The Absurdity of The Book of Genesis (Part One)

The Bible has always bothered me on a fundamental level. Its basic problem is that if you were to read it without any prior knowledge of God or gods, basically not knowing anything at all about the Bible, it would all be very difficult to take any of it seriously. This problem is compacted by the assertion by its adherents that the Bible is the Word of God. This is to say that if the Bible is the Word of God, it should be understandable in its own right with no need for anyone to interpret its meaning(s). I believe anyone going in for a cold reading of the Bible would be blown away by its tall tales, lack of necessary detail and unscrupulous arrangement.

This is as evident in the Book of Genesis as anywhere else in the Bible. So, since Genesis is the beginning of the scriptures sacred to so many, it seems like a good place to prove my point. In doing this ‘cold reading’ I am going to use the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) because, uh, why are there different versions of the Bible? Obviously there would be a version for any given language, but for any single language? This bespeaks of fiction before I’ve even begun.

At any rate, I am going to open up the Bible to Chapter 1, verse 1 of Genesis. It reads: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

The next 23 chapters drone on about God creating the Earth over the next five and a half days. Well, this would seem quite incredible even if we didn’t know anything about science either. You mean someone made the Earth in six days, all of it? Even if we were to accept this, Genesis is not at all clear about who or what God is which would be a likely place to start given the entire scope of the Bible. Worse, we’re given no reason why God created the Earth. (One of the most important things when writing literature is to give your character motivations.) Yet we’ll forge ahead since there may be as yet unrevealed motivations, though we might want to call into question the length of a day. [We might note here that use of the 24-hour day did not come into use until 4000 years ago, courtesy of the Egyptians and Babylonians.]

Chapter 1, verse 26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

The first thing we might notice in this cold reading is that the word ‘our’ is used here, so it is therefore reasonable to assume that someone besides God is at work here. Who? We do not know because God leaves out these kinds of important details. God also makes man is His image, thereby giving God a definite gender. As for why God gives man dominion over the Earth and its creatures, again we don’t know. It appears God loves omitting details.

Chapter 2 gives us another account of the creation of man for no apparent reason except to clarify that woman was created from the rib of man, a feat surely no one has ever done before and should therefore seem extraordinary to everyone reading the Bible. Interestingly, though we know that woman are treated unequally to men in most societies, there is no indication here that women are inferior to men despite being created out of a man. Chapter 2 also begins to tell us about a place east of Eden where there is a garden in which the first man and woman will live. And, in this garden God plants two unique trees: the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. At this point we’re not sure why God plants these trees, but as we’ll see in the next chapter, this comes off as something of a set-up.

Chapter 3 begins with another of God’s creatures, a serpent, talking to the woman Eve. Eve tells the serpent about how the fruit from the unique trees is forbidden to eat as God has told Adam and Eve they will die if they do so. The serpent (which keep in mind is just a serpent because nothing here tells us otherwise) lies to the woman telling her she will not die if she eats from the Tree of Knowledge. The serpent also tells Eve the truth that if she eats the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge she will know the difference between good and evil. Chapter 3, verse 6-7 describes what happens next: “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. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”

Funny, Adam and Eve now know that being naked is bad and cover themselves up. So…okay…why didn’t God cover them up to begin with? Is God a pervert? And, knowing they have done wrong by eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve hide from God the next time God comes around. Further in the reading, God has to call out to Adam to find out where Adam is and doesn’t appear to know that some serpent told them it was okay to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. So, nothing here tells us or even implies that God is omniscient, a trait modern believers always attribute to God.

But here’s the real problem with this entire scenario – Before eating the fruit Eve has no reason to suspect the serpent is lying. Even if she did know the serpent was lying, before eating the fruit she doesn’t know that lying is evil. Eve cannot even begin to contemplate the consequences of eating the fruit until after she does so no matter what warning God gives. At the same time, Eve did seem to know that the acquisition of knowledge is good. Though this is an inconsistency in the narrative, what we’re almost forced to take away is that God didn’t want Adam and Eve to know the difference between good and evil. Wtf? Angry with Adam and Eve, God banishes them from the garden before they eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. God also punishes the serpent by making it crawl on its belly forevermore, punishes Eve by subjugating her to her husband and intensifying labor pains, while Adam gets off relatively easy being punished to work the land for food despite the fact that Adam is just as guilty as the woman for this whole farce. (That is, Adam likewise didn’t know that eating the forbidden fruit would be bad for the couple but does it anyway and gets himself punished as well. With both people being guilty here, why does Adam get off easier?)

Closing the door on the first three chapter of Genesis, what have we gathered and what questions might we ask? We see that God made the heavens and the Earth but not why. We see that God made the Earth in six days and needed a rest afterward – an indication that whomever we are dealing with is powerful but not all-powerful. We see that there are other gods besides God, though according to this text, this god created us. (But, from what we know about created things, God probably had help.) We are unable to conclude God is good or even perfect given the circumstances surrounding God’s creation’s disobeying their creator. Do perfect creations disobey their creator? is a fair question here. We also see that God frowns upon the acquisition of knowledge and the idea of immortality, a disturbing inference since God’s motivations are nowhere in sight.

Possibly most damaging to the Bible’s narrative is that if we research and compare this cold reading of the Bible to cold readings of other myths of the region of the same general time period, the creation stories are noticeable similar. (e.g. Babylonian, Sumerian, and some African creation myths.) Do we dare read any further?

Destroy All Creationists

[I came across a business card sitting in a shop that provided the reader with a link to a movie about how evolution fails as a theory. Naturally, I swiped the card so that no one else would be annoyed with this bullshit. The documentary – and I use that term loosely – Evolution vs. God can be watched here. If you have a high tolerance for stupidity, please watch. This blog is a reaction to this movie.]

“Science has proof without any certainty, Creationists have certainty without any proof.” Ashley Montague

What is evolution? Evolution is the genetic adaptation of organisms to their environments that results in heritable changes over time. Organisms that have unfavorable genetic adaptations eventually die off never to be seen again and/or are displaced by those with favorable mutations which may come to be regarded as different species. This is a reliable scientific theory (stronger than a hypothesis) pulled together from not just one field of science but from many fields of biological research. Though we have no direct evidence of one animal becoming another animal, we do know for certain that our planetary life forms do adapt to their environments. It is why bugs become resistant to exterminating chemicals in much the same way followers of organized religion have grown immune to logic. The construction of evolution as a factual concept is about as close to fact as an idea can be without direct evidence, so you'd think the idea of evolution would be no big deal.

The controversy surrounding the idea of evolution stems from the insistence of Western religious fundamentalists (whom I sometimes lovingly refer to as Fundies) that the origin of life on Earth is the product of divine intervention, as literally (or near literally) described in the Bible. Apparently, Fundies are upset over the idea that man evolved out of some primordial muck, while mysteriously being okay with the idea that God made humans from dirt. It seems to upset them to think of mankind as glorified apes, which I think we'll all agree are smarter than dirt. Still, their panties bunch up real tight when you mention evolution.

As everyone knows, or should know, the trouble really started in 1859 when Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species." Even though Charles was an agnostic, the Fundies felt his theory left no room for the divine creation of human beings. They began to worry that such a theory may then be applied to the entire universe. Understandably, the Fundies went ape-shit.

A few things have changed since 1859 and the 1925 Scopes Trial that convicted John T. Scopes of teaching evolution to his students. The problem faced by Fundies in those subsequent years was that science marched on, gathering more and more evidence to support Darwin's claim. Many creationists came to abandon Bible literalism in the following years in order to reconcile faith and science, what with the science being so damn overwhelming and all. Unfortunately, the less rational Bible literalists who were traditionally drunk with power over the ignorant prior to 1859 would eventually find a way to regain some of its former glory.

In recent years, the battle over evolution versus creationism has begun anew. A breed of creation "scientists" have evolved from the ashes of defeat who are attempting to use scientific findings to support their claims of God's direct creation of the universe and human beings, or at the very least provide an educated rebuttal to evolution such as it stands. Whereas they formerly despised science for revealing how the world works and possibly denying the existence of a god, they now want to use their former enemy as proof for what they've been claiming all along. Fundies seem to have adopted and adapted the attitude that if they can't beat 'em, join 'em. It's as if they're now saying, "Look! Look! See how complex and incredible the universe is? It had to be designed by (our) God. We told you so!" That's right. The universe is so incredible that only a super-powerful and vain pugilist could have caused them to lose their simian minds.

I will grant that evolutionary science is not yet complete and has not yet answered how life began or provided us with a direct glimpse of one species becoming another. It is possible that certain ideas within the field of evolutionary science are incorrect. But that's the great thing about science. Once we find out what doesn't work, we're that much closer to figuring out what does work. Because of this, the scientists who wish to believe in a god while also believing in such ideas as evolution are by-and-large Deists or agnostic. Scientists who wish to remain theistic also turn towards the notion that evolution is in fact true, but that evolution is guided by God’s hand. Heck, even Pope John Paul II admitted as much as does the current pope, Pope Francis. The Fundies on the other hand are just looking for facts to support their views and disregard everything else.

The position of these new creation scientists is untenable on a number of grounds: First, the appearance of complexity in the universe does not necessarily mean it is complex. Complexity is only relative to one's degree of understanding. [I take a lot of flack for this assertion, but it’s true.] Two, the possibility that life arose by chance only points to the possibility that an extraordinary event has taken place. In the event that the cosmos was designed by a being or beings more intelligent than we are only tells us exactly that. Evidence of design does not indicate the level of power or knowledge the creator or creators possess, nor their degree of "goodness." Also, if someone did create a universe just right for sustaining life, then it stands to reason that life is quite possibly the rule and not the exception. Even if evolution were false, it still would not mean we arrived here by the hand of any god.

All this aside, Fundies wish to assert that they know their god was responsible for the world. This stems from a desire to claim special knowledge and assert power over other people, which is what this whole issue is really about. Fundies want their thoughts of our origins taught in public school either as an opposing theory to evolution or in place of evolution while completely ignoring the competing creation accounts from other religions. For Fundies who are trying to establish dominion inAmerica, this issue is critical to their success. The "evolution vs. creationism" debate is an artificial argument created by those who want to spread their own religion. There is no objectivity in their views or science that backs up their claim. This is the logical outcome when the truth is not what Fundies are actually after. Organized religion isn't nearly as much about knowing the truth as it is about people trying to control one another and you don’t need to be a psychologist to figure that out. Would people like Osama bin Laden and Bush Jr. need to invoke God's name to make their cases for war if this weren't the case? Fundies know that getting their religion into public schools will bring them closer to turning America into a theocracy, having access to and indoctrinating a wide base of impressionable youths. As history has shown, theocracies have been nothing but fun for the whole family. (Of course, by “the whole family,” I mean just the men seeing how women are nothing more than cattle.)

Very unfortunately Fundie creation scientists have built a certain measure of clout, for instance, once being able to persuade the Kansas State Board of Education (KSBE) to hold “science meetings” to determine whether or not creationism should be taught alongside evolution or to perhaps throw out evolution altogether. During these particular proceedings Fundies will only point out which scientific facts appear to support their beliefs while ignoring what other evidences there might be of any other god or of evolution. History has shown this to be a step in a very dark direction. In fact, the last time this happened, Europe was drenched in the blood of non-believers. What does not seem obvious to the KSBE is that creationism is simply bad science devoid of any testable data and not open to peer review in scientific journals. As it is, America is falling behind as a leader in scientific advancement and will come to suffer dearly in the global economy if religion is allowed to assert its influence in the classroom. Teaching mysticism as science fact will only exacerbate America’s fall from scientific leadership.

If the Fundies want creationism taught in school, I really am fine with that. All they have to do is prove that the conclusions about life on Earth – conclusions drawn from facts over multiple disciplines – is completely wrong and that their evidences do not point to the existence of any other god(s). Oh, I would also ask them to provide evidence for a man and woman spontaneously popping into existence.

How life began on Earth, how it got here is an interesting question but not an important one. We need to deal with the fact that we are here so that we can all figure out where we're going – if we're going anywhere – and how to get there without causing our own extinction. Too bad religion tries to answer the question of how we got here in order to explain why we are here, and thus try to control everyone. Problem is, the why of life is a rhetorical question as asking why we are here implies some intelligence behind our existence. If you’ve even seen Keeping Up With The Kardashians, you know there is no intelligence behind our existence.  

So the next time you run into a creationist, make sure you're driving a bus. As they lie wounded and bleeding and they ask you why you would do such a thing, be creative. Tell them that you running them over would help make the world a better place but that you have no evidence to support your claim. They will gladly croak having identified with your special brand of reasoning. But take heart; the facts do take precedence on some stages, most importantly in court. That’s basically what happened in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2005 where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled in a court ordered challenge to evolution that the Intelligent Design “theory” was in fact not science. That which makes more sense to you, evolution or creationism, will depend upon objectivity, not faith.

What follows is a link to the closing arguments delivered by Pedro Irigonegaray, an attorney for the proponents of evolution, to the Kansas State Board of Education in May 2005 during a modern day Scopes trial. I applaud the science coalition who held these hearings in contempt. I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Iregonegaray words. (It’s lengthy but worth it.) 

The Kansas State Board of Education gets owned.