Creationists Vote to Ditch Genesis 1-3 for Being Soft on Evolution

News from the future:

At their 2025 annual meeting, a well-known young-earth creationist organization decided to finally take the step of removing Genesis 1-3 from their canon of Scripture.

“It was long overdue,” said the organization’s longstanding president (who changed his name to an unprintable squiggle after discovering that his surname referred to a meat outlawed in the Bible). “We accepted Genesis 1-3 for a long time, emphasizing that it doesn’t mention evolution. But recently, it was drawn to our attention that neither is it as staunchly anti-evolution as we expect from a truly Christian text. Most of our arguments, in fact, are absent from Genesis 1-3. And so we had to draw the conclusion that it was an inadequate depiction that does not deserve to be considered inerrant Scripture – unlike our own writings on this topic.”

When asked for examples, he listed the following: “It never mentions God making the 2nd chromosome in human beings look like it resulted from the fusion of two chromosomes inherited from a primate ancestor, to test our faith. It never mentions God creating starlight en route to Earth 6,000 years ago. It even uses ambiguous language, sounding as though it could be saying that God commanded the Earth and sea to bring forth life, rather than creating them directly. And in Genesis 2:2, the literal wording talks of a day in which God made the heavens and the earth. Being at odds with our literal six-day creationism, we decided to remove it from our Scripture, lest anyone be confused by it or led into error.”

At the same annual meeting, the organization also decided to change the name of their organization to Answers in Genesis 4-50.

  • http://atlantarofters.blogspot.com The Sanity Inspector

    Oh, my sides! So stealing this…with credit, of course…maybe!…

  • Ken Gilmore

    But what will they do about the flood narrative in Genesis and the curious absence of geological evidence for a global flood? More redaction perhaps?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      We’ll see what happens at their meeting in 2050…

    • Dr. David Tee

      Since there has been only one global flood, which has been followed by earthquakes, landslides, storms, local floods, construction, wars, etc., exactly what kind of evidence would you find and would you be able to recognize it?

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

        All the other things you mentioned have left behind evidence, so that we find evidence of ancient earthquakes, floods, wars, constructions, etc. Why would a global flood – something more powerful – leave behind no trace? And what about the evidence for it that young-earth creationists claim that there is, even if their statements are lies? Are you saying that you accept that their words about things like the Grand Canyon are lies, and that geologic features like the White Cliffs of Dover simply do not fit their claims?

        • sam

          So you do find evidence of ancient floods, but you are certain none of them were Noah’s?

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            Are you talking about a global flood, or a local one that could have given rise to the legend of Untapishtim and eventually also of Noah? There have certainly been concrete suggestions regarding the latter. It is the former which entirely lacks evidence.

          • Mary

            Google the Black Sea. Some suggest that there were settlements there that were demolished in the formation of it caused by a sudden rise in sea levels. This could have given rise to the Noah story.

        • Dr. David Tee

          I see you love avoiding the point. Think about it and since evidence doesn’t come with a name tag, you wouldn’t know if you were looking at global flood evidence or not.
          I didn’t say any such thing so don’t twist my words. I didn’t even reference those examples but your twisiting shows you can’t deal with the truth.
          I also didn’t say the global flood didn’t leave any traces. In fact, I know of many pieces of evidence for it that exist today. You continue to demonstrate that you will not listen to the truth.

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            You still seem to be confused about this. On the one hand, you are suggesting – falsely, obviously – that geologists have no way of determining such important details about floods such as when they occurred and their extent, based on evidence which survives from those floods. On the other hand, you claim that you know of evidence that specifically can be connected with a global flood. Which is it?

            Please don’t try and justify this with the nonsensical YEC “same facts, different interpretations” canard. If that worked and really were the case, you would have given me your YEC explanation of great chalk beds like the White Cliffs of Dover by now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Lary9 Lary Alba

    ROFLMAO…good one.

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

    Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to
    allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back
    nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply
    embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than
    that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic
    Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual
    response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at
    http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html
    with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

  • joel

    true believers will see what they believe and disregard any reality that threatens
    that belief

  • ConnieHinesDorothyProvine

    These sorts of people should just go ahead and change their names to Beavis and Butthead, since they’ve got equivalent IQs.

    I bet that it eats at them that John Scopes got played onscreen by the guy who played a human married to a witch!

  • ConnieHinesDorothyProvine

    These sorts of people should just go ahead and change their names to Beavis and Butthead, since they’ve got equivalent IQs.

    I bet that it eats at them that John Scopes got played onscreen by the guy who played a human married to a witch!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X