I had the dubious pleasure, a few days ago, of overhearing a conversation about the ultimate proof that there is a God or, if you will, a god. It was delivered by a middle-aged woman to a man, who clearly had no interest whatsoever, but played along just for the ride. In essence it began with the premise that evolution takes a being and makes it perfect by adapting the evolving entity into its environment. Clearly evolution cannot be a fact of life – although many things do adapt to their environment – because evolution has not managed to create a human being who uses the entire capacity of its brain. If evolution really was a thing, the human would use their entire brain capacity. And it is clear, as a subsection to the argument, that evolution cannot exist simply because scientists have only found one set of bones from a theoretical ancestor of man (Lucy), but none of them are capable of dating these remains precisely. With creation it is clear exactly when man was created, because the Bible tells us when, where and how.
I do not doubt for one moment that anyone reading the argument as it stands will be able to rip it to pieces without a second thought. The only problem, though, is that no matter how much proof a sane, logical-thinking person may bring out, it will never be enough to convince. Those who have read the Bible and believe it simply cannot bring themselves to believe anything else, whether out of limited brain capacity, fear or for any other reason.
Photo Source: Shelly – Creative Commons
The Bible can be used for many arguments, and for both sides of an argument. I recently read someone refuting the LGBT argument that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. He refuted it succinctly and correctly by quoting from the Bible. What surprised me was the manner in which he was answered. Someone wrote back to him that he was quoting from the Old Testament. It came across to me that this person believed in God’s Word, the Bible and all that goes with it, but only those bits which fit, and then only the New Testament. Surely, I thought, the Bible is a complete entity; you cannot just pick out those bits which appeal, or which fit in with your own point of view and discard the rest.
Here I am clearly wrong, because that is precisely what people do. They pick out, they sort through, they discard, they ignore. It’s rather like someone saying that they know a certain piece of legislation is the law – think Texas AG Ken Paxton here – but it doesn’t apply to them, only to everyone else.
It’s not just that. This woman, convinced of her creationist views, believed the story of Adam and Eve wholeheartedly, but discarded other sections of the Bible. She was quite happy to wear clothes made of mixed materials, to go out without covering herself from head to foot and, in all probability, commit any number of sins – according to the definition of either the Good Book or those who write the wide-ranging interpretations according to their own whims.
For many who try to combat this creation theory with arguments which can be easily understood, the paintings from the Middle Ages – a time of great repression from the religious side – can be used quite effectively. Or, at least, they believe so. Why, I have heard people ask, if God created Adam and Eve, does Eve have a belly button?
Easy enough to refute: the painters took live models and simply painted what they saw. No proof whatsoever.
There is another question, though, which might work better. Adam, according to the story, was created first. It was not initially planned that he be replicated, that there be an Eve, let alone any offspring. Eve came as a second thought when this god who created him discovered that he was lonely. Since he was all alone, without the prospect of children and with everything he needed to remain alive – although he was, back then, before Eve offered him a piece of fruit everyone claims to be an apple, immortal – and since man is a direct descendant of Adam, created in God’s Own Image, why do men have nipples?
- Viktoria Michaelis.