Another Argument Creationists Shouldn't Use

In my last post, I mentioned in passing that Creation.com has a list of arguments they believe creationists should not use. However, there is one argument that I have frequently heard creationists use that I believe should be added to that list. Curiously, groups like Creation.com and Answers in Genesis use this argument themselves so I doubt I'll see it added to the list very soon.

The other argument which I believe is somewhat weak is the “designed for life” argument. The idea is that our planet, indeed even the entire universe including physical laws, seems perfectly “fine tuned” to support life. If things were even a little different on earth, life would not be possible. Such a delicate balance suggests purpose in the creation and, thus, is evidence for design. This has sometimes been called the “anthropic principle.” Proponents of the anthropic principle cite examples like the abundance and properties of liquid water, the earth's distance from the sun, the unique mixture of gases in our atmosphere, and many, many others. When I said there were “many, many other” examples, I'm not exaggerating. Whole books have been written about the subject and many of these books have been adapted to videos. It's obviously a favorite tool for many creationists.

Let me expound on one example of the anthropic principle just to be sure everyone understands exactly what we're talking about. The human body requires oxygen to survive. If there were not enough oxygen in the atmosphere, we would quickly suffocate. However, if there were too much oxygen, a flash of lightning would ignite the entire planet's atmosphere. So the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is just right – not too much nor too little. It's “fine tuned” to support life.

Before I get into my problems with such an argument, let me clarify a couple of points. First, “design” is evidence for a Designer. Things that are complex, ordered, and have purpose suggest design. However, “design” in general isn't what I'm talking about here. What I'm questioning is the argument that the earth is uniquely designed to support human life. Here's an analogy to show the difference:

Consider paint on a floor. Because I can recognize design, I can immediately recognize the difference between paint spilled on the floor and a pattern painted on the floor. It doesn't matter that I didn't see the floor being painted; I can still tell it was intentionally painted. That's the design argument. However, suppose the design included a floral pattern and, by happy coincidence, I like flowers (this is an analogy – I'm truly indifferent to flowers). If I liked flowers, I might be tempted to say the painter specifically painted the pattern for my benefit. That's the anthropic principle.

The fact of the matter is that my hypothetical painter chose the pattern that pleased him. Likewise, God designed the universe in the way that pleased Him. It also follows that God also designed us in the way that pleased Him and so put everything together according to His plan. If God had wanted an earth with 100% oxygen, He could have made it that way. If God had intended us to live inside the sun, He could have made it that way. If God had intended for us to live without water, He could have made it that way. If God had intended us to live on a barren rock where there was no water, no night, and the temperature was a constant 500º, we would still be talking about how the planet was remarkably designed to support life and if things were just a little bit different, we couldn't exist.

Considering the infinite number of ways that the universe could have been designed, there's nothing especially remarkable about this design except that this is what was pleasing to God. The Bible tells us that God made the world for us (Genesis 1:28-29). It's no wonder then that the earth should be well suited for us. No matter how narrow the requirements necessary for life (food, water, oxygen, warmth, etc), God would have still made the earth well suited for us.

According to evolution, life adapts to its environment. On a planet like earth, where temperatures range between (approximately) -60ºF and 125ºF, the only life you would ever expect to find is life that can survive between -60ºF and 125ºF. If life existed on another planet where the temperatures ranged between 500ºF and 700ºF, the only life that could exist on that planet would be adapted to survive temperature ranges between 500ºF and 700ºF. You see, it's not that the planet is adapted to the life as much as the life is adapted to the planet. If life exists in any environment, then that environment will seem suited for that life.

An often used analogy that demonstrates this is a puddle. A puddle might believe that whatever hole it finds itself in is remarkably well suited for the puddle. Every convex or concave surface of the hole seems “fine tuned” to match the exact shape of the water inside it! That sounds silly, doesn't it? That's because it is silly. It's obviously the water that adapts to the shape of the hole.

The problem with this argument is that the creationist's explanation for the “fine tuning” is no more compelling than the evolutionist's explanation. When creationists talk about fine tuning, they sound to me like the puddle marveling about its hole. I'm sure that's how the argument sounds to many evolutionists as well.

What is the Best Evidence for Creation?

Creationists are often accused of not understanding evolution. It's true that there have been times when I've seen Christians misunderstand some point of the theory. Creation.com actually has an article dealing with common arguments they believe creationists should not use. On the whole, though, I believe the average, non-scientist creationist understands evolution about as much as the average, non-scientist evolutionist. After all, many creationists went to public schools and were taught evolution along side non-creationists.

Still, the criticism persists that creationists don't believe evolution because they don't understand evolution. By the way, I think it's amusing that more learned evolutionists don't seem to have a problem with lay evolutionists not understanding their theory. Lay creationists are often told that they don't know enough about evolution to judge it; however, lay people who believe evolution are welcomed into the fold. There's never any concern about them not knowing enough about the theory to judge it. As long as someone believes evolution is true, that is sufficient evidence that they understand the theory!

I've personally been told many times that I don't understand evolution. In another forum once, I became frustrated with the militant evolutionists' insults and rude behavior so I decided to play a game. I started a thread called, “Let me show you how it's done.” On that thread, I pretended to believe in evolution again (I used to believe in evolution, by the way). Evos were asked to pretend they were creationists and ask me the kind of questions creationists would ask; then I would answer them the way I believed evolutionists should answer them. This wasn't a parody or an attempt to create straw men. I sincerely advocated evolution for a while. The point was to show them how a person could defend evolution without resorting to the usually tactics employed by most evos.

My time spent on that thread was revealing. First, many of evolutionists were shocked that I could cogently discuss evolution and give reasoned arguments why people could believe in the theory. In the end, though, some of them argued that I was only able to “parrot” the arguments I've heard evolutionists use but I still didn't understand them. They could not get past their stereotype that people don't believe evolution because they don't understand evolution.

Here's the other thing I learned on that thread: many of the evolutionists really didn't know how to challenge evolution. They had trouble asking questions from a creationist's perspective. I could tell that several of them had never even considered alternative explanations of the evidence or even listened to creationists' questions about the theory.

The funniest thing is there was one evolutionist (who posted under the name RJW) who tried to do the same thing (that is, he pretended to believe in creation). He quickly found that he couldn't answer even the simplest questions about creation and, at one point, even asked me advice on how to answer a question. I gave him some guidance but told him he had to answer it himself. I could tell, though, that he knew nothing about creation.

If a person truly doesn't know anything about evolution, I can see how evolutionists might not take his objections seriously. How would a Christian feel in a similar circumstance? Imagine if a skeptic said to me, “I think the Bible is full of errors.” I might say, “Really? Can you give me some examples of the errors?” The skeptic would sound foolish if he only said, “I don't know. I've never read the Bible!”

I watched online while these evolutionists displayed their ignorance of creation. It looked to me as foolish as the Bible skeptic who'd never read the Bible. It seems they were guilty of the same offense of which they accused me. They denounced something that they had never even examined.

I think Christians need to study evolution if they are going to aggressively challenge it. By that same token, if evolutionists want to advertise themselves as intellectually honest, they need to study creation. They should read first hand sources written by creation apologists and not the straw man caricatures built by evolution apologists. People who don't know the evidence supporting creation, or who don't understand some of the arguments used to support it, truly aren't competent enough to judge its merits. Indeed, how can someone have a credible opinion on a subject he's never examined?

I used to listen to the late Dr. D James Kennedy on the radio. He suggested a great exercise Christians could use when confronting critics. Before getting too far into the conversation, simply ask the person, “What do you think is the best evidence for creation?” You'll see quickly that many people who ridicule creation know absolutely nothing about creation.

1 Chronicles 16:30: Does the Bible Say the Earth Doesn't Move?

A frequent visitor to my blog left a comment where he alluded to biblical passages that speak of the earth not moving (geocentricism). He didn't cite a specific verse but this isn't the first time I've heard that criticism so I'm aware of certain passages which are frequently cited in support of that claim. Perhaps the most frequently cited is 1 Chronicles 16:30:

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)

At first hearing, this criticism seems to have legs (for any Bible critic reading this, I'm using an expression. The criticism doesn't “literally” have legs). The genre of 1 Chronicles is historical narrative – unlike Psalms which is Hebrew poetry. So when we read a passage like 1 Chron 16:30 in the midst of historical narrative, it seems as though the Bible might literally be saying the earth does not move. A quick look at the context, however, quickly dispels that notion.

First off, the passage is clearly introduced as a psalm (i.e. “song” or “prayer”) of David. 1 Chron 16:7 says, “Then on that day David delivered first this psalm to thank the Lord into the hand of Asaph and his brethren.” Like the book of Psalms, the passage uses poetic descriptions to convey spiritual truth – not necessarily literal truth. In the same passage (v. 32-33) David says that the sea “roars,” the fields “rejoice,” and the trees “sing.”

Why don't the same critics who allege this passage endorses geocentricism, also assert the Bible teaches that trees sing? It's because they know that people will immediately recognize trees singing as an obvious use of metaphor. Yet they still quote v. 30 as though it's meant to be a statement of fact. This is a clear case of quote mining where critics cite a passage out of context in order to make it sound like the Bible says something that it clearly does not intend.

Another thing we must be careful to consider is what is meant by the use of the words like “world” and “earth.” Often, when these words are used, they are not referring to the physical earth but the people of the earth. This is demonstrated in the same verse in question. 1 Chron 16:30a says, “Fear before Him all the earth.” Do you think this means the literal “earth” should fear Him or doesn't it more likely mean the people of the earth? It could mean the literal earth in the same sense that the “fields” rejoice. On the other hand, it could also mean the people of the earth. The Bible does use the words “earth” and “world” in that sense; Here are some indisputable examples where this is so:

And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity. (Isaiah 13:11a)

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (Luke 2:1)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

In these passages, and others, the word “world” clearly means the people who live in the world. No one, for example, could rationally argue that Luke 2:1 means that the literal earth (that is, dirt and rock) is going to be taxed.

We also must ask what is meant by “not moved.” The most ordinary meaning, of course, is that it means “stationary” and that is what the critics who cite this passage claim it means. However, “not moved” can also mean “not moved from its course” or “unpersuaded.” Psalm 21:7 says, “For the king trusteth in the Lord, and through the mercy of the most High he shall not be moved.” I'll ask you: does this passage mean the king is stationary or does it mean that he should not be moved from his trust in the Lord?

In conclusion, remember that this is a psalm. In a poetic passage that says the Lord established the earth that it should not be moved, would it be entirely unreasonable to interpret that to mean the Lord established the ways of the earth (or its people) and it/they will not be moved from the way He established? What is unreasonable is that critics (whether intentionally or by ignorance) ignore the clear context of a passage and assert the correct interpretation of an obvious use of poetry is that it is meant to be literal fact. It's no wonder that critics see the Bible as rife with errors. They obviously have trouble reading.

Psalm 58:8: Snails Don't Literally Melt but Some Critics are Literally Stupid

I know I shouldn't call anyone stupid but sometimes I can think of no other way to say it. I browse Yahoo! Answers occasionally and recently came across this gem:

Why does the bible say that snails 'melt'? Wouldn't an all knowing God know better than this?

Psalm 58:8 (King James Version)

8As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

It's such a weak criticism that I would normally ignore it as a straw man argument raised by a fringe nut. However, this isn't the first time I've heard this particular criticism so I will amend my opinion and say the criticism is a straw man argument frequently used by lots of nuts.

Do I even need to spend much time rebutting this? I mean, the correct understanding of this passage is fairly obvious. So rather than wasting a lot of words explaining the passage, I'll quickly explain the passage then spend the rest of my time examining the critic.

The Book of Psalms is a collection of poetry. They were originally sung so they could correctly be called songs or hymns. Like any poetry, words are used to paint pictures and sometimes (as in the case of Psalms) convey symbolical – though not necessarily literal - truths. Don't they teach metaphor, analogy, and similar devices in 6^th grade English? The snail (or slug) may shrivel under salt or leave a slimy trail as it moves but it doesn't literally melt. Likewise, in Psalm 1, neither is a blessed man literally a tree and neither is there a literal path of sinners. Is that so hard to understand?

When critics raise points like this, it tells us more about the critic than the Bible. I don't want to paint with an overly broad brush but I can only think of three reasons why arguments like this are ever used:

1) Some critics may be grossly ignorant. Perhaps they aren't familiar with the literary genre of Psalms but the fact that one such critic wrote the question above demonstrates that he is at least literate. Is he not familiar at all with such literary devices? If he heard someone say, “I could eat a horse,” would he believe the speaker literally claimed to be able to eat a horse? Such ignorance goes far beyond a lack of familiarity with the Bible. It borders on lunacy.

When someone raises this objection, we should start with the assumption that he is simply not aware of the heavily poetic language used in Psalms. Once it's pointed out to him, perhaps he'll quit the argument. If he still cannot genuinely identify so obvious a metaphor, perhaps he is more than ignorant. He is a simpleton.

2) Some theophobes may be so contemptuous toward the Bible that they are truly blind to its use of literary devices. It's like conspiracy theorists who see a government plot in every headline. When people read the Bible with such a jaundiced eye, they see every word in an ill light. They might understand the use of things like simile, hyperbole, and personification when it occurs in ordinary language, but when it comes to the Bible, they suddenly cannot distinguish between a poetic expression and a statement of literal fact.

By the way, this same phenomenon occurs among theistic evolutionists. They have no trouble interpreting passages that say Jesus rose on the third day (Acts 10:40). However, when they read Exodus 20:11, they suddenly cannot understand what the Bible means by six days.

3) If Bible skeptics insist they understand the use of literary devices yet still pursue this point as if it had substance, then we can only assume they are deliberately lying so they might prey on the ignorance of others. Indeed, what other option is left? If they are truly bright enough to understand the ordinary use of language, and it has been pointed out to them that this is a poetic expression, then there is no other reason to repeat the falsehood except an evil motive.

In conclusion, I again repeat that I don't ordinarily call people stupid. It's not a very nice term. Still, why would any intelligent person use such stupid argument? Perhaps I could temper it by calling him “challenged” or some other polite term. It's either that or call him a liar.