Bryan Fischer Disproves Evolution


Bryan Fischer thinks he has disproved evolution. And it might be true for certain values of “disproved,” but he seems to have no idea what that word means. It’s disproved, he says, because the Bible would be wrong if it were true. Wow, such a compelling argument.

But Paul’s point is: Death did not enter into the world until sin came in, and sin came in through Adam. So before Adam, there was no death. Now, if evolution is right… you’d have to have literally millions of years where there was death. Death in the animal kingdom, and death in the human kingdom. You’d have to have millions of years of people being born and people dying.

And yet the scriptures are very clear: Death entered into the world through sin, and sin entered into the world through Adam. No sin, no death. Prior to Adam, there was no death. So evolution cannot possibly be true. It’s just a matter of theological fact.

Ooh, a “theological fact.” Those are really valuable. With a handful of “theological facts” and $5.95, you can get a coffee at Starbuck’s.

Comments

  1. abb3w says

    Shame, Ed. Merely because Christians so often are stingy about tipping is no excuse for Atheists to forget that part of the bill.

  2. says

    When observation contrdicts theological fact, you are supposed to put your fingers in your ears and sing “lalalalalalalalalaaa” That’s sophistimacated theology!

  3. petemoulton says

    Well, I’m convinced. Convinced, that is, that we have another serious contender for the coveted title of “Stupidest Organism Still Considered a Member of Homo sapiens.” The field’s getting crowded.

  4. dingojack says

    Bryan, how does Paul know when death (or ‘sin’) arose? WAS HE THERE?!?
    @@
    This is the kind of argument that even a reasonably bright 12 year old could see is nonsense. Is it any wonder the Christians are losing members hand over fist?
    Dingo

  5. birgerjohansson says

    “Death did not enter into the world until sin came in”
    The Death* of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld would have some strong objections to that.
    *actually a nice chap, who likes cats.

    Explain to Fischer that atolls are built by the skeletons of trillions of organisms, laid down over millions of years. then watch his head explode.

  6. John Pieret says

    You can have “theological facts” or you can have … well … regular facts. Is it any surprise that the people that are least acquainted with reality prefer the former?

  7. ambassadorfromverdammt says

    It would appear that there are two subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens idiotens.

  8. anubisprime says

    When the ‘argument’ descends to the utter depths of ludicrous then acute desperation must be so palpable in theist circle jerks that the stench of fear spooks the clowns to vomit their own IQ quotient.

  9. John Pieret says

    birgerjohansson @ 6:

    Explain to Fischer that atolls are built by the skeletons of trillions of organisms, laid down over millions of years. then watch his head explode.

    I wish. I’ve been in the “creation/evolution wars” for [mumble] decades now. No fact will make a creationist’s head explode … no million facts will make a creationist’s head explode. See Morton’s Demon:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

    Occasionally, someone who, like Ed, was only a creationist by virtue of being swept into the evangelical “lifestyle” will return to reason because facts just keep piling up. But, as far as I can tell, it is never because of a fact grenade.

  10. Artor says

    Birgerjohansson@6
    Fischer disregards more compelling evidence than that every day before breakfast.

  11. D. C. Sessions says

    So basically, his point is that if (biology|geology|astronomy) are true, Christianity is false — totally bunk, worthless, a waste. Billions of lives over the centuries, uncountable treasure, etc.

    Well, I know some Christians disagree but BF is the expert on Christianity so I’ll take his word for it.

  12. dingojack says

    “…the stench of fear spooks the clowns to vomit their own IQ quotient.”
    Well at least it’s only a set of microscopically small stains, then. [/glass half full]

    Dingo

  13. caseloweraz says

    Some years back there was a commercial on TV for a well-known insurance company. In it, the host called to the podium a noted efficiency expert who would explain how to choose the best insurance company.

    The expert walked to the podium, looked out over the audience, and spoke a single word: “Wausau.” Applause erupted.

    I think it would be more efficient if conservo-Christians like Fischer gave over quoting chapter and verse. To make the claim that the holy scriptures of their particular faith trump reality, they should only say “Bible.”

  14. eric says

    Death did not enter into the world until sin came in, and sin came in through Adam. So before Adam, there was no death.

    This is one of the more amusing claims of fundamentalism, because it forces them to make two closely related and fall-off-your-chair-silly assertions about the world:

    1. That in the garden, T-Rex’s, lions, etc. ate grass, and;
    2. Plants are not alive (because that’s what everything ate in the garden, but nothing died in the garden, ergo…)

  15. Larry says

    To make the claim that the holy scriptures of their particular faith trump reality, they should only say “Bible.”

    You mean, they don’t do this already?

  16. Pierce R. Butler says

    eric @ # 15: That in the garden, T-Rex’s, lions, etc. ate grass…

    Ken Ham & Co got ya covered already: T. Rex had those big teeth to open coconuts, harvesting of which left the trees alive.

  17. John Pieret says

    eric @ # 15 & Pierce @ 17:

    My favorite mocking of this idea was that spiders used their webs to catch falling grapes that they then sucked the juice out of, leaving raisins for Adam & Eve to eat (long ago talk.origins meme).

  18. Kermit Sansoo says

    Bryon, my college buddy was a Christian. He said that if reality disagreed with his reading of the bible then he figured that his biblical understanding was wrong. Of course, he didn’t think that he was infallible. Fischer et al think that they cannot err (which is what they mean when they say the bible is infallible). My buddy had a sense of proportion, and also a PhD in microbiology.
    .
    Me, I just figured that the bible was nonsense. It made my life simpler. Made treating other people decently a lot easier also – I don’t have to run any heathen decent impulses through a capricious magical king filter first.

  19. Kermit Sansoo says

    dingojack: This is the kind of argument that even a reasonably bright 12 year old could see is nonsense. Is it any wonder the Christians are losing members hand over fist?
    Dingo

    .
    But mostly onlyy people over 12 years old.

  20. dannorth says

    Please note that Fischer has just made explicit why there is creationism. Not that there ever was any doubt.

  21. eric says

    @19 – ah, that’s funny. What did the guy say about trapdoor spiders? Did they hunt dustbunnies or tumbleweeds or something? Gotta ambush those dandelion seeds I guess; if they see you coming, they fly away.

  22. matty1 says

    Bryon, my college buddy was a Christian. He said that if reality disagreed with his reading of the bible then he figured that his biblical understanding was wrong.

    That’s a common one from non-creationist Christians of all stripes, if the Bible can’t be wrong and evidence can’t be wrong it must be them making a mistake in interpretation. The problems I see with this are.

    1. Nothing in the approach prioritises reality, they could decide that it is the evidence they are reading wrong rather than the Bible.

    2. If the Bible is that easy to misinterpret how can it be useful as a guide to living? Maybe God meant “thou shalt not steal” to be a temporary thing and the animal sacrifices to be eternal and unchanging. If they think too much about this then if we’re lucky they make the transition to unbelief or if we’re unlucky they retreat towards a more fundamentalist reading.

  23. lpetrich says

    That was a common belief before the 19th century. Andrew Dickson White:

    … Bede; he declared that before man’s fall animals were harmless, but were made poisonous or hurtful by Adam’s sin, and he said, “Thus fierce and poisonous animals were created for terrifying man (because God foresaw that he would sin), in order that he might be made aware of the final punishment of hell.”

    In the twelfth century this view was incorporated by Peter Lombard into his great theological work, the Sentences, which became a text-book of theology through the middle ages. He affirmed that “no created things would have been hurtful to man had he not sinned; they became hurtful for the sake of terrifying and punishing vice or of proving and perfecting virtue; they were created harmless, and on account of sin became hurtful.”

    This theological theory regarding animals was brought out in the eighteenth century with great force by John Wesley. He declared that before Adam’s sin “none of these attempted to devour or in any wise hurt one another”; “the spider was as harmless as the fly, and did not lie in wait for blood.”

    However, fossils of carnivorous animals showed otherwise. Some of them even had the remains of other animals in their stomachs. I’ve found several pictures of fossils of fish with other fish in their mouths. This is evidence of gluttony, one of medieval theologians’ seven deadly sins.

  24. Akira MacKenzie says

    if the Bible can’t be wrong and evidence can’t be wrong it must be them making a mistake in interpretation.

    I wonder how they would react if they actually had the authors of those stories in front of of them to ask what the symbolism and proper “context” is supposed to be.

    Modern Christian: “Could you please tell me what the proper interpretation of Genesis is? What allegory were you trying to convey?”

    Ancient Hebrew: “What do you mean? The earth was created by Yahweh in six days! There was garden called Eden where the first man and woman lived until they disobeyed Yahweh and where cast out.”

    Modern Christian: “Yes I know the symbolism, but what does the story MEAN? What’s deeper message?”

    Ancient Hebrew: “WHAT? There was nothing ‘symbolic’ about it! That is what really happened!!!”

    Modern Christian: “But that is absurd! God wouldn’t have revealed himself to us that way! We all know that there was no actual Garden of Eden or Adam and Eve. Now, come clean, what do the stories really mean?”

    Ancient Hebrew: “INFIDEL! BLASPHEMER! SON OF A CAMELS’ WHORE OF BABYLON! FOR THAT YOU SHALL DIE!!!”

    Modern Christian: “Errrrrr… Is that an allegory for Jesus Christ’s love for the church or something?”

    Ancient Hebrew: (Blinks) “Jesus Who?”

  25. Akira MacKenzie says

    Ugh! Sorry, pressed “Submit” before I thought to proofread. Let’s try that again:

    matty1 @ 27

    if the Bible can’t be wrong and evidence can’t be wrong it must be them making a mistake in interpretation.

    I wonder how modern Christians would react if they actually had the authors of those stories in front of them to ask what the symbolism and proper “context” is supposed to have been. I think it would go a little something like this:

    Modern Christian: “Could you please tell me what the proper interpretation of Genesis is supposed to be? What allegory were you trying to convey?”

    Ancient Hebrew: “What do you mean? There is no allegory. The earth was created by Yahweh in six days! There was garden called Eden where the first man and woman lived until they disobeyed Yahweh and were cast out.”

    Modern Christian: “Yes I know the symbolism, but what does the story MEAN? What’s deeper message?”

    Ancient Hebrew: “WHAT? There was nothing ‘symbolic’ about it! That is what really happened!!!”

    Modern Christian: “But that is absurd! God wouldn’t have revealed himself to us that way! We all know that there was no actual Garden of Eden or Adam and Eve. Now, come clean, what do the stories really mean?”

    Ancient Hebrew: “INFIDEL! BLASPHEMER! SON OF A CAMELS’ WHORE OF BABYLON! FOR THAT YOU SHALL DIE!!!”

    Modern Christian: “Errrrrr… Is that an allegory for Jesus Christ’s love for the church or something?”

    Ancient Hebrew: (Blinks) “Jesus Who?”

  26. matty1 says

    Oh I don’t know. The original writers must have known they were ripping off the Enuma Elish and that no actual voice from the sky had told them the story. I’m sure they wouldn’t have thought of modern interpretations and they probably assumed what they wrote was kind of what happened but I doubt they were that literalist.

  27. peterh says

    “…the Bible would be wrong if [evolution] were true.”

    Since there is precious little (approaching zero) evidence for the portions of the Bible Fisher flaunts, and museum after museum crammed with evidence for the latter . . . . .

    Is there a single term for a statement that is at once a non sequitur and false comparison?

  28. gardengnome says

    “…the Bible would be wrong if [evolution] were true.”

    Well, yes, you’ve got it!

  29. Ichthyic says

    you’d have to have literally millions of years where there was death. Death in the animal kingdom, and death in the human kingdom. You’d have to have millions of years of people being born and people dying.

    this is not only wrong historically and factually, it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works; something creationists never seem to get beyond.

    it’s not the “survival” part that is really the most important thing for evolution, it’s the “fittest” part. So long as you get to reproduce more than someone else, death is irrelevant.

    even if there WAS NO DEATH, there would still be differential reproduction. thus, there would still be evolution.

    it’s their failure to even try to understand the theory, at its most basic level, that makes them laughable.

  30. Ichthyic says

    With a handful of “theological facts” and $5.95, you can get a coffee at Starbuck’s.

    starbucks charges 6 for a regular now?

    gees.

  31. Ichthyic says

    “…the Bible would be wrong if [evolution] were true.”

    also, the Bible would still be wrong even if evolutionary theory had been proven incorrect.

    bottom line, Bible = wrong, no matter what translation you use.

  32. coffeehound says

    Evolution is a lie because it disagrees with my holy book.
    Finally, a novel argument.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply