How was man created? Apparently, in this country there are only two schools of thought – evolution or creation by the Christian god. However, there just might be a third way.

To start with, I disagree with Christians who say that God created the world in seven days and I disagree with atheists who say that there is no God and that we are, therefore, some random, unexplained cosmic accident. So, at the risk of alienating everybody, here’s why I disagree…with just about everybody.

Christianity is a fine religion. I should know since I was raised in a Christian family.  However, there is just one small problem with Christianity. It does not agree with the Bible. Yeah, that’s a problem, isn’t it?

The history of the Church’s teachings has all of the twists and turns of a Dan Brown novel. As Christian theologian Brian McLaren put it, “One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history – it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn church history.”  So at the risk of oversimplifying, here’s just a few of the problems with Christianity:

  • The concept of Original Sin is disputed by the Bible itself (see John 9:2-3 and Genesis 8:21).
  • The teachings of Jesus are, for the most part, missing from the Bible.
  • The idea of a messiah was hijacked from Judaism. In the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament), Jewish holy men proclaimed the coming of a messiah but their messiah was totally different from the one that Christianity later promulgated. For example, the messiah of the Old Testament was to be a man, not a divine being, and he would come not to save the entire world but rather to reestablish the Kingdom of Israel.
  • The concept of the Trinity isn’t in the Bible at all.

The Bible, itself, isn’t even an original work in at least one important aspect. The stories about the Garden of Eden and The Flood in the Book of Genesis, which are central to Christian theology, were based on older Sumerian writings, namely the Enuma Elish and The Epic of Gilgamesh. The Enuma Elish, which is sometimes referred to as The Seven Tablets of Creation, was written on seven tablets with the seventh tablet devoted to honoring God. Thus, the origins of the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week, from the Hebrew word shabbath (that means day of rest). The use of Sumerian literature by the Hebrew scribes in penning Genesis is quite logical since the Israelites were descendants of the Sumerians through Abraham (as stated in the Bible).

What about atheism, then, and their argument that creation was accomplished through evolution? The interesting thing about the atheists’ argument is that they state that if the Christian god does not exist, then God doesn’t exist. However, they don’t make the same claim about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any of the other thousands of different religions. Only Christianity? Why?

The answer as Michael Ruse, an evolutionist himself, admitted, “Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality….” So, the goal of atheism is actually to replace Christianity as the preeminent religion in this country. Why? The answer is that atheism is in reality a political ideology dressed up as an argument about how we were all created.

In that ideology, God must not be allowed to be a part of people’s belief systems. The reason as geneticist Richard Lewontin, an atheist himself, explained, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” So, there it is – atheists cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door, especially in the field of science with respect to their theory of evolution.

Therefore in this debate, Christianity must be put asunder so that another ideology can take its place, an ideology where men have no inalienable rights that come from God, only rights that are specified by the State. And who exactly would the State be in that event? Well, they would mostly be those of white privilege, some of whom who are calling for the extinction of their own white race. Call them the elite, the 1% or whatever…of course, I’m pretty sure that, although they are calling for the extinction of the white race, they are not really calling for their own personal demise. You can’t rule from the grave, now can you?



So, if Christianity has these shortcomings, where does that leave us with respect to the existence of God. Well, in this country, many atheists would argue that if Christianity is wrong about the Bible, then God doesn’t exist. That’s such a stretch of logic, or in this case lack thereof, that it doesn’t deserve a response. However, I’ll give one anyway. That is, just because Christianity is wrong about their god, it doesn’t mean that a Creator isn’t responsible for the universe. I’m simply saying that there might be a third way. Now who can argue with that? Well… apparently everyone.



“When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.“

– George Wald, scientist and Nobel laureate


P.S. Wald said there are only two ways, but he didn’t say anything about a Christian god – only supernatural (divine) creation or evolution. He must be in agreement, then, that you can have divine creation without having a Christian god. It’s what I refer to as a “third way” – an explanation for creation that has nothing to do with evolution or original sin.




So, my last post Between Science and Faith brought a chorus of boos from both sides of the aisle. Too bad, because in my opinion you deserve it…and each other. So, let’s review the bidding.

At least in this country, the battle between science and faith boils down to a debate between atheism and Christianity. I refer to it as “Dueling Delusions.” The main sticking point has to do with which side is deemed to be more tied to a “preconceived ideology”. In my opinion, that’s a toss-up since Christianity believes in talking snakes while at least some atheists, who rely on science to describe all things big and small, apparently believe that science can observe beyond space and time and that scientific formulae written on a chalkboard constitute proof.

The underlying problem for Christianity is that it is based on a reinterpretation of scriptures written by Jewish holy men whereby Christianity claims that the writers of the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) didn’t understand what they were writing.  Opposed to that, we have atheism which is an ideology centered around materialism, evolution and naturalism, and which uses cherry-picked scientific theory (not fact) to support its ideology. I say “cherry-picked” because as Nobel laureate George Wald admitted, “Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.“

The larger question in this debate is why is there a debate at all and why is it only between  atheism and Christianity. Why aren’t the other world religions (of which there are several thousand) included in this discussion? The reason as Michael Ruse, an evolutionist himself, said, “Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality….” So, the debate is not necessarily about who is right but rather it’s about whether atheism can replace Christianity (as the prevailing religion).

As to where I stand in this debate, I simply contend that both sides are based on preconceived ideology. This has resulted in a debate that has gone absolutely no where. Both sides believe in their own dogma, a dogma which is impervious to falsification. As Mark Twain once commented, “It ain’t what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”



This debate, however, is merely a microcosm of the contentious, divisive social arguments one can witness in society today.  In the end, it is not so much an intellectual argument as it is really about who gets to rule and the social/political/economic ideas that each group endorses. It’s “identity politics” at its finest. It’s ultimately about whether the rights of man come from God or the state. That’s why I say that America is at war with itself: verbally, spiritually and politically. You might want to think of it as a Second Civil War. Hang on. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.




“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”   – Stephen F Roberts


For atheists, this is a very valid point of view. However, I asked around and couldn’t find a single atheist who had dismissed the gods of other religions – only the Christian god. In order not to have missed the boat, I endeavored to do a survey to find out what god(s) atheists were actually rejecting.

Well, the results are in, although some might argue perhaps that the sample size (124) was a bit small. In any case, here are the results. Out of 124 atheists that were in the survey, only three had rejected a god of a religion other than Christianity (or in addition to Christianity). However, those three had not rejected the gods of all religions. The only conclusion that I can draw from the survey is that the vast majority of atheists reject the Christian god without rejecting the gods of all religions, or even considering them for that matter.

An atheist website offered this explanation for the rejection of God: “I do not reject God, because I have no proof he exists or does not exist. Reason says there is no need for a God, but can’t utterly rule His existence out.” However, in my survey almost every respondent (atheist) said that they rejected only the Christian god. Why only the Christian god?  Do they have a monopoly on God?

Back to Stephen Roberts and his quote (see above).  Roberts posed the question to deists  that they should first examine why they are rejecting the gods of other religions. Therefore, I  think that it is only fair to ask atheists to do the same. After all, why do atheists seemingly reject God without examining the gods of religions other than Christianity?  Can you truly be an atheist if you have only rejected the Christian god?

Therefore, I pose this question. Who is the real atheist?

“I do not believe in God and I am not an atheist.”

   –  Albert Camus

Someone recently posted a video of a debate  between Atheism and Christianity.  I didn’t bother to watch because that kind of debate infers that one or the other is right.  What if they’re both wrong?

Take Atheism.  It’s actually as much a religion as… say religion is.  In one respect, it’s the belief that you can solve all the mysteries of life simply by employing logic (and one’s intelligence).  Atheists have built their whole world around the achievement of their vision of nirvana through the elevation of the mind to what approximates a form of godhood.  Of course, one has to stop and realize that our physical senses are so flawed as to severely limit our brains’ perception of reality.  We can’t even properly discern what’s occurring in our own dimension, let alone in the multitude of other dimensions that science says are out there. For example from a scientific standpoint, it’s totally preposterous to argue the non-existence of an Absolute simply by observing Nature.

Aside: By the way, isn’t it also illogical to try to prove a negative?

If atheists don’t want to believe in a higher power, I’m totally okay with that.  The mistake that is typically made, though, is that they reject God based upon Christianity’s narrow definition of the Creator.  After all, absence of proof of the Christian god does not equate to proof of absence (or non-existence) of God.   What if Christianity is wrong?

Conclusion:  Then rejection of the Christian god by atheists does not necessarily mean that they don’t believe in God.  They simply have rejected the Christian version of divinity.

Aside: How about the gods of other religions, say Islam or Buddhism?

So then what about Christianity?  Christianity’s holy book, of course, is the Bible – the Old Testament and the New Testament.  Here’s the problem.  The god of the Old Testament is different than the god of the New Testament.  The god of the Old Testament actually seems more like a man than a god.  He walks and talks (e.g. in the Garden of Eden), wrestles with Jacob in the story of Jacob’s ladder, makes covenants with Abraham as well as others and for good measure he frequently goes around killing people he doesn’t like (how Christ-like); finally, the gods become mortal, or always were mortal as the case may be, and then die (Psalm 82:7).

However, in the New Testament there is a complete reversal of form.  God totally changes his stripes.  Suddenly, he is invisible (Romans 1:20), he is spirit (John 4:24) and, in fact, no man has ever seen him (John 1:18).  Pretty confusing, right?

So exactly which god is atheism rejecting?  Well, for sure, they’re going to reject any god that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

Aside:  What if God exists but is not omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient?

Just a guess, but I think that the atheists might respond as Epicurus did, “Then why call him God?”  However, if a Creator does exist, what else would you call him, maybe Bubba?  Just because God doesn’t fit your idea of God, that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t exist.

The world is the way it is whether we want to accept and acknowledge it or not.  Something must have caused the universe to come into existence.  Why not call that something God?  Certainly, great minds like Plato, Voltaire, Rousseau, Whitman and even Einstein did.  If it was good enough for them, shouldn’t it be good enough for the rest of us?  Belief in God never required a church or a religion, or even a Bible for that matter.  So for me, I’m not at all interested in this debate.  It’s just so much arguing over the smell of swamp gas (see quote below).


“If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality….”

     –   Douglas Wilson