote.

Perhaps (and this is just a guess) Dillow's myth about the hippo was based on an extremely superficial and ignorant reading of the text. For instance, he may have thought that "interglacial" meant that the hippo bones were found "inside a glacier." After having seen the way he misread Digby and Tollmachoff's passages to arrive at a "frozen plum tree, with ripe fruit and green leaves," lying "above the Arctic Circle," one can only wonder at how Dillow's mind works.

E.T. BABINSKI

The Immensity of Space and Time

Geocentrism, young-earth creationism and the immensity of space and time

Young-earth creationists like Henry Morris and others at the Institute for Creation Research, are not geocentrists. They ignore or downplay the "scientific implications" of geocentric passages in the Bible. And they completely accept the Copernican theory of heliocentrism along with Newton's theory of gravity. They leave the movements and the cosmic location of the earth up to modern science to dictate. This must prove embarrassing since in the modern cosmos the earth lies merely at the periphery of one arm of the Milky Way galaxy, a spiral galaxy of stars, not unlike hundreds of millions of such galaxies. And, since young-earth creationists accept the earth as a planet circling a star in a galaxy of billions of stars, with a billion more galaxies out there, then they shouldn't recoil at the evidence of the earth's age being measured in similarly vast numbers. For if young-earth creationists can accept the immensity of space, the immensity of time should come as no surprise.

Of course, young-earth creationists try to argue that the ancient Hebrews "understood" the "height" of the stars and the immensity of space. They cite verses like the following:

1) "Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?" (Job 11:7-8)

REPLY TO 1: Notice in this psalm that the height of heaven is compared with the depth of hell. Yet the Hebrews believed that hell (or sheol, the land of the dead) was in the depths of the earth beneath their feet. By modern standards, comparing the depths of the earth with the distance to even the nearest star is nonsensical. That they seemed "equal" enough to be compared by the ancient Hebrews is no argument for the Bible's "scientific accuracy."

2) "Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars, how high they are!" (Job 22:12)

REPLY T0 2: Well, the "heavens" certainly looked "high" to the psalmist, just as they do to modern man, but to say that the ancients had any idea of how "high" modern astronomers believe the "heavens" are is another matter.

It must be remembered that to the ancient Hebrews even the heights of the "clouds" appeared so exalted that they compared them with the "heights" of God's "truth." While today we fly above the clouds in jet aircraft." For Thy lovingkindness is great to the heavens, And Thy truth to the clouds." (Ps. 57:10)

Or compare Ps. 103:11-12, "For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us." How "high" are these heavens, which are mentioned right beside "how far the east is from the west?" In modern scientific terms, such distances hardly ought to be mentioned right beside each other, unless, of course, the ancient Hebrews believed they were in some way equally exalted, or the "highest heights" and "longest distances" they could imagine.

Such heavenly "heights" obviously are not as "high" as today's astronomers say they are. (Nor is the distance "from the east to the west" the wisest analogy to use to illustrate the "separation of one's sins," since we know we live on a globe where traveling "east" long enough eventually brings you back to where you started.)

Similarly, Ps. 139:8-9 draws a parallel between the distance from heaven (above) to sheol (below), and the distance from the dawn's first rays to the remotest part of the sea. It would seem that such "exalted" distances are being compared in the mind of the ancient Hebrew. However modern astronomy states that the distance from heaven to earth is inconceivably larger than the mere distance from the dawn on the horizon to the remotest part of the sea lying on the opposite horizon. Such examples clearly illustrate that the ancient Hebrews simply had no scientific idea concerning the true "height" of the stars. They did not know what the modern cosmos was all about.

3) "[Can] the heavens above be measured?" (Jer. 31:37)

REPLY TO 3: The phrase, "cannot be measured," refers in Hebrew to any great height, or number of finite things that no one would dream of measuring or counting one by one:

"As the host of heaven cannot be counted, and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David" (Jer. 33:22) Actually, the "descendants of David" total an incredibly smaller number than the presently estimated number of stars in the cosmos, but to the Hebrews both sets of numbers appeared equally exalted, equally "immeasurable."

"Joseph stored up grain in great abundance like the sand of the sea, until he stopped measuring it, for it was beyond measure."
(Gen. 41:49)

Thus, the number of stars and the height of the heavens appeared "immeasurable" to the ancient Hebrews since they obviously had no way of measuring such things. now could money know that two thousand years hence we would develop methods of measuring the "height" of clouds, the moon, the sun, and the stars. To them, they were all equally Immeasurable" and "exalted."

4) "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and one stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou are mindful of him?" (Ps. 8:3-4)

REPLY TO 4: Young-earth creationists cite this verse as "proof" that the ancient Hebrews felt lost and small in the cosmos "just like modern man." But the point is merely relative. Of course the cosmos felt "immense" to the ancients, just as it does to modern man. The difference is that today we know relatively how much more immense it really is. And we don't make the same mistakes as the ancients, like comparing "God's truth" merely to the "height of the clouds." Neither do we believe, along with the ancients(including the ancient Hebrews), that climbing a mountain brings us literally nearer to God. (See article in this issue, "The Holy Heavens.")

E T. BABINSKI

"Those little earth-centered, heaven-encrusted universes of the Greeks and Hebrews seem quaint enough to us, who have formed, thought by thought from within, the immense modern Cosmos in which we live-planned in such immeasurable proportions, and moved by so pitiless a mechanism, that it sometimes appalls even its own creators. The rush of the great rotating sun daunts us; to think to the distance of the fixed stars cracks our brains. But if man, the ephemeral being who has imagined these eternal spheres and spaces must dwell almost as an alien in their icy vastness, yet what a splendor lights up for him and dazzles in those great halls! Anything less limitless would be now a prison..."

- Logan Pearsal Smith, "Empty Shells" from All Trivia

Who is the "Lord of the Flies"? Satan or God?

Further Reading

The "Death of Darwinism"

Looking At How Creationists Quote Evolutionists: The Revised Quote Book

Remains of Warm Weather Hippos Have Been Found in the Tundra's Frozen Muck?

The Immensity of Space and Time