10 Reasons Christians Shouldn’t Believe In Creationism

creation museum

#1 – Believing In Creationism Means Believing God Is Liar

According to the book of Psalms, nature reveals God’s glory and God’s handiwork. In other words, we can look at nature and discern how God created. Science has done this and discovered that nature reveals a God who created through evolution. So, if nature reveals evolutionary mechanisms at work, but God really created everything in six literal days, but chose to deceive the very people God endowed with scientific wisdom and understanding by displaying evolutionary forces at work in nature, then God is a trickster and a liar. In that case, the God of creationism is not the God of the Bible.


#2 – Creationism Turns God Into A Sinner

Speaking of nature, creationists would have you believe that contrary to the laws of nature, God created everything instantly. There’s a word for this sort of action which breaks the known laws of science. We call it “magic” or “witchcraft”.  According to Deuteronomy 18, however, practicing witchcraft or magic of any kind is a sin. To be a creationist, then, you must believe that God is a sinner.


#3 – Creationism Prefers Incest

Speaking of sin, creationists get really upset about the idea that humanity shares common ancestry with apes. Instead, they argue that everyone descended from one man, Adam, and one woman, Eve. If that is true, then we are all the products of incest. However, according to Leviticus 18 incest is a sin. If that passage from the Bible is true, then creationism is founded upon sin. (Monkeys, on the other hand, are not sinful.)


#4 – Creationism Is Probably Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit

If, according to John 16, it is that the Holy Spirit that guides our minds to the truth, and the Spirit has helped our minds discern the truth of evolution, yet creationism requires us to reject that truth, then creationism, by extension, also requires us to reject the Holy Spirit. Sounds a lot like the unforgivable sin of  ”blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” to me.


#5 – Creationism Is Un-Christlike

Christianity is all about restoration and reconciliation. It’s about uniting creation back to its Creator. Evolution supports this effort as it claims that all life on planet Earth is fundamentally connected. Creationism, on the other hand, argues that all plants, animals, and people on Earth, being created on separate days, are fundamentally disconnected from one another, thus furthering the division in the world which Jesus came to heal. Therefore, evolution is more Christlike than creationism.


#6 – Creationism Is Anti-God

If the majesty of creation tells us anything about God, it’s that God is all about beauty. The Creation Museum, however, is tacky and cheesy, both of which are the opposite of beauty. To be the opposite of something is to be its antithesis. Therefore, since beauty comes from God and (as we learn from looking at The Creation Museum) creationism is anti-beauty, then it is also anti-God.


#7 – Believing In Creationism Requires You To Be A Hypocrite

According to creationists we must believe in a literal six day creation because everything in the Bible must be understood literally. If that is true, then Jesus’ command to cut off your hands or gouge out your eyes if they cause you to sin must also be taken literally. Since there are no creationists in the world who take these commands literally, creationism must be grounded in hypocrisy in order to work. However, in Matthew 6, Jesus says “don’t be like the hypocrites.”


#8 – Creationism is Anti-Bible

The Bible is all about long journeys with God: 40 days on the ark, 40 years in the wilderness, 400 years in Egypt, etc. Evolution is a big supporter of really long journeys. Creationism, on the other hand, wants things to happen instantly and then be over with. If the goal of Christianity is to spend not just billions of years, but eternity with God, then creationism’s emphasis on getting things with God finished quickly seems to be anti-Bible.


#9 – Believing In Creationism Means Rejecting God

If Colossians 1:16 is correct that through God all things in heaven and earth were created and science is a thing on the earth, then it is something God created. Therefore, when creationists reject science and the theory of evolution, they are in fact rejecting God’s creation and therefore God. Vice versa, when we embrace science we are in fact embracing both God and God’s creation.


#10 – Creationism Means The Flintstones Is Actually A Documentary

Finally, creationists argue that dinosaurs and man lived side by side. If that is true, then The Flintstones is the most historically accurate portrayal we have of prehistoric life. While Fred, Wilma, and Dino are great, the church has enough credibility problems as it is. Trying to get science classes to use The Flintstones as part of their curriculum will only hinder the furthering of the gospel message. If we really want to spread the gospel, then we’ll have to let Barney and Bam-Bam remain on The Cartoon Network.

 

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

 

FROM THE VAULT: As I’m always welcoming new people to the blog I sometimes like to revisit an old post or two that sparked a good conversation, but may have been missed by those who weren’t around when it was originally posted. This post originally appeared early last year and is an homage to this brilliant post about why men should not be ordained.

  • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

    Thank you for the opportunity for a few chuckles this morning, Zack. Although, in my opinion, “The Flinstones” has more of a right to be called a documentary than Ray Comfort’s “Evolution vs. God.” At least Fred, Wilma and the rest of the gang don’t try to bizarrely contort the gospel message into a scientific question.

    You and I obviously hold similar views regarding young-earth creationism. If you don’t mind me posting a few links to my own site, I would add to the list that young-earthism makes God into a monster (because it gives him direct credit for the nastiest parts of the natural world), makes God stupid (because he can’t even share the literal history of his own creation without contradicting himself almost immediately), and makes faith meaningless (because the evidence “really” supports the young-earth view, you know, if you view it through the “correct lens”).

  • Jeff Bys

    Zack, while I find in general that I disagree with you more than I agree with you…I find most of your posts to be very well thought out and clear. This one, however, on most points is not very clear on why I should believe what you are saying. There just is not much substance behind your claims.

    For instance, in point #1 you claim that to believe in creationism, you must believe God is a liar because science has revealed God created through evolution. However, there is no hard evidence that I am aware of that we can say, absolutely…macro evolution has taken place. And, you have not offered us any hard evidence to even consider. The reality is, there are still assumptions made that the theory of evolution rests on that have not been proven or observed.

    In point #2, you appear to be making the claim that if God operates outside of the known laws of nature, then that would make him a sinner. A couple things here…would you also say Jesus was a sinner when He performed miracles or is it your point of view he did not perform miracles? And, if the laws of nature cannot be broken, how do you explain everything coming from nothing when we know that matter cannot be created or destroyed?

    In point #7, I’ve never heard of any creationist who believes that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally in the way that you seem to imply.

    That is just a few things that stood out to me here…and as I am sure you know, you’re not really saying anything here that has never been said before….there’s nothing new under the sun. I suppose you posted this more for reaction and discussion rather than trying to persuade anyone to believe what you believe. But I will say, from my point of view, this comes across with the same sort of egotistical mantra that I always seem to find from those who hold a macro-evolution point of view. You come across as saying evolution is hard fact and anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot and should be laughed at.

    • ZackHunt

      Did you click on the link in the introduction?

      • Jeff Bys

        I did not realize there was a link there until after I had posted.

        • Jeff Bys

          Forgive me, but having read the link, I’m not sure I fully understand the connection. Do you mind explaining? Thanks!

          • John Z

            Jeff,

            I think what he is saying is that his post is satire just like the one he linked to.

          • Jeff Bys

            I got that it was satire…just not sure what the point in posting this was. Was it to poke fun at some of the weak arguments against creationism or was it to poke fun of creationists? Or both…?

  • tentativecynic

    So I’ve been following you on Twitter for a while now, and I’ve liked most of what you’ve posted. This, however, just seemed a little bland.
    I was raised a fundamentalist creationist and have since rejected it quite thoroughly. But I don’t find these points to be interesting or even really very humorous…they just seem like a lazy satire, on a level with a lot of really bad creationist arguments.
    1. All the serious creationists I’ve ever known are certain that nature doesn’t “reveal evolutionary mechanisms at work”, but that it is more consistent with a young-earth interpretation. While there may still be a few people spouting the “God made fossils to test our faith” line, it’s by no means the standard interpretation. So, no: as false as creationism may be, it doesn’t entail belief that God is a liar or a deceiver; serious creationists actively combat explanations along those lines.
    2. This is just farcical. God can’t alter the laws of nature? Just seems like really lazy satire here.
    3. Is there some reason you’d expect creationists to give more credence to levitical laws than others? As they are quick to point out, Abram was married to his half-sister.
    4. This one is a real stretch. The idea that the Holy Spirit guides the minds of people to the truth of scientific propositions is straight out of the fundamentalist prooftexter’s playbook.
    5. I can see where one might make this argument, but it’s tenuous at best. Jesus didn’t personally redeem the souls of animals (at least, I don’t think he did), so it’s kind of a stretch.
    6. Haha, not-so-subtle jab, yada yada. When it comes to museum exhibits, the Creation Museum (initially) did a fairly good job. Cheesy? Maybe. Tacky? Not so much.
    7. “According to creationists we must believe in a literal six day creation because everything in the Bible must be understood literally.” Okay, now you aren’t even trying to hide the ridiculousness of the caricature.
    8. Nice philosophical pondering, maybe, but a meaningful reason? Nah.
    9. By this logic, rejecting creationism also means rejecting God, because creationism is a thing on Earth and God created all things in heaven and earth. Woo.
    10. This one is funny, but horribly played out. Original material, please?
    Sarcasm, satire, and ridicule can be powerful rhetorical tools, but when you use grotesque caricatures that don’t even come close to the thing you’re trying to poke fun at, you’re the one who comes off like a tool. Sorry, but it’s true. There are plenty of ways to gently mock creationism without resorting to this kind of drivel.

  • daryl carpenter

    Whilst it’s great that Christians accept evolution, I struggle to see how the theory can be squared with the idea of a loving and benevolent God. Evolution through the mechanism of natural selection is a wasteful and pitiless process that has involved monumental amounts of pain, suffering and death for sentient life-forms over millions and millions of years. If God chose this method for unveiling the glory of his creation, then he’s either not all-powerful or he’s an unfathomable sadist that makes the Marquis de Sade seem positively compassionate and lovely by comparison.

    I can’t help thinking that theistic evolution is making theological virtue out of scientific necessity. Intelligent Christians rightly don’t want anything to do with the rabid anti-intellectualism of the Ken Hams and Kent Hovinds of this world, but they may not fully realise the implications of accepting a modern scientific understanding of life’s origins on earth. It goes without saying that the ToE potentially throws an enormous spanner in the works of things like Adam and Eve (who the ToE shows could not possibly be historical), Original Sin and the need for Christ’s act of redemption. I do understand there are other allegorical and theological readings of these issues that seek to mitigate the problems, but I’m not sure they assuage the potential difficulties Evolution causes for traditional Christian doctrine.

    Daryl

    • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

      Hey Daryl, I’m a Christian who accepts the theory of evolution and common descent, and I’d like to offer a brief response to your first point, if I may. I wonder if Christians who use this as an argument against evolution ever realize the irony of the fact that atheists and agnostics have been using the existence of the exact same things (death, pain, suffering, etc. in the natural world) as evidence that God is not good, not powerful, or not existent for hundreds of years? Quite simply, you’re looking at creation like an atheist.

      There is absolutely no evidence in the Bible that humans and animals were incapable of physical death or suffering before the fall. Read that again if you need to. Gen. 1:29? It says green plants are a gift from God. It doesn’t say animals eating meat is forbidden. God saying creation is “very good”? Nuh uh. Clearly, he couldn’t have that much of a problem with death, since it’s here now, in spades. So he is either incapable of foreknowledge, or he accepted the existence of death being part of his creation in order to facilitate a greater good.

      I think grandeur can indeed be seen in viewing the evolutionary process as an instrument of God. It shows how he is able to bring new life out of death, out of even the worst catastrophes, like mass extinctions. This is a very Christian theme. It also shows his incredible wisdom and immense creativity. It shows the high value he places on novelty, freedom, and life forms capable of replication and adaptation rather than stagnation.

      In light of evolution, we get some sense of the glory of God’s mystery and the complexity of his power (e.g., consider how, when Job asks God why he did something, God asks if he thinks he could understand the answer). We see his devotion to his creations, that he is not a God who created strict kinds and abandoned them to a corrupted world, to fend for themselves, fight each other and go extinct in many cases. He is a God who created life, and over countless ages perfected it into countless forms, all the while imbuing the initial forms with such a gift that no catastrophe has ever managed to extinguish it.

      And finally, in evolution we see that (quite the contrary of your previous assertion), God takes joy in life. In Job and the Psalms, God revels in the power of his creation. I do not believe he spent 4 billion years twiddling his thumbs and waiting for humans to play with. He exulted in the fearsome and terrible power of the dinosaurs, the simple majesty of the trilobite, and sang with the first blossom of a flower, nearly 130 million years ago.

      This post is long enough so I won’t try to address your other theological points here. You are quite correct that accepting the theory of evolution must cause us to rethink certain aspects of our theology, like Adam and Eve and the idea of original sin. But the bottom line is that that is sort of irrelevant to the matter at hand. If evolution happened (and the evidence does indicate that it did), then it happened, regardless of what it does to our theology. The church had to rethink what it thought the Bible teaches about the setup of the universe when Copernicus and Galileo showed that the earth revolves around the sun.

      • http://www.faithmeetsworld.com/ Rob Grayson

        Brilliant comment, Tyler. As someone who used to be firmly anti-evolution but who no longer knows quite where I stand, you’ve given me much to chew on.

        • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

          Thank you, Rob! I do hope it was helpful in some way. It is certainly a complicated issue.

      • daryl carpenter

        Hi Tyler

        Thanks for your response. I few thoughts on them:

        Quite simply, you’re looking at creation like an atheist.

        That’s probably because I am. If I gave the impression I was a Young Earth Creationist I obviously didn’t make myself very clear, for which I apologise.

        There is absolutely no evidence in the Bible that humans and animals were incapable of physical death or suffering before the fall.

        Doesn’t the bible say that sin, and therefore death, entered the world through Adam’s transgression? This is what Paul seems to be saying in Romans 5:12-19. Also 1 Corinthians 15:21 – ‘For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.’

        As Paul is THE major Christian apostle, I would suggest what he says is more important to Christian thinking than what’s stated in Genesis, and Paul seems to think death didn’t exist before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.

        Whether the bible says or doesn’t say that animals would suffer death before the fall is open to debate. But if God did indeed mean that animal death was always in his plans, how does that get God off the hook? He’s still allowing vast amounts of suffering, which he could lessen if he were all-powerful.

        … he accepted the existence of death being part of his creation in order to facilitate a greater good.

        Death facilitates a greater good? What’s that then? Death is incredibly upsetting for people involved in it. It’s sad and horrible. Is it somehow supposed to be character building? If God is allowing such a thing, I can’t see how he can be considered benevolent.

        Now obviously if one is a Christian, all this suffering is going to be alleviated by heaven, where God will wipe away every tear, etc. But even if that’s what’s going to happen (and that’s a big IF), why go through this life in the first place? Or is this just more character building stuff?

        This is a very Christian theme. It also shows his incredible wisdom and immense creativity. It shows the high value he places on novelty, freedom, and life forms capable of replication and adaptation rather than stagnation.

        If that wisdom and creativity involves a huge amount suffering I’d much rather prefer that God was an unimaginative dolt. His creativity comes at an enormous price.

        And finally, in evolution… we see that God takes joy in life. In Job and the Psalms, God revels in the power of his creation… He exulted in the fearsome and terrible power of the dinosaurs, the simple majesty of the trilobite, and sang with the first blossom of a flower, nearly 130 million years ago.

        The bible gives no indication of God doing these things. I would question the legitimacy of reading such matters into an ancient text that displayed no knowledge of dinosaurs or trilobites.

        Also, God didn’t show much joy when drowning the world in Genesis 6, did he? But then, if one accepts evolution one can’t possibly accept the global flood as comporting to a real historical event, can they? With this in mind, why should one accept God’s words in Job and the Psalms as any more reliable? Aren’t all these sources labouring under a pre-scientific misunderstanding of the world?

        Oh, and if you’re going to give God the credit for nice things like flowers, you should also attribute the less pleasant aspects of creation to him, such as birth defects, natural disasters and small children dying of bone cancer and Aids. That seems only fair.

        A final thought. Perhaps these questions have nothing to do with how we interpret the bible. Perhaps there’s a chance that bible is simply wrong, and no amount of reinterpretation of it can hide this uncomfortable fact?

        Daryl

        • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

          That’s probably because I am. If I gave the impression I was a Young Earth Creationist I obviously didn’t make myself very clear, for which I apologise.

          LOL, no, the apology needs to be mine. I should have read your comment more closely. I am used to debating literalists on this matter and I made a foolish presumption. Please forgive me.

          Doesn’t the bible say that sin, and therefore death, entered the world through Adam’s transgression? This is what Paul seems to be saying in Romans 5:12-19. Also 1 Corinthians 15:21 – ‘For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.’

          Yes, the Bible does say that. My opinion is that Paul is talking about spiritual — not physical — death. Notice what he also says in Romans 7:9, “Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.” Paul is obviously not dead when he is writing Romans 7:9 (unless perhaps he’s a zombie), so it seems he is talking about a different kind of death in his letters. Also, notice Romans 5:12, which you mentioned before: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” If we’re talking about physical death here, it would seem to imply one is not capable of dying until one sins. Which would seem to imply babies can’t die, and that the Muslims are right about the crucifixion (that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross that day) and Christians like me are wrong.

          Whether the bible says or doesn’t say that animals would suffer death before the fall is open to debate. But if God did indeed mean that animal death was always in his plans, how does that get God off the hook?

          Believe me, I do hear what you’re saying here. I know how hard it is to believe that a God who is both benevolent and all-powerful would allow such suffering in the natural world, and I do confess that I don’t (and probably can’t) fully understand the reasons why.

          The one thought that I have had is that much of animals’ lives are actually centered around the fact that they will die: seeking a mate, raising young, hunting and eating (or evading predators), building a burrow/nest/den/etc. None of those things, for example, would really be possible or necessary in a world without death. So just maybe, the chance to live a full life (by an animal’s standards) is worth the price of death that makes it possible?

          Death facilitates a greater good? What’s that then? Death is incredibly upsetting for people involved in it. It’s sad and horrible. Is it somehow supposed to be character building? If God is allowing such a thing, I can’t see how he can be considered benevolent.

          Again, these are good, hard questions. Death certainly is a traumatic thing to go through, and I would not wish my comments to be seen as attempting to minimize that in any way.

          I will say that, in my own life, the trivial amount of suffering and pain I have experienced has enabled me to better recognize the gifts that are joy and peace. I do feel that, in some ways, I can thank God for the ways I’ve suffered, because he’s used them to motivate me toward good and more selfless ends than what I may have chosen on my own.

          I, of course, have not experienced the immense pain and suffering and loss that others have, and I would not pretend to understand what that’s like. Indeed, I believe the Christian’s calling is not to attempt to explain away people’s pain and suffering, but to come alongside them and comfort them. To even suffer at their sides, if possible. As Romans 12:15 says, “Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.”

          That’s what Jesus did. He did not explain why things are the way they are as it pertains to death, but he did come down and suffer pain and death beside us.

          The bible gives no indication of God doing these things. I would question the legitimacy of reading such matters into an ancient text that displayed no knowledge of dinosaurs or trilobites.

          I wasn’t attempting to say the Bible does say anything about trilobites or dinosaurs. But it does clearly show God reveling in the creation of the animals the biblical authors were aware of, so I don’t think it’s a great leap to say he would also revel in the lives of their ancestors.

          But then, if one accepts evolution one can’t possibly accept the global flood as comporting to a real historical event, can they?

          No, I don’t think they can. But I do believe there is ample evidence within the text that Noah’s flood is intended to be understood as a local event, not a global one. To give just one example, the Hebrew words used in the flood account (“kol erets”) are almost always used to refer to local geography or people, not the entire sphere of the earth. There actually was a Hebrew word that always referred to the entire sphere of the earth (“tebel”). It’s used throughout Genesis 1, but interestingly, it does not appear once in the flood account.

          But in my view, whether the flood was local, or global, or even happened at all, the point is to convey a deep theological truth about God’s perspective on human sin.

          Perhaps there’s a chance that bible is simply wrong, and no amount of reinterpretation of it can hide this uncomfortable fact?

          You are free to think however you like, Daryl. But my studies of the Bible have not compelled me to think it is “simply wrong.” I’m certain that I’m wrong about many things, but I do believe my interpretations of the matters as we’ve been discussing them are reasonable and supported by the textual evidence.

          Thanks so much for your thoughts.
          Tyler

          • daryl carpenter

            Hi Tyler

            Thanks for your comments. Just a quick question on your interpretation of the flood. I thought the reason for God for sending the waters was to wipe out the sinful human race (all except Noah and his immediate family). This couldn’t really be the case if the flood was only local (unless the entire world’s population was only centred in the Mesopotamian area at the time). Therefore I can’t really see this as the writer’s original intention in constructing the narrative. It seems a rationalization to explain away the author’s (actually ‘authors’ plural; there are probably two different flood narritives spliced together in Genesis) ignorance of just how big the world is and how much water it would take to cover the highest mountains, something an inspired writer should have been much more clued in on.

            But I would kind of agree that most flood stories from the ancient world (of which there are many) are probably just local floods that have been exaggerated. The one found in the bible seems very similar to the Epic of Gilgamesh, a narrative that predates it by centuries, if not millennia. This story, I suggest, holds a profound theological truth as well.

          • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

            Hey Daryl! The interesting thing about the flood narrative is how much it can be affected by the reader’s (and the translator’s) preconceived notions. If one reads or translates it already believing a global flood is being discussed, then they will find much support for their position. The thing is, if one approaches it believing that only a local flood is being discussed, it reads just as well.

            I think if someone wanted to read the story as regarding a local flood, it would have occurred at a time when most, if not all, of humanity was concentrated in Mesopotamia. (Notice that one of the NT verses that mentions the flood, 2 Peter 3:6 refers not to the entire world, but “the world that then existed.”) The men and women who were living in that particular area greatly angered God and so he judged them and destroyed them.

            Whether you read it as global or local or even a myth on par with Genesis 1-3, the main theological point remains the same: that human sin grieves the heart of God and is something he deems worthy of the gravest of punishments.

          • daryl carpenter

            Hi Tyler

            Sorry if I misunderstand you, but are you saying that most of the world’s population WAS situated in Mesopotamia at the time? Is that really true? I’m pretty sure there were lots of other people living in other parts of the world. China, South America, etc.

            human sin grieves the heart of God and is something he deems worthy of the gravest of punishments.

            It is casual statements like this that make it impossible for me to worship such a god and to hope sincerely such a being doesn’t exist anywhere in the universe. Not only does this god drown men, women and children for the rather vague reason of being sinful (honestly, would this ‘sinfulness’ truly require a horrible, slow death by drowning?), he later regrets his actions (and just how does an omniscient god regret anything?) and places a rainbow in the sky as an aide-memoire to remind him to never fly off the handle and kill everyone again in the future!

            Whether one swallows the Flood and Noah story whole, or says that it’s an inspired fictive story that nevertheless contains the very nature and will of the one true God, I have to question why anyone should worship such an incompetent, cosmic bungler. I mean, really, with a god like this, who really needs a devil?

          • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

            Hey Daryl!

            Sorry if I misunderstand you, but are you saying that most of the world’s population WAS situated in Mesopotamia at the time? Is that really true?

            That was just speculation on my part. I thought the area was known as “the cradle of civilization” and there was a point in history where most of the human population was concentrated there, but I’m not an expert in the matter.

            Not only does this god drown men, women and children for the rather vague reason of being sinful (honestly, would this ‘sinfulness’ truly require a horrible, slow death by drowning?)

            That was a poor choice of words on my part. I did not mean to convey something vague or inconsequential like lying or disobeying one’s parents. Genesis 6:5 reveals the state of the people that brought the wrath of God and it says, “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

            It doesn’t go into much detail, but I think we can imagine that people whose thoughts are only evil, all the time, probably were doing pretty horrendous things.

            he later regrets his actions (and just how does an omniscient god regret anything?) and places a rainbow in the sky as an aide-memoire to remind him to never fly off the handle and kill everyone again in the future!

            I don’t think the Bible actually says he “regretted” his actions with the flood, though I’d certainly be open to correction. It does say that he vowed to never again wipe out life with a flood, which could imply regret, I suppose, but I don’t think it necessarily has to. It does say in Gen 6, however, that he “regretted” making mankind because of how evil we had become. I don’t know what to make of it exactly. It could be, perhaps, hyperbolic language, or the limitations of human words in explaining a being as complex as God.

  • Dan Jensen

    Hey Mr. Hunt, my name is Dan Jensen. I know my comment does not pertain to your post, but I figured this would be the best way to try to contact you.

    From time to time I respond to different blog posts because I
    feel God has called me to be an apologist and polemicist and I believe
    there is great need for this today. One of the blogs I frequented quite
    often was that of Mrs. Rachel Held Evans because I believe she is
    advocating many dangerous doctrines and she is becoming increasingly
    popular, especially among younger Americans interested in a new form of
    Christianity. I’ll admit that I can be relentless in my pursuit of the
    truth sometimes, but I was always very respectful, albeit firm, in my
    interactions on her blog. Unfortunately, after a while she no longer
    allowed me to comment. I’m sure at first blush that will make me sound
    like I am a nasty person, but I really was always respectful on her blog
    despite the fact that many were not respectful to me in return.

    With all of that said, I haven’t frequented her blog too much since
    my banishment, but I was recently directed to your article on that blog
    and I read it. I was very concerned by what you wrote because you
    implied that people like myself were resurrecting an old heresy and that
    we were on some level advocating lies. I do find it very ironic, and I
    often pointed this out on Evans’ blog to the great consternation of
    many of those who participate on her site quite often, that I and those
    similar to me were often accused of being judgmental, arrogant, etc.,
    when in point of fact I rarely use such language and when I do it is
    always carefully and respectfully defended. But that aside, I felt like
    I needed to say something as your treatment of the subject was one of
    the most shallow and misleading things I’ve read in quite some time.
    And as a graduate student at Yale Divinity School, you should know
    better.

    Almost any time I give my credentials I feel like I am bragging and
    at times on Evans’ blog and on others I was accused of this very thing.
    So usually I just try to leave them out, but what usually happens is
    that because I am so conservative, whenever I interact with those with a
    more liberal or progressive bent they almost always assume that I am a
    fundamentalist that has read a little here and there and is trying his
    best to enter the theological world. This often leads to a lot of
    unnecessary conversation because so many assumptions are being made. So
    because of your background I feel that it is best to at the outset give
    my credentials so that we can meaningfully dialogue if you are open. I
    have a BA from Bethany College in Social Science with a minor in
    Biblical/Theological Studies, an MA in Theology from Reformed
    Theological Seminary, and a ThM in Systematic Theology from the
    University of Aberdeen. I earned almost all A’s, but I have four kids
    and so it has been tough and so there were a few B’s scattered here and
    there.

    So, with all of that information, If you are willing to dialogue about your article please let me know. Thanks.

    Dan Jensen

    • D Lowrey

      I also frequent Rachel’s blog and have actually read her books. You mention “she is advocating many dangerous doctrines” without any type of facts to back up what you believe is this heresy other than your self-imposed calling and some credentials you claim to have earned. On the other hand…when I read both of these…as well as many others…they post what they are writing about and why…rather than a paragraph of their degrees. This being the case…when you become a well-known author/blogger and have something to say …I and others would be interested in hearing more than “a whirlwind in a storm”.

      • Dan Jensen

        The idea that I need to be a well known author or blogger before I have the right to say anything is ridiculous. I could have started blogging a long time ago, but I’m not interested in being well known for its own sake. If down the line God wishes to use me in this fashion that is His will. And how do you know it is self-imposed, simply because you disagree with me? If I feel God has called me to these things I am going to be obedient and seek to fulfill this calling however I can.

        And I made it very clear why I gave my credentials, so on that one give me a break. And my comment was clearly merely meant as an introduction. If I had given a long critique of Evans I can guarantee someone would have accused me of being mean or ranting or what have you. No matter how hard I try to be professional in these forums I cannot win with you people, but I will keep trying because I do feel called to this whether you or anyone else believes that to be the case or not.

        At the end of the day I was trying to shed substantive light on Mr. Hunt’s article which was very, very bad especially coming from a graduate student at Yale Divinity School who says that he has studied a fair amount of church history. If you or he wants to dialogue on that point, something that would actually be worthwhile, I am happy to do so. But if you want to bluster with inane critiques that don’t even attempt to hit the point of the one you are critiquing, be my guest.

        • Sharideth

          Dear Dan Jensen,

          Please get your own blog and feel free to advocate for all the things ever theologically speaking. People disagree with Zack on HIS blog all the time, but you appear to want to co-opt his platform for your own perspective. It doesn’t matter whether that is your intent or not because it is the end result. Nobody appreciates that.

          WordPress has a free template that could have you up and running in seconds. Write every thought you’ve ever had about Zack or Rachel Held Evans or whoever else you don’t agree with. Your comment length is oppressive but would work out great on a blog of your own. I hear writing dissenting opinions about more popular bloggers is great for traffic and numbers.

          Go with God.

          • Dan Jensen

            I have honestly thought about it, but I really don’t have time. I’m very busy with ministry and family life, so I get free time in bursts and try to frequent blogs then.
            Besides, it would take a while to get a solid readership and so very few people from Evans’ blog (and there are lots of them) would see my challenge and so that really wouldn’t solve anything. And when someone writes something that is such a shallow and misleading treatment of the topic to that many people who are not going to know this, it must be challenged.
            So I am not trying to co-opt anything or be oppressive, but I am trying to challenge Mr. Hunt because he is playing fast and loose with the historical facts, but says that conservatives really don’t care about facts or history. That is all I am trying to do and it seems to me that Mr. Hunt would want to defend himself and show me my errors if I am wrong or be corrected if I am right. But I am getting pretty used to the fact that the new emergent leaders really are not interested in debate or dialogue unless it is with those who are in their general camp and even then only over minor disagreements. I call this cowardice, but if I’m wrong I am very open to being corrected.

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

    Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

    • http://zautos.com/ Paul Erna

      Well what you should do is go out and get a nice green car Brandt. Iy I were you I would buy a Honda. They have plenty of nice quality cars for sale trucks too

  • John Jacob

    Blasphemy. And most of your logic is seriously flawed.

    • ZackHunt

      It’s not blasphemy. It’s satire.

  • BJ