They say to a stone, “Thou hast brought me forth!”

Romans 1 gives us a sobering insight into the worldview of unbelievers.  Verse 20 says, “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.”  The Bible clearly says that the existence of God is seen in His creation and people who claim to not believe really have no excuse for their unbelief.  

The passage goes on to say, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things” (Romans 1:21-23)

There’s an old saying that a person who doesn’t believe in something will fall for anything.  What I see in unbelievers now is exactly what is being described by Paul in Romans.  People who consider themselves to be skeptics, critical thinks, or enlightened, tend to believe in the craziest things!  Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools!

I’m reminded of the passage from Jeremiah 2:26-28:

As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets. 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. 

Now, in the context of the passage, these verses are specifically dealing with Israel’s sin of idolatry. The people worshipped idols of stone and wood as though these were their gods. They rejected the Creator God and replaced Him with gods of their own choosing and God is chiding their foolishness for believing a tree or a rock created them.

Now, I know what you’re thinking.  You’re thinking, “Bentley, surely you’re not saying atheists today believe they were made by a rock!”  Yes!!  That’s exactly what I’m saying!  Even today, atheists believe there was once an event dubbed, abiogenesis. It’s the belief that non-living chemicals somehow arranged themselves to become the first living life form – the supposed common ancestor of all living things. 

From a Universe Today article on Abiogenesis, we read the following:

Intensive study of the Earth's rocks has turned up lots and lots of evidence that some kinds of prokaryotes lived happily on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago…. So, if life arose on Earth, it did so from the chemicals in the water, air, and rocks of the early Earth … and in no more than a few hundred million years. 

There are many different theories as to how such a thing could happen but it’s important to note that abiogenesis has never been duplicated or observed. Not one time.  Ever!!  So even though there is no scientific evidence that such a thing is possible, or even a plausible explanation of how it might occur, they still believe it happened because … well … here we are!

So tell me, what exactly is the qualitative difference between believing we came from a rock and believing we came from a fortunate arrangement of chemicals?  Read the above quote again.  It’s saying life arose from chemicals found in the water, air, and the rocks of the early earth.  I’m not putting words into the mouths of evolutionists or atheists; they say it themselves and they seem very confident about it.   

Some people ridicule me for believing in creation. I think it’s far more incredible to believe life just happened by itself.  There are people who think it’s somehow more enlightened, open-minded, and scientific to think life came from rocks than it is to think God created life.  Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools.  They are no different than the rebellious nation of Judah, who bowed down before idols made of wood and stone. 

I’m careful when I use the word literally.  Some people say literally to describe things that aren’t literal but in this case, though, I’m being deliberate.  Evolutionists literally say about rocks, “You have brought us forth!”

Questions for unbelievers

If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a thousand times: people who don’t believe evolution don’t understand evolution.  Have you heard it too? At its root, this is nothing more than a No True Scotsman's argument (that is, everyone who understands evolution believes it), but the reason it continues to be used is because it seems to shift the burden of proof away from the critic.  In other words, it’s not that atheists can’t explain their theories - it’s that creationists can’t understand them.  Um, no.  I think it’s 100% that atheists can’t explain their theories.  

Atheists often claim they simply lack a belief in God.  They should call themselves agnostic but they don’t.  Instead, they pretend they’re merely withholding judgment about the existence of God until they see evidence for Him.  I recently discussed the problem with this position and pointed out that their lack of belief in God necessarily requires a belief in something. If you press them with reasonable questions - like where did everything come from? - they often respond with an uncommitted, “I don’t know.”  Other times, they throw out terms like evolution, the Big Bang, or science.  

It’s my belief that not only do unbelievers have no good answers to questions about origins, the vast majority of them don’t even understand the answers they give.  Further, I think creationists reject the arguments of skeptics because the creationists understand the issues better than they do!  I don’t reject evolution, for example, because I don’t understand it; I reject it because I do understand it and I can see that it’s absurd!

To that end, I thought it would be fun to compile a list of questions I’d like unbelievers to answer.  Skeptics often publish lists of questions under headlines like, “Questions no Christian can answer” but ignore the hundreds of answers that they’ve already heard.  So even though I’m tempted to call this, “Questions no atheist can answer,” I won’t.  I’ll just ask the questions, and let the sheer weight of their rhetoric weigh on skeptics’ minds.  This isn’t meant to be an exhaustive list of questions - it’s only meant to provoke thought.

Let’s get started:

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Do you believe God doesn’t exist?  

If you believe there is no god anywhere, isn’t that a knowledge claim?  

If you only claim there is no evidence for God, do you allow for the possibility there could be a god?  

Do you believe the scientific methods that we use to study the natural universe are adequate tools to examine the evidence for a supernatural god?  

Are miracles evidence for God?  If “no,” why not?   

THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

Do you believe it’s more reasonable to believe the universe poofed into existence out of nothing than to believe in an eternal Creator?  

If everything poofed into existence at the Big Bang, what prevents new matter/energy from forming out of nothing now?  If the universe poofed into existence from nothing, why doesn’t that violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the conservation of matter/energy)?

If you believe energy is eternal, how is that any more scientific than saying God is eternal?  If you believe energy is eternal yet hasn’t been completely exhausted (entropy), how is that not like believing in perpetual energy?  

ABIOGENESIS

We’ve never observed life being formed from non-living chemicals.  If a scientific theory is tested and observed, can there really be a “theory” of abiogenesis?

How is abiogenesis substantially different from spontaneous generation?  

If we somehow created metabolic life in a lab, how could we be sure that’s how it supposedly happened in the past?  

If we don’t know how life formed in the first place, how could we confidently say God didn’t create it?  

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Can something be true if it can’t be demonstrated scientifically?  

Is science the only way to determine what is true?  

Can a miracle be studied via the scientific method?   Is the scientific method an adequate tool to study the supernatural?   

How much of science is philosophical rather than testable?  

Can the scientific method be used to study historical events or persons?   

Is there any scientific evidence that supports the premise that every phenomenon has a natural explanation?   

CONCLUSION

These are just a handful of questions I could ask. Do I really need to explain the points behind any of these questions?  Where did everything come from?  Why are we here?  Is there a god?  Is there anything beyond the mundane?  What is the truth?  These are questions that people have asked for all of history.  Yet the committed skeptic can only answer any of them with a shrug and dogmatic faith that there is an answer and it’s not God!!  They are materialists of the worst sort.  They reject the idea of anything beyond the natural, but they cannot offer any compelling reason for why they do so.  They claim to believe in “science” but struggle to answer even simple questions about our world.  Theirs is a paradigm that claims to seek out “truth” and understand “reality” but fails to do either.

Don’t trust the snakes!

I once read a post written by a person who called himself a “Christian rationalist.”  I normally would link to the post but I can’t find the original post anymore.  It doesn’t really matter, though, because what he said is something I hear all the time by other Christians.  Here’s what this person had to say about creationism:

Believe me, I know; kids aren't stupid, and know a specious argument when they hear it. If (in essence) they're being told that "The Flintstones" represents real and true history (that is, dinosaur/human cohabitation, etc), and that all they are watching on the History or Discovery channels is a sinister secular conspiracy to do away with God, then it's no wonder they fall away from the faith. 

His solution was, “freely endorsing a harmony between modern Science and a grounded Christian faith.”  I find his solution curious.  What does he mean by “a grounded Christian faith”? Grounded in what? Grounded in science? That can't be right. Which is the greater authority: “science” (that is, the opinion of men who admit they only consider natural explanations for anything) or the Bible? I would say that Christianity can only be grounded if it is built on the Bible. I remind you of Romans 10:17 which says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” What other foundation can there be? And I believe the plain words of the Bible cannot be “harmonized” with a belief in evolution.

Why is there a sense of urgency among Christians to “reconcile” the plain words of the Bible with a corrupt theory, devised by finite men, whose stated premise is that miracles never happen?  Why do some Christians think they’re doing God a favor by watering down His words to make them more palatable?  In John 6, when Jesus told the crowds that He was the true Bread who has come down from heaven and only those who ate of this bread would live forever, v. 66 says that many of His disciples turned back and stopped following Him.  Jesus asked the Twelve if they would leave too, to which Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life” (v. 68).  

You see, the truth sometimes offends people.  So do we speak the truth or do we only speak what’s popular?  People like the Christian rationalist above seem to think that, since the truth might drive some people away, we need to mix it with a little bit of the world.  Tsk, tsk.

Christians who compromise on Genesis often believe they are making Christianity more appealing to the masses. Maybe it does – but only by removing the omnipotent God who is the object of our worship and replacing Him with an impotent god who is a slave to the physical laws he supposedly created and is indistinguishable from dumb luck.  To an evolutionist, believing God guides evolution is akin to saying gravity is accomplished by angels dragging the planets in their courses. Christians gain no credibility with unbelievers by trying to impose godless theories onto the Scriptures.

People who adhere to evolutionary theory, see it as a slow, clumsy, wasteful, and cruel process.  To them, to say God created by using evolution actually diminishes the character of God.  It makes Him seem capricious or indifferent.  Consider this quote from the infamous atheist, Richard Dawkins:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. 

Do you see what I mean?  I’m not exaggerating, not in the least.  Christians understand the world was created “very good,” but was corrupted by sin and cursed by His judgment.  Unbelievers don’t see it that way.  To them, a god who would create through evolution is literally a monster!  Just read what some devout evolutionists believe about the Creator (I’ve added bold for emphasis):

The obvious implication is that THE DESIGNER OF LIFE IS INCOMPETENT. We all know it; no amount of gushing over how "perfect" life is can cover up the fact that everything here can be improved upon. Let's stop making up excuses and admit that the Creator did a half-assed job. 

Julian Bolinger

...It makes sense if every feature of an organism is the product of its history, but it doesn't make sense if you want to argue independent design with appropriate reuse of common elements. Unless, that is, you're willing to argue that the Designer is wasteful, incompetent, and lazy. 

Talk Origins Feedback

Another problem when considering a designer in nature is that of disuse or elimination of parts of the design. I must ask myself why a designer would go to the trouble of creating a certain model of living organism, only to have that organism, over time, throw away much of the creative handiwork. Many parasitic organisms have done just this. ¶Evolutionary theory provides answers to such questions. I can't seem to find satisfactory answers anywhere else. 

Talk Origins Feedback

Many organisms show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint...  In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better. 

Talk Origins “Jury Rigged Design”

If we conclude that living organisms are designed, and we know that some of these organisms reproduce by laying eggs within a living organism, so that their newly-hatched young can quite literally eat the helpless creature from the inside out, how can we infer that the designer of this system is a kind and benevolent one? 

Talk Origins, The Nature of the Designer

I guess the "Biblical Creator" in his infinite wisdom could not design eyes any better than natural selection could. 

Talk Origins, Cretinism or Evilution?

These are but a few of hundreds of quotes I could provide.  It escapes me why so many Christians will associate themselves with such devout God-haters.   The people who claim you can believe in God and evolution must themselves believe in some other god – not the God of the Bible. If evolution were true, then the god of evolution would be a clumsy, incompetent, lazy, moronic creator who couldn’t create his way out of a wet paper bag. He is not the all-powerful Creator who spoke the universe into existence. 

It reminds me of the poem/song by Oscar Brown, Jr.

On her way to work one morning

Down the path ‘longside the lake

A tender-hearted woman saw a poor half-frozen snake

His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew

“Oh well,” she cried, “I’ll take you in and I’ll take care of you”

(Refrain)

“Take me in, tender woman

Take me in, for heaven’s sake

Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake

She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk

And laid him by thе fireside with some honеy and some milk

She hurried home from work that night, and soon as she arrived

She found that pretty snake she’d taken in had been revived

(Refrain)

She clutched him to her bosom, “You’re so beautiful,” she cried

“But if I hadn’t brought you in, by now you might have died”

She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight

Instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite

(Refrain)

“I saved you,” cried the woman

“And you’ve bitten me, but why?

And you know your bite is poisonous and now I’m gonna die”

“Oh shut up, silly woman,” said the reptile with a grin

“You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in”

(Refrain)

The theory of evolution is antithetical to the gospel.  We need to speak the truth without being embarrassed or worried about who we might offend.  We do not need a bigger tent if it means we must compromise on the word of God.  Stay on the strait and narrow way.  Christians need to stop appealing to the snakes!  

Their unbelief is a belief!

I’ve said many times that atheists play word games.  Specifically, they like to redefine terms in their favor.  Evolution, for example, doesn’t mean what most people think it means - “the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.”   No.  They say it means, “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”  They get really upset when you don’t use the same definitions as they do, like they’re the Word Czars or something.  

One word they have consistently redefined is atheist.  Most people define an atheist as someone who doesn’t believe in God or someone who believes there is no God.  Am I right?  However, just like the word evolution, atheists get in a huff when you don’t define atheist the same way they do.  They claim an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God.  In other words, they say they’re not trying to make any claim about the existence of God; they’re just expressing their lack of belief in Him.  Hmmm.  Something about that doesn’t sound right.

First, there’s already a word to describe when people are unsure about the existence of God; it’s called agnosticism.  How is the atheists’ twisted definition of atheism substantially different from agnosticism?  There must be a reason they prefer using such a vague definition rather than adopting the already existing term.  I’ve asked many and they usually try to draw the distinction that agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God cannot be known, while they simply lack a belief that He exists.  It sounds like a case of splitting hairs.  

When people resort to equivocating over the meanings of words, they begin to open themselves up to contradiction.  Do they know God doesn’t exist?  Do they only think He doesn’t exist?  Do they admit He might exist?  Why do they object when people say He does exist?  You can see the difficulty with their position.  They want to attack theism without having to defend their position.

Frank Turek has used this analogy to expose the weakness of the modern definition of atheism: There are two detectives investigating a murder.  There are fingerprints, DNA, and a murder weapon that all point to one suspect.  Detective A is certain the suspect is guilty.  Detective B looks at the same facts and says he doesn’t believe the suspect is guilty.  So Detective A asks, “Then what about the gun, the blood, the fingerprints, and all the other evidence?  How do you explain all that?”  Detective B only replies, “I don’t have to explain it.  I just don’t believe it’s him.”  

I know it’s not a perfect analogy, but do you see the comparison?  You can show an atheist all the evidence we have for God: we can discuss the historical certainty of Jesus, we can point to the ontological necessity of a supernatural First Cause, we can appeal to the existence of absolute morality, and the atheist can just sit cross armed saying, “That’s not enough.”  He offers no rebuttal, he doesn’t concede an inch, he simply just doesn’t believe.  In the case of the detectives, there is a dead body and there is evidence that points to one suspect; why should we not consider what is possibly the most likely explanation?  Likewise, why should we deny the plausible explanation that God created everything and default to the incredible belief that nothing created everything?

Psalm 19:1 says, The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.  When I look at the starry night and see the grandeur of the universe, I consider its complexity, design, and beauty.  Knowing that God created it doesn’t end scientific inquiry; rather it makes me wonder more.  It tells me something about God.  I understand the cause of the universe must be something outside of the universe, something “supernatural” by definition.  God is the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover that Aristotle argued must exist.  He must be greater than all burning stars.  He must be eternal and timeless, to have created time.  He must be omniscient and personal, to have created the mind and consciousness.  Knowing God exists helps me to make sense of the universe.

Everyone has a worldview.  There is a method by which we see the world and make sense of it.  For someone to deny that God is behind the universe, he must necessarily believe that nature is all there is.  They may claim they don’t believe God created everything, but they don’t have any alternative explanation.  They must necessarily believe in some other “undivine” creator.  They may claim God isn’t the moral Lawgiver, but they must have some basis to believe something is right or wrong.  They acknowledge how things are but will not consider why they are.  When they do consider how and why anything exists, they intentionally ignore what could be the most likely explanation. 

The problem for the atheists is their disbelief is actually their belief.   They pretend to be blank slates looking at the evidence but are committed to naturalism.  They somehow think it’s more intellectual to assume nothing created everything than God having created everything.  

In closing, read these telling words of Richard Lewontin:

Evolutionists ... have a prior 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.

Lies evolutionists tell: Abiogenesis is different from spontaneous generation

People who militantly defend evolution (AKA evolutionists) like to look down their noses at the “lay” public and smugly drone on about how science is the key to knowledge, how evolution is the most rigorously tested theory in science, and how they only go where the evidence leads. If that were true, why do they feel the need to tell lies to support their theory? I'm not talking about a mere difference of opinion – like how I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old and they think it's 4 billion years old. I'm talking about continuously repeating things that are objectively false. The sad thing is, many members of the public have heard these lies repeated so often, they assume they are true.  One lie I’ve heard many, many times is that abiogenesis is not the same as spontaneous generation.  

Once upon a time, people believed in a thing called spontaneous generation.  It’s the idea that life could spring up from non-living matter.  They believed, for example, that maggots would spontaneously form in rotting meat.  Over time, however, with much experimentation and observation, it was discovered that every suspected example of spontaneous generation could be attributed to observable causes.  In the case of maggots, they determined the cause was flies laying eggs on the meat.  

Eventually, the spontaneous generation of “complex” animals was disproved.  However, the belief endured that it could still happen in “simple” creatures like single-celled organisms.  If you put a jar of clean water in the sun, for example, after a while, the water would begin to cloud.  If you examined the water under the primitive microscopes available at that time, they could see the water was teeming with bacteria.  They believed these cells were merely gelatinous blobs formed spontaneously by a fortunate arrangement of chemicals already present in the water. 

Louis Pasteur  was a chemist, biologist, and contemporary of Charles Darwin.  He didn’t believe life could arise purely by chance so he devised an experiment to test what was happening.  He discovered that in sterilized, sealed flasks, bacteria would not grow.  If the flasks were left open, bacteria would begin to grow.  So he proved the bacteria was entering the flask from outside and not forming spontaneously in the water.  This was the discovery that led to the process we now call pasteurization and was the final blow to spontaneous generation.  It was replaced by the law of biogenesis - life only comes from life.

This poses a problem for evolutionists.  If life only comes from life, where did the supposed first living cell come from?  They have to believe - somehow and somewhere - that it rose from non-living matter.  In other words, they still believe in spontaneous generation!  I’ve often teased them by saying they’re asking people to believe in a theory that was discarded about the same time as blood-letting!!  [joke copyrighted by RKBentley © if you want use it, send me a quarter] Of course, they claim to not believe in spontaneous generation; instead, they call it abiogenesis.  So what is the difference?  That’s a good question.  I asked Chat GPT to define ‘spontaneous generation.’  Here’s what it said:

Spontaneous generation is an old scientific idea that living organisms could arise from nonliving matter without any parent organisms.  

It went on to talk about the meat/maggots example, the Pasteur experiments, and the Law of Biogenesis.  It concluded its response with these words:

In short

• Spontaneous generation  = life comes from nonliving matter

• Modern science = life comes from preexisting life

OK, that seems straight forward.  It’s pretty much the same thing I’d already understood.   Then I asked it to define ‘abiogenesis’ and here’s what it said:

Abiogenesis is the scientific concept that life arose naturally from non-living matter on early Earth - without any pre-existing life.

Do you see what I see?  These definitions are essentially the same thing - life arose from non-life, except spontaneous generation says it doesn’t happen and abiogenesis says it does!  

Because Chat GPT’s responses seemed contradictory, I asked a less direct question.  I asked, “What do you call the process by which life rises from non-living matter?”  Here’s the response:

The process you’re referring to is called Abiogenesis.

What it means

Abiogenesis is the scientific idea that life arose from nonliving chemical substances - likely on earth Earth billions of years ago.

Key distinction

It’s important not to confuse this with spontaneous generation:

• Abiogenesis -> A gradual, natural process over long periods involving chemistry (accepted area of scientific research)

• Spontaneous generation -> life appearing suddenly and regularly from nonliving matter (now disproven)

Ah, I get it.  Abiogenesis has the magic ingredient: time!!  I mean, life can’t just spring up like maggots from rotting meat, that’s crazy.  But if you wait billions of years, a rock can become alive.  Yeah, that makes perfect sense.  Plus, abiogenesis involves chemistry, you see, and that’s scientific - so there you go.  //RKBentley rolls his eyes//

To be fair, Chat GPT did conclude with this final distinction:

Simple way to think about it

• Abiogenesis = how the first life ever began

• Biogenesis = how life continues today (life comes from life)

Yet even this doesn’t hold any water.  First, if abiogenesis was a singular event, then it is disqualified from scientific investigation.  It would be like trying to scientifically observe the reign of Julias Caesar - it’s something that happened in the past and we weren’t there to see it.  If it never happens again, how could we ever observe how it happened?  And even if we somehow create life in a lab, there’s no way to say that is how it happened in the past!

But there’s an even deeper problem with this idea, namely, who’s to say that it doesn’t happen any more?  They’re saying only the first life formed by abiogenesis, because if it happened again, that would be spontaneous generation.  It’s kind of like the exotic theories atheists invoke to explain the origin of everything from nothing.  How can anyone say that some “miraculous” thing happened naturally in the past but it doesn’t happen any more?  If life arose from chemicals once, why necessarily doesn’t it keep happening?  If the universe poofed out of nothing, why can’t matter/energy poof into existence now?  It sounds like a clever way to say, “An incredible thing happened, it wasn’t a miracle, we don’t have to prove anything, and it’s still scientific.” 

In conclusion I’ll say, my opinion hasn’t changed.  Abiogenesis is Spontaneous Generation 2.0.  It’s a god-of-the-gaps argument being used by unbelievers to plug a big hole in their worldview.  We’ve known for more than a century that life doesn’t rise naturally from chemicals but they still cling with faith-like determination to the idea that it must have happened.