The Godless Meteorological Conspiracy

Pete Enns linked to a blog post that makes a point I’ve often made here. If you are going to oppose evolution on the grounds that it embraces naturalism, then by golly you’ve got to really get upset about meteorology. It is secular, fundamentally opposed to Biblical teaching, and on the television 24/7. After summarizing the Biblical teaching on the subject, Heather Goodman writes:

Now some might say that storehouses for snow and hail are just some sort of poetic device, or a metaphor or something.   But seriously – who wants to go sledding down that slippery slope?   If you start considering the snow storehouses to be a metaphor, instead of God’s ordained method (not to mention accurate revelation) about where snowstorms come from, then how do we know if ANYTHING in the Bible should be taken literally?   Today, it will be metaphorical snow storehouses, tomorrow it will be a metaphorical six days of Creation, and before you know it, we’ll be talking about a metaphorical Jesus.  What justification would we then have to distinguish between what should be read symbolically or culturally, and what should be read as actual history?   Anyway, it’s totally sloppy exegesis to even suggest anything is metaphorical in the Bible unless the Bible itself clearly says, “this is a parable” or “spiritually speaking…” or something, because God wouldn’t let anything as important as knowing how to read the Bible be anything but completely self-evident and spelled out like that.

So, beware.   The biggest enemy to our children and our society is not evolution; because we all know about that threat and thankfully we now have lots of “Creation Science” books and seminars to explain how science has distorted the truth how God created our world which is clearly spelled out in scripture.   No, the true enemy to our thinking is coming from unnoticed corners, not the least of which is the darkened corner of The Weatherman’s Studio.   (Let me add – while Ray Comfort might ask people to prove the 65 million year process of evolution in a laboratory by test and repeat, and people might stammer and not know how to answer, meteorology presents a much greater threat.   Because snow and hail CAN be made over and over again in a lab, and can even be observed being created in clouds.   This makes these godless lies against the Bible’s testimony much, much more dangerous.)   Beware – and please, make sure you use your child safety controls on the Weather Channel and all network news stations, to make sure your children are not infected with this worldly way of thinking about snow and hail!

Eye on the ICR also tackled the fundamentalist slippery slope argument as used by Henry Morris:

 Of course, those are Morris’ words, and the slippery slope that brought us here is of his own making. For he forgot the zeroth stage, the one where the devil was allowed to write the rules of the game. When you tell people that doubt about matters only tangential to their faith leads inevitably to a rejection of that faith altogether, then once they start to doubt they will end up a non-Christian and “unsaved,” and not simply a non-fundamentalist. And in the real world, the one where the words of a demon cannot be blamed for the actions of real people, it’s all the fault of little articles like this one by Morris III.

And so perhaps even fundamentalists ought to consider the possibility that Satan’s minions are not the weather reporters, nor the chemists, but the young-earth creationists themselves.

 

  • TomS

    As you point out in that 2009 essay of yours, genetics and embryology are at least as suspect as evolutionary biology. My observation over quite a while of creationism-watching is that very many of the arguments raised against evolution are at least as relevant to reproduction (genetics, development, metabolism, and so on). Moreover, in the 18th century several of the intelligent, well-informed and serious adherents of preformationism used some of the very same arguments being used today (for example, “irreducible complexity”, although not by that name). (One major difference being that there was an articulated theory of preformationism – it wasn’t just “something is wrong with the other theory”.) So it isn’t just a parody.

    • stuart32

      That’s a good point about embryology. Embryogenesis is a hugely complex and still poorly understood process. It might be tempting to think that something more than natural processes is involved. Perhaps God needs to guide the growth of every organism from an embryo. Presumably, no one does think that now. In fact, if God did need to guide the growth of every embryo it would be a sign of poor workmanship. It would mean that the laws of nature were not adequate to the task.

  • T. Webb

    You said, “And so perhaps even fundamentalists ought to consider the possibility
    that Satan’s minions are not the weather reporters, nor the chemists, but the young-earth creationists themselves.”

    Shouldn’t you add “themselves, and anyone who believes that anything more than chance was involved in evolution”?

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

      And anyone who believes that anything more than chance is involved in the weather? Why should such phrases be added?

    • TomS

      Who is there who believes that nothing more than chance is involved in evolution? (Actually, the only people that I’ve ever met who think that evolution is purely chance have been creationists.)

      BTW, the “chance” argument was one of those used by the 18th century preformationists.

      • Zaoldyeck

        How do you define ‘chance’? Is it ‘chance’ that a rock falls when it is tossed? Evolution may not have a ‘goal’, but it functions via deterministic processes.

        I don’t think it’s ‘chance’ that a rock falls, but I don’t think you need a god to explain it either.

        • TomS

          As far as I can tell, it is not easy to define “chance”, and I’m not sure that there is only one meaning. One function of the word seems to be as an attack on unwelcome natural explanations.

          But I’m not sure that a god which functions as an explanatory factor in the natural world has much in common with the personal Creator and Redeemer of standard monotheism.

  • dangjin

    any excuse to not believe the Bible, how sad you are. there is just so much you do not grasp yet you think you are smarter than God and know better.
    you don’t because you have decided to disobey him by listening to the secular world. when you get out of your disobedience maybe then you will understand the words God uses.

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

      I keep replying to your comments, and yet you never reply to my responses, you just post the same things over and over. If you wish to avoid a ban, you will respond this time. How about we start with this question: do you view meteorology as unbiblical, and why or why not?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X