Who's really indoctrinating whom about evolution?

There's a term used often on the internet called Poe's Law. It basically means that it's impossible to distinguish extremists' comments from parodies of extremists' comments. Let me give you an example. Phil Plait is a self-described “science evangelizer” and blogger for Slate.com. A while back, he wrote an article titled, Give Me An “F!” Creationists Fail a Fourth Grade Science Test, where he lamented elementary students being taught creationism. In the article he said:

My complaint is one of simple reality. Young-Earth creationism is wrong, and it’s certainly not science. For that reason alone, ideally it shouldn’t be taught as truth anywhere, let alone a science class.... In fact, all of science shows creationism is wrong, because creationism goes against pretty much every founding principle of and every basic fact uncovered by science. If creationism were true, then essentially no modern invention would work. Since you’re reading this on a computer, that right there is proof enough. [Italics and bold in original]

Really, Mr. Plait? “All of science shows creationism is wrong”? “No modern invention would work” if creation were true? Computers are proof that evolution is correct? His comments are hilarious and he means them! No exaggeration I could make about his comments could be any more extreme than what Plait is actually saying. It's a perfect example of Poe's Law.

I shouldn't have to rebut any of these outrageous claims because they are absurd on their face. It makes no sense to say that things like computers or satellites or rockets wouldn't work if God created the universe. I'm fairly certain that Plait is unaware that Charles Babbage, the man credited with inventing modern computing, was a creationist. However, the point of my blog, today, isn't to detail the contributions creationists have made to science. Rather, it's something else that Plait said that piqued my interest.

What really makes my heart sink is the reality that this is actually being taught to young children. Kids are natural scientists; they want to see and explore and categorize and ask “why?” until they understand everything. And we, as adults, as caretakers, have a solemn responsibility to nurture that impulse and to answer them in as honest a way as possible, encouraging them to seek more answers—and more questions—themselves. That’s how we learn. ¶But this? This isn’t learning. It’s indoctrination. [bold added]

Indoctrination is a strong word to use. The ordinary definition of “indoctrinate” is to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. Yet there is a pejorative connotation to the word. I taught my children to speak English; does that mean I indoctrinated them to speak English? Is it indoctrination to teach our kids right and wrong? To be nice? To pick up their things, to get good grades, and to work hard? Teaching our children our values isn't indoctrination – it's called raising them. We also tend to raise our children to share our religious beliefs. I'm sure the parents who send their kids to the private school Plait is ridiculing, are Christians who believe in creation. That wanted to send their kids to a Christian school that reinforces the same values the kids learn at home. To accuse the parents of “indoctrinating” their kids is a type of ad hominem.

What I find most curious about militant evolutionists is how angry they become whenever someone doesn't believe in evolution. In the introduction to his article, immediately following the photo of the 4^th grade quiz, Plait assumes the reader would be, “screaming in rage and/or pounding your head against the desk.” Why? Because some people actually believe in creation and neither Plait nor his cohorts can stand it. He says later, “I am deeply saddened that there are places teaching this to children.”

Worshipers of scientism virtually froth at the mouth over the simple fact that people exist who doubt evolution. They obsess over it. They stay up at night worrying about it. They wring their hands and plot about ways to stamp out science deniers. Yet they can't see their hypocrisy through their blinding contempt. They are the ones interested in indoctrination! Do you think I'm exaggerating? Let's look at some facts.

THEY LIE

Think about the things Plait said in this article:

• all of science contradicts creationism.
• no modern invention would work if creation were true.
• Creationism goes against every founding principle and every basic fact of science.

If he made just one statement like this, I might dismiss it as hyperbole. To repeat it over and over shows he's being very deliberate. It's rather ordinary for evolutionists to lie to bolster their theory. I've even written a series about 10 lies evolutionists tell but there are many more than 10. I've been thinking of doing a sequel, adding another 10. When people tells lies to advance an agenda, that's the very definition of propaganda.

THEY SQUELCH

Several years ago, the Cobb County Board of Education placed a sticker in school science books that said, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” Note that the stickers didn't mention creation or even religion. Instead, they said that evolution should be examined carefully, critically, and with an open mind. Critical thinking should be a staple in educating our kids. Questioning everything is supposed to be a fundamental principle of science – except when it comes to evolution. No one is allowed to question evolution! In the matter of Cobb County, the case ended up in court where a judge ordered the stickers be removed. Such is always the case when any criticism of evolution is suggested in the public classroom. Any policy that might treat evolution as anything less than an absolute fact is challenged in court. Any teacher who seems sympathetic to creation or intelligent design risks losing his job.

Groups have been organized, like the National Center for Science Education, whose sole mission is to insure that the teaching of evolution is not diminished in any way. They recently took up arms against the School Superintendent in Arizona who was rewriting science standards for the state. On their website, NCSE bragged, “NCSE, of course, is constantly on guard for threats to the integrity of science education, including in Arizona.” By “science education” they mean “teaching evolution.” What was their complaint? One example from the article says, “First, although evolution is still listed in the edited standards as a core concept, the description of the concept was changed for the worse. The writing committee explained it by saying, correctly, “The unity and diversity of organisms, living and extinct, is the result of evolution.” This was then edited to say, ‘The theory of evolution seeks to make clear the unity of living and extinct organisms.” The difference, of course, is that the writing committee’s version clearly says that evolution is correct, while the edited version is studiously agnostic.”

It seems the edited version didn't seem to state evolution was a fact. Oh the horror! I'm not sure if evolution is the only scientific theory with its own political lobby but I'm certain it is the only scientific theory that is protected by law.

THEY PROSELYTIZE

Education is supposed to be about imparting knowledge. It's supposed to make kids “critical thinkers.” We make sure kids understand the material but teachers are not supposed to take sides. Right? I have a degree in business. Part of my studies in college included learning about different economic philosophies: capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. Do you think it's possible to understand an economic theory without endorsing it? Of course it is. I can learn about – and understand – socialism while remaining a capitalist. Likewise, a person could learn about and understand evolution while still being a creationist. When it comes to teaching evolution, though, it's not enough for these people to make sure every student understands the theory. They won't stop until every student utterly rejects creation and wholly embraces evolution.

Remember in Plait's bio, he is described as a “science evangelizer.” What do you think he means by that? I think it's obvious. And he's not alone in his zeal. In a NY Times interview, Bill Nye was asked, “do you imagine a child in a creationist-friendly household managing to get his hands on the book [you've written about evolution] and stealing away with it?” Nye's answer is very telling:

A man can dream! It would be great if the book is that influential. My biggest concern about creationist kids is that they’re compelled to suppress their common sense, to suppress their critical thinking skills at a time in human history when we need them more than ever. By the time you’re 18, you’ve made up your mind. It’s going to be really hard for you, as they say in the Mormon tradition, to “lose your testimony.” But if you’re 7 or 8, we got a shot.

“We got a shot”? We should be concerned that someone with such poor grammar wants to teach our kids but I'm more alarmed by his obvious intentions – reach the kids young enough, and we can convince them evolution is true.

I came across an article in The Conversation that says, “The best way to get children to understand evolution is to teach genetics first.” That paper was a little more candid than many about the motive to teaching evolution. In the following except, pay attention to the parts I've highlighted in bold:

An understanding of evolution and acceptance of the idea of evolution are two different things. Acceptance is the belief that the scientific view of evolution is the correct version: you can understand evolution but not accept it and you can accept it but not understand it. We found that students typically accepted evolution to a greater degree after taking the genetics class.....

We also set up a series of focus groups to find out why the understanding and acceptance of evolution are not more strongly coupled. Evidence from these suggests that what is more important for evolution acceptance is not what is taught, but who provides the endorsement. For some students, being told that key authority figures such as parents or teachers approve of scientific evidence for evolution made a big difference to their ability to accept it.....

Whatever the underlying cause, the data suggest a really simple, minimally disruptive and cost-free modification to teaching practice: teach genetics first. This will at least increase evolution understanding, if not acceptance. As with many emotive subjects, it takes more than teaching the facts to shift hearts as well as minds.

So there you have it. They are not coy about their intentions – they want to indoctrinate our kids. They are just angry that parents and religious liberty keeps getting in their way!

Related articles

Evolution: A Religion of Death

Bill Nye thinks kids need to be better educated about evolution

Stop spouting facts... the science is settled!

Evolutionists treat science like a religion

Why even teach evolution?

Another “best” argument from atheists

As a Christian apologist, if I may presume to be one, I would feel slack in my duty to God if I only answered the easiest arguments skeptics make rather than the most difficult ones. Over the years, I've responded to many “best arguments for atheism” articles I've found on the web. It's been my experience, though, that none of them are very good. Indeed, many can't even stand against their own criticism. For example, Carl Sagan is quoted as saying, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Of course, Sagan didn't present a shred of evidence to support this claim! What a riot. //RKBentley chuckles//

Anyway, I recently came across still another article titled, 3 Famous Atheists & Their Best Arguments. As I clicked on the link, I went through my usual cycle of emotions: curiosity, hopefulness, disappointment, and finally, determination to at least find something in the article worth blogging about.

Most of the arguments in the article have been addressed on my blog already. Perhaps those really are the best arguments for atheism because I've heard them repeated so many times. In fact, it would probably be a good idea to write more about them because they are certainly arguments Christians will hear often. Regardless, there was one point raised in the article that I don't believe I have written about. It's certainly not an original argument, but it's been raised often enough that I'm rather embarrassed that I haven't addressed it before now. So let me remedy that today.

Religion is Desperation

I've also noticed this painful truth about religion. It's made up of people who are intensely afraid of reality, and of the truth of the human condition. Religion comes from our hatred for our loathsome existence and our deep desire to deny the actuality of death and future loss. However, if we can be united in our dissociation from real life, we can be happy. We can call this dissociation "faith" and together we can be free from the horror of existence.

The article attributes this argument to Richard Dawkins but it well predates Dawkins. The earliest and most famous (infamous) person who raised this point is perhaps Karl Marx who said, “Religion is the opium of the people.” Wiki actually cites the full quote as saying, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” The implication is, life is really hard and people use religion like a drug to escape from reality. There is such a tangle of problems with this argument that it's difficult to find the best order to unravel them.

IT'S AN APPEAL TO MOTIVE

I believe I should dive right in and start with the obvious: this is a text book example of the fallacy, appeal to motive. Think about it. Suppose I really do believe in Christ only because I'm afraid to die. How would that make Christianity not real? It would be like a person, dying from cancer, rejoicing when the doctor says, “I have good news. Here's a cure!” The sick person certainly has a reason to want to believe the doctor but his eagerness (or even his skepticism if he doubted) has no bearing on whether he is really sick or whether the doctor really has a cure. To question the motive of believers, by saying they believe in God only because they are afraid of the world, does nothing – NOT ONE THING – to establish atheism as being correct or theism as being wrong.

If we looked at the opposite side of the coin, I could make this same argument against atheists – that God is real and atheists deny there's a God so they can live their lives however they want and pretend there is no God who will judge them after they die. I could say that Hell is real and the thought of eternal torment scares atheists so much that they try to convince themselves it isn't real. I could talk about the amazing historical evidence for the Bible, about the evidence for the Flood, about the evidence against evolution but atheists won't accept any of it because to acknowledge any point means they would have to accept the possibility of a God and that's not an option for them.

If Dawkins truly thinks God isn't real because Christians want Him to be real (I still can't quite figure out what point Dawkins is trying to make), then he needs to examine his own motives. Romans 1:18-20 says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” I believe the evidence for God is overwhelming. Everything I know about reality affirms over and over that there is a God behind it all. The Bible says we intuitively know there is a God, I shouldn't even have to present any evidence of Him. So when atheists deny what should be obvious, I do question their motives. Are you ready for a dose of irony? Many atheists only claim to be atheists because they know God is real!

IT'S A HASTY GENERALIZATION

Besides its faulty appeal to motive foundation, Dawkins deftly piles onto his argument still another fallacy of logic, the hasty generalization. It's true there may be people out there who fear death so much that they would leap at any promise of eternal life – even an empty promise. Yet even if that's true, it's no basis for Dawkin to suggests this applies to all Christians or even most Christians.

The majority of Christians believe in God and the Bible for the same reasons people believe anything, namely, they are convinced that these things are true. We become convinced through many different lines reason: logic, evidence, and our experiences. It's factually wrong for Dawkins to suggest the primary factor why Christians choose to believe is fear.

IT'S AD HOMINEM

It's hilarious when an atheist acts “holier-than-thou,” but in his typical, condescending fashion, Dawkins suggests that atheists are enlightened thinkers who fully grasp reality while theists are quivering cowards who couldn't leave their house without an assurance that someone “up there” is going to keep them safe. I'm not sure exactly why he does this. It could be simple ridicule borne out of his habitual contempt for theism. It could be a tactic aimed at shaming people who claim to believe. Whatever the reason, it's rather shameful.

No one wants to look like a coward. No one wants to be thought of as a person who can't face reality. Yet that's what Dawkins claims Christians are. It may be possible to embarrass a person to the point he is afraid to admit what he truly believes to be true but it's just a gimmick. It does nothing to prove what the person believes isn't true.

IT CONTRADICTS ITSELF

If people invent religion to quell their fears of reality, why invent a religion with hell? It doesn't make any sense. In fact, it's beyond senseless for someone who already fears death to create a religion where a worse punishment might await him after death! If fear were truly the motivating factor for people to believe in God, some form of universalism, the belief that all people can live happily ever after, would be the most popular religion.

In conclusion, let me remind you of the title of the article that raised this point: 3 Famous Atheists & Their Best Arguments. I'll repeat that, “Their best arguments.” Really? Saying, “You only believe in God because you're afraid of reality,” is one of the best arguments for atheism? I'm sorry but it's not one of the best. It's not even a good argument. It does nothing to support atheism and the author should be embarrassed that he even included it in his article.

Further reading

The best argument atheists have is that they have no argument

Why is atheism the default belief?

What is the evidence for atheism?

How can someone eat an entire elephant?

There's an old riddle that goes something like this: Q: How do you eat an entire elephant? A: One bite at a time! There's a certain amount of wisdom in that riddle. It's true that what seems like an impossibly big task could be accomplished in small enough increments. This is the principle that evolutionists apply when comparing macroevolution and microevolution.

I was online the other day when an evolutionist made this comment:

Because macroevolution is just microevolution repeated over long time periods, it's often been said that if you accept microevolution, but deny macroevolution, you are essentially saying that it's possible to walk from Los Angeles to San Francisco but impossible to walk from Los Angeles to New York.

So, I'd like to hear your best explanation as to why it's impossible to walk from Los Angeles to New York.

I didn't respond online because, frankly, too many of those forums are overrun with trolls. Instead, I thought I'd offer an explanation here.

This is lie #3 from my Ten Lies Evolutionists Tell series. At first hearing, the above argument sounds very persuasive. In fact, in the way it's worded here, I really can't argue with it. Obviously, if a person can walk a small distance, he could also walk a long distance if he has enough time. The problem with this argument is that it doesn't fairly represent what happens when animal populations “change.” There are at least three reasons why this analogy fails to explain how “microevolution” could make “macroevolution” possible over time.

THE CHANGE MUST BE IN ONE DIRECTION

Even the most famous examples of “evolution” usually involve slight variations back and forth around the mean. When Darwin observed the finches in the Galapagos, he noted the differences in the sizes of their beaks. In the 150 years since then, we've seen that beaks tend to be larger during periods of drought and smaller during periods of rain. In other words, after a century and a half of observation, there has been no accumulation of small changes. There has only been back and forth variations in response to back and forth changes in the environment.

For evolution to be possible, the changes must continuously be in one direction – like finch beaks only getting bigger. Back and forth changes over time means there are no net changes – not even microevolution. No matter how long he tries, a person cannot walk from LA to NY if he only walks in a circle!

THE CHANGE CANNOT HAVE A BOUNDARY

In another famous example of “evolution,” the peppered moth, a population of moths changed from mostly light, to mostly dark, to mostly light again in response to changes in the environment. You can see immediately that this is another example of back and forth variation like I just discussed in my first point. However, there is something else at work here.

Suppose the change did occur in only one direction. In the case of the peppered moths, for example, what if the population only continued becoming dark? Eventually, the entire population would become 100% dark and the change would stop. The change in the frequency of the dark allele could not increase any more. If anything, it could only decrease and the population would start becoming light again (see point number one).

Clearly a person cannot walk from Honolulu to NY!

THE CHANGE MUST BE ADDING SOMETHING

In order to turn a reptile into a mammal, you would have to add hair. The imagined first-living-thing didn't have hair. Neither did it have scales or even skin. It didn't have bones or blood or organs of any kind. For evolution to be possible, organisms would have to acquire new traits. To turn a microbe into a man, it would require millions of traits being continuously added generation after generation. “Changes” in a population, that don't add new features to the population, cannot allow a population to evolve.

There are species of fish that live in caves and are born without eyes. They are obviously descended from seeing fish but, in a dark environment where you can't see anything, having eyes is not an advantage. In fact, swimming around in the dark means you could bump into the wall and scratch your eyes which could lead to a deadly infection. In a cave where there is no light, a mutation that causes a fish to be born without eyes actually means the blind fish has an advantage over the seeing fish. This is what is called a “beneficial mutation.”

Beneficial mutations are an observed phenomenon. They convey some benefit to the host but it comes by way of losing something. For evolution to happen, populations have to acquire traits. You can't acquire traits by continuously losing traits – it doesn't matter how long it continues! Observing a population of fish being born without eyes does nothing to explain how eyes evolved in the first place.

You cannot turn a molehill into a mountain by continuously removing dirt. You can't grow a company by losing a little bit of money each year. You can't walk from LA to NY by walking away from NY!

It's God's world so it's God's rules!

My wife and I lead an adult community group at my church (community groups were formerly called Sunday School classes). In our current series, we've been going through the 10 Commandments. Now, I've studied apologetics for many years now and talked a lot about creation and evolution so perhaps I've studied Genesis more than the average Christian but I've surprised even myself with the number of times during this series that I referred to the creation to make a point. I thought it would be interesting to share a few of the thoughts I've had.

Before I even start with the commandments, we need to examine the whole premise of right and wrong. I've talked about this before but it's sometimes difficult to articulate what makes something “wrong.” Oh sure, many critics are quick to label something as wrong but if you ask an atheist why a certain thing is objectively wrong (besides his opinion), he usually responds with a lot of bluff and bluster.

At its root, something is “wrong” if it's not the way it ought to be. There has to be an objective standard of what is “right” and anything that does not conform to that standard is “wrong.” For example, to say it's wrong to murder someone implies that people ought not murder. Now, that sounds obvious but it's not necessarily so easy. During WWII, Hitler and the Nazis didn't think it was wrong to murder 6 million Jews. We might disagree but what makes our opinion “right” and Hitler's “wrong”? There's has to be a transcendent standard, one that is greater than the shifting opinions of men, in order for right and wrong to truly exist.

Genesis 1:31 says, And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. You see, when God created the world, He made things “the way they ought to be.” Therefore, He is the One who judges if something is not the way it ought to be. His commandments aren't simply 10 suggestions on how to avoid difficulties; they tell us what is right and wrong. God alone is the final arbiter of morality. It's God's world so it's God's rules!

As we go through the commandments, see how often they are a direct reflection of His will at the creation.

I. I am the LORD thy God.... Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Genesis 1:1 says, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. God alone is the Creator. The are no other gods. It's fitting that, in the first commandment, God establishes that He is the only one with the authority to command us. There should be no one else to whom we turn to ask what is right and what is wrong. There is no one else who can tell us how we ought to be or what we ought to do.

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.

In Jeremiah 7, God rebukes Israel for their worship of Baalim. In v. 27-28, He ridicules the worship of idols. Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. But where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? let them arise, if they can save thee in the time of thy trouble: for according to the number of thy cities are thy gods, O Judah.

God reminds His people that these graven idols were made by men and even though the idols may have hands and feet, they still can do nothing. Yet the people pray to them, saying to the wood, “You are my father,” and to the stone, “You have made me.” Romans 1:25 talks about idolatrous people, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

In Genesis 2:19-20, we read, [W]hatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.

Perhaps Adam naming the animals is like letting a child name the family pet. God gave Adam dominion over all the earth. To demonstrate to Adam that he had authority over the animals, God allowed Adam to name the animals in the Garden. The right to name something is a definitive test that you have authority over that thing.

Of course, we don't have authority over God. We must address Him in the way He deserves to be addressed – with respect, with humility, and with reverence.

IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work.... For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

I find it interesting that God actually referenced the creation account in this commandment. When God made the universe, He also created the Sabbath. Do you think, then, that God takes the Sabbath seriously?

I also think this passage quickly dispels long-age interpretations of the original creation week. Certainly there is nothing in this passage that would cause the original readers to believe the 6 days meant anything other than 6 days.

V. Honour thy father and thy mother

Genesis 1:28 says, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”

When God created the angels, He apparently made a host of them. Jesus made it clear that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30) which suggests they do not reproduce. God could have created humans in the same way. Instead, He created only two people and commanded them to reproduce together and fill the earth. The parent/child relationship was part of His divine plan. God created family.

VI. Thou shalt not kill.

It would be ridiculously obvious to say that God is the Author of life. But we seldom stop to consider how overtly this is attested in the Bible. In Genesis 1:20-21, 24, we read the following: “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.... Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

When God made man, Genesis 2:7 also described him as living: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

God not only created the living animals, He created essentially what it means to be alive. As the Creator of life, it is God's exclusive right to say when and how it acceptable to take a life. Eating animals is allowed. Executing criminals is allowed. Murder is never allowed.

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

When God made man, we read that His plan was that man should not be alone. Genesis 2:18, 21-24 reads, “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

When Jesus was asked about marriage in Matthew 19:4-5, He referred them back to the creation account in Genesis. Marriage is not a social contract invented by men. It was the divine will of the Father from the very beginning of history. Marriage is unequivocally one man uniting with one woman for life.

VIII. Thou shalt not steal

In Acts 5:4, when Ananias had held back a portion of the proceeds he'd made from selling some property, Peter asked him, rhetorically, “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?” Peter seems to affirm that the property Ananias sold was his own and he had the right to do anything he wanted with the money. There are several places in the Bible that affirm what we might call capitalism but I can't think of any passage that overtly says, “you have a right to own things.” It's more like it's simply understood to be true.

This implicit understanding goes all the way back to the Garden. Genesis 2:15-17, “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

God seems to set a boundary with Adam where He says, “This is mine and everything else is yours.”

IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

In John 8:44, Jesus calls the Pharisees, sons of the devil. He said, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

Satan is indeed the father of lies. In his encounter with Eve, the serpent spoke the first lies recorded in the Bible. Genesis 3:1-5, “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

X. Thou shalt not covet

The lies of Satan beguiled Eve and she began to covet. Genesis 3:6 says, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

Coveting is easily the most violated commandment. In Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus explained that adultery included not only the physical act, but even the desire to do the act. The Bible says that what a man purposes in his heart, so is he. I didn't become a liar, for example, when I spoke my first lie. I became a liar when I conceived in my mind that I would tell a lie. When I finally spoke the lie, I was just doing what liars do. Those who lust are adulterers, those who hate are murderers, and those who envy are thieves.

Eve didn't disobey God when she ate the fruit; she disobeyed God when she desired to eat the fruit. The same is true for Adam.

In conclusion, we can see the commandments are not simply a list of arbitrary rules.  By understanding the creation account, we understand how things ought to be.  Therefor, we can know why these things are wrong.