Interloper

“Good morning, Dr. Jones.” Oliver Jones’ secretary smiled at him from behind her desk. “Welcome back.”

“Thank you.” He had no memory of ever seeing the woman before. He paused to read the label on his unfamiliar office door: Oliver Jones PhD, Chancellor.

This was his first day back at work after his accident. He had been out for just a few days, but it felt more like nine years. His neurologist diagnosed the problem as retrograde amnesia. The nine years of memory loss could be permanent, his memory might return gradually, or it might return quite suddenly. “I’ve had patients who’ve said, ‘Oh, yeah …’ and then they can almost watch their world rebuild itself as the memories return.”

Nine years earlier, he had been a successful and ambitious college administrator and very much an atheist. Today, he was the head of Tabernacle University, perhaps America’s most aggressively Christian university.

Only his neurologist shared the secret. Jones’s public story was that he had some limited amnesia, he’d soon be fine, and that he needed to take things slowly. He hoped that his secretary’s prepping visitors with this vague prognosis would explain away any erratic behavior.

He looked around his big office. He saw many books on Christianity and atheism that he remembered reading. There were other familiar touches—artwork that he recognized and a few nerdy desk toys. But then there were the photos—photos of him shaking hands with televangelists, prominent religious leaders, and a presidential candidate. Who was this guy?

He looked himself up online, horrified as the details filled in the outline of what he had already learned about himself at the hospital. He had become Tabernacle’s chancellor four years earlier after some sort of religious epiphany. As a prominent and outspoken atheist, he had apparently been quite a catch for conservative Christianity.

On this first day back at work, he blundered through the day with impromptu staff meetings to update him on the latest issues. As with his first look at his secretary, each of his colleagues was a stranger.

In his house that evening—he was apparently still a single divorced man—he considered his situation. Should he come clean and quit? Find a new job?

He weighed his options as an interesting route took shape—remain as chancellor, but be a reformer. With this bully pulpit, he could steer this inept leviathan onto a healthier course. The board might fire him, of course, but as an atheist who woke up at the helm of a prominent Christian institution, this was too good an opportunity to pass up.

He thought of the students. The image came to mind of a jungle explorer who slips into quicksand. He struggles but sinks deeper. Exhausted, he calls for help, but no one comes. His students were like that, living and breathing reason but gradually slipping under. He could throw them a rope.

The university charter made clear that the Christian student had nothing to fear from an honest search for the truth. With this as his armor, Jones began his reforms. He sidelined projects that had been on his desk and created a lecture series with nationally known atheists. The students needed to see the real debate, not some neutered version. No longer could his professors set up flimsy atheist arguments but would need to respond to the best.

Reactions came quickly. Alumni protested, and parents demanded that the school be turned back into a safe haven for their children. The board warned that neither group could be alienated. Jones responded by pointing to the school’s confident charter. Wasn’t it still in force? He said he wanted nothing more than to honor the founders’ vision.

Perhaps the board figured that a man who’d had a recent brush with death was entitled to a little slack. With a bit of breathing room, he courted the press and soon became the darling of the mainstream religious media. He next dropped the faith requirement for professors and students and created a new professorship for Atheist Studies. He charged the science department with teaching only the scientific consensus—no more Creationism or 6000-year-old earth. He launched a project to earn an honorable accreditation for the university rather than one given only to Bible colleges. Students would discover the truth, not be force-fed a dogma. Each strategically timed innovation brought a new round of interviews that raised his profile progressively higher.

Tabernacle had been a stodgy refuge from reality but was evolving in the public mind into an innovator in Christian thought and higher education. Despite continuing resistance from all sides, his influential public profile helped convince the board to give him room to explore his new vision.

At the end of the semester, Jones took stock of his work. Four months earlier, he had felt like Alice, newly through the looking glass. Now he could point to solid progress in smoothing off the sharp edges, at least for this Christian institution. For all the enemies he had made, he seemed to have even more allies. Who could say what additional innovations he might make in the years to come?

It finally felt right to make this office his own, to replace photos of that other guy with recent magazine cover stories and pictures with new friends.

He studied the old photos as he took them down. He was surprised as they brought to mind dreams he’d had recently—dreams of an unfamiliar past that now came more into focus—and he went through the photos again. Oh yeah, he thought, as memories trickled back to become ill-fitting jigsaw puzzle pieces. The man in the top photo, that was the outgoing chancellor. He’d been told that, but now he could confirm it through his own memory. And the photo with the famous preacher—he remembered when the photo was taken.

He even remembered the event that led to his being there, that low point when he got on his knees and embraced Jesus. He was getting his life back, though instead of walking into a welcoming and familiar new world, he felt that old life creeping up around him like a jungle vine, pulling him under, yanking him back to his Christian past.

He could call for help, but who would come?

A haunted house at Halloween? Let’s visit a Hell House!

A guide takes the audience from scene to scene. The tour starts with a teenage girl in a doctor’s office being told she has gonorrhea. How will she tell her parents? The guide makes clear the irony: this girl was a Christian, and she knew that premarital sex is a sin.

Next up is a gaunt young man being told that he has AIDS. He also knew that his homosexual lifestyle was sinful.

Then there’s a girl on a filthy gurney in a back-alley abortion clinic. There’s blood everywhere, and she’s screaming in pain. A drugged drink leads to rape. A drunk driver crashes, killing himself and everyone in the car. A drug overdose. A demon greets someone dabbling with Satanic spells. A suicide. Worse of all would be dying without getting right with Jesus, which would commit you to eternity in hell. Sin has consequences, people!

Welcome to Hell House, a haunted house attraction recast with an Evangelical moralistic viewpoint. It’s designed to scare the Jesus into you.

Hell House with a twist

Hell Houses are out of fashion, at least where I live. If you’re in the same situation, left out of the hellish fun, I have good news. I came across an interesting variation on a Hell House. It’s a video about getting a letter from a place you’d never expect. It’s called “A letter from hell!

In the story, Josh and Zach were in high school. They had classes together, they played sports together, they partied together. They were best friends. One thing Zach never got around to doing—it was a small omission, really—was sharing with Josh his personal relationship with Jesus.

Then one night, Josh drove home from a party. He was drunk, and he crashed and died. Zach’s small omission meant that his best friend hadn’t accepted Jesus before he died.

After the funeral, Zach got a letter in the mail. It was from Josh, describing the afterlife. He says he’s in line at heaven’s gate. But his name isn’t in the Book of Life, and he’s dragged away to a holding cell. Josh is terrified and blames Zach. “You say you’re my friend, but if you really were, you would’ve told me about this Jesus.”

Angels come into the cell and drag Josh off. He can smell the sulfur, and then he feels the fire. “Zach, why didn’t you tell me?!”

Josh ends his letter, “P.S. Wish you were here.”

Zach’s reply

Zach defends himself with his own letter, saying, “Don’t bother me.” He has school to do, sports to play, and life to live. He rationalizes that his friends will make up their own minds.

Presumably the mixture of Josh’s anguish, his revenge wish that Zach would also be sentenced to hell, and Zach’s callous reply is supposed to push the right buttons to scare teens into evangelizing their friends.

That motivation for a congregation is understandable. Christianity must be continually replenished with new blood, and with adults, it’s too late since they rarely switch into a religion. Christianity’s primary feedstock is the children of Christians, but another important source is Christian teens bringing in their friends. (I explore the embarrassing fact that Christianity survives only with children indoctrinated before they’re old enough to understand here.)

Critique

While this video letter might make an effective emotional argument for some, look more closely and we’ll see it has problems.

– The story Josh wanted from Zach is the story of a god who’s infinitely good and yet created hell. It’s the story of a loving deity who slipped infinite torment into his “perfect” plan, hoping no one notices. It’s incoherent.

– It makes no sense to dump the blame on Zach. Who in America hasn’t heard about Jesus and the Christian concept of hell? Josh even admitted that he had. Sharing the Jesus story is like giving someone a stock tip—maybe it’s a good investment, and maybe not. It’d be awkward to pressure a friend to buy the stock and then have its price fall. Christianity is like a thousand other religions—Shintoism, Jainism, Mormonism, Scientology—that we agree are invented. Why think Christianity isn’t more of the same?

– Many Christians are embarrassed by the doctrine of God creating hell. I occasionally see C.S. Lewis used to salvage God’s honor with the claim, “The doors of hell are locked on the inside.”

But Christians must pick. (1) They can have God as a heartless monster and accept Zach’s story that hell means exquisite torment. He’s in a frenzy to get out, but he can’t. Or, (2) they can have Lewis’s hell, in which the inmates of hell are in a prison of their own making, but then Zach would be gone, and this “Letter from hell” makes no sense.

– Does God want the threat of hell to scare us straight? Then he can come down and tell us about it. As always, God avoids the opportunity to do something significant on earth—end covid, stop natural disasters, or make an unambiguous statement about how to go to the “Good Place” after death. Instead, we’re assured by his self-appointed human messengers that they can speak for him—which is what we’d see if there were no God.

– How lasting will a commitment to Jesus be if someone is frightened into it?

The Great Commission makes no sense

This is the big one.

The foundational claim supporting this entire Jesus-died-so-you-could-avoid-hell project is that Jesus himself demanded that his flock spread the word. That’s the Great Commission, where Jesus said, “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19).

That sounds like the last word on the subject. Jesus has spoken, so why are you still hanging around? Get out and evangelize!

But here, as with the letter from hell, a little thought uncovers many problems.

– Jesus wasn’t talking to you. Read that chapter, and you’ll see that Jesus’s audience was his disciples.

But what about passing on the message long-term? The original disciples would eventually die, so surely the Great Commission was binding on future generations?

Nope. There was no “long term” in the Jesus story. He was an Apocalyptic prophet, and he thought that the end would come in just a few years. He said, “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). “All these things” included stars falling from heaven, so the typical Christian excuses fail. (For example, apologists often tap dance that Jesus actually meant the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. That was a disaster, to be sure, but it’s very different from the end of the universe).

We find the same “the end is nigh” thinking from Paul. He likened the resurrection of Jesus to the first fruits of a harvest. With Jesus risen, Paul expected him to soon harvest those who belong to him (1 Corinthians 15:20–23).

Paul also reassured one of his congregations when they grumbled that Jesus was late, and Christians were starting to die. Paul said that when Jesus came, the dead would be swept up, followed by “we who are still alive and are left” (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

– Jesus’s message was not a universal message. In what has been called the lesser commission, Jesus said,

Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel [that is, Jews who have been abandoned by their Jewish leaders]. As you go, proclaim this message: “The kingdom of heaven has come near.” (Matt. 10:5–7)

No modern Christian interprets Jesus’s instructions as a command to preach solely to Jews.

– When Jesus sent apostles out to spread the word, he gave them superpowers: “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons” (Matt. 10:8). Incredibly, Jesus also granted the power to judge sins, a power you’d think would be reserved for God himself (Matt. 18:18, John 20:23).

Christians today who don’t have these superpowers probably shouldn’t flatter themselves that they have been chosen to walk with the apostles.

– It’s arrogant for one person to imagine that their interpretation of the message of Jesus is the correct one. There are 45,000 denominations in Christianity. That’s a lot of different interpretations. It’s not realistic for any Christian to feel certain that they had it figured out.

– Evangelizing isn’t necessary to get people saved because we’re already saved. Paul in Romans 5:18–19 draws a parallel between Adam and Jesus. Just as we didn’t need to opt in to inherit Adam’s sin, Paul assures us that we don’t need to do anything to get Jesus’s grace.

See you in heaven.

(Read more on the irrelevance of the Great Commission to modern Christians).

If God has a really important message for us, I suggest he come down and give it to us and stop looking indistinguishable from a god who doesn’t exist.

“Why is God hidden?”
I’d say for the same reason that
unicorns and dragons and leprechauns are hidden.
— commenter C Peterson

Do atheists have a nihilistic worldview?

We looked at the odd views of “John the atheist” in a recent article.

  • John denies that morality exists (apparently he means that objective morality doesn’t exist).
  • John dismisses aspirations and love as imaginary by equating them with the chemistry that makes them (just because we can understand how love works doesn’t mean it no longer exists).
  • John says that “there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife” (no, you’re thinking of a sociopath).

You’ve pressed the Christian’s magic button!

Let’s move on to what is the more interesting aspect of this story, Christian bloggers’ eager and gullible embrace of John’s views.

John’s essay first appeared in “The Inevitable Consequence of An Atheistic Worldview” at Jim Wallace’s Cold-Case Christianity blog. Wallace says, “John bluntly captured the true nature of morality when it is untethered to a transcendent source.”

I wonder why he accepts John’s nutty view of morality rather than those of many other atheists whose views contradict that—I reject that view, for example.

Wallace makes clear the atheist’s problem: “[As an atheist,] I embraced a particular set of moral laws even though I couldn’t account for these laws in a world without a transcendent moral law giver.”

If you’re looking for a sensible worldview, you’ve backed the wrong horse. Naturalism explains morality with evolution, while Christianity posits God as a law giver without evidence. That’s how you tell the difference between science and religion—science is the one backing up its claims with evidence.

And Wallace is confused about how society works. “Without a true transcendent source for morality (and purpose), skeptics are left trying to invent their own, justifying their subjective moral rules as best they may.”

Societies around the world and throughout history have developed moral rules. Christians have a special book, and yet they have the same moral programming as anyone else. It’s not just Christianity that has the Golden Rule.

What is the meaning of life?

Wallace wraps up his argument this way:

In my interaction with John, he told me he was weary of hearing fellow atheists mock their opponents for hypocrisy and ignorance, while pretending they had a definitive answer to the great questions of life. He simply wanted his fellow atheists to be consistent. As it turns out, theism provides the consistent moral foundation missing from John’s atheistic worldview.

Hold on—who is pretending to have definite answers to the great questions of life?

By “great questions,” I assume you mean questions like, (1) Why are we here? (2) Where did we come from? (3) What is my purpose? Or (4) What will happen to me after I die? Yes, Christianity has answers, but are those answers backed up with evidence? Other religions have different answers to life’s great questions. Why imagine that your answers are better? And if theirs are made up, why not yours?

Remember science, the discipline that backs things up with evidence? It answers your Great Questions. It’s just that you don’t like the answers: (1) We’re here for no more cosmically significant reason than a goat or oak tree is here, (2) the Big Bang and evolution are parts of the explanation of where we came from, (3) your life’s purpose is yours to define, and (4) what happens to you after you die is the same as what happens when the goat or oak tree dies. (I’ve written more about how science answers the big questions.) Might there actually be supernatural explanations behind these questions? Sure, maybe, but why think that in the absence of good evidence except to satisfy your predetermined supernatural conclusion?

That’s how you tell the difference between science and religion—science is the one backing up its claims with evidence.

A parting insult

John said, “You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all.  When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.” John demands that atheists be consistent and accept the consequences of their worldview.

I am an atheist, and I reject that worldview. I won’t accept his “consequences” when they’re ridiculous.

Wallace concludes, “As it turns out, theism provides the consistent moral foundation missing from John’s atheistic worldview.”

Consistent? First, you’ve given no evidence that Christianity is not just pretend, which is what it looks like. Second, Christian morality is wildly inconsistent when Christians in the West must juggle modern morality (racial equality, gender equality, and slavery and genocide as abominations) with God’s actions in the Old Testament (God supports slavery, God supports genocide, and God even supports human sacrifice). Christianity’s “moral foundation” sucks.

Concluded in part 3.

The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around
a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal
is obviously some indication
of how skewed our perspective tends to be.
— Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt


(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 2017-8-17.)

The Bible defeats its own Resurrection story

Step through the gospel’s crucifixion and resurrection story, and you’ll see that some of the popular arguments made by Christian apologists fall apart.

Many apologists insist that the resurrection was documented by eyewitnesses. Their motivation makes sense—the resurrection is the punch line of the Jesus story, and the authors can’t simply be passing along a popular yarn. Only eyewitness authors could be credible.

We must start by agreeing on what it means to witness a man’s resurrection from the dead. You must (1) see him alive, then (2) see him dead, then (3) see him alive again. This is obvious, I realize, but you’ll soon see where this is missing in the gospels.

Matthew’s passion narrative

We’ll start with the crucifixion story in Matthew. For this to be an eyewitness account, one of the disciples must author Matthew. This requires that the author personally experience the three elements of any resurrection above.

Let’s pick up the story when Jesus is arrested. Next we read, “Then all the disciples deserted him and fled” (Matthew 26:56b). The next day Jesus was crucified, and “Many women were there, watching from a distance” (Matt. 27:55) including Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph. There were men present—Roman guards and passersby who insulted Jesus—but no disciples.

With no male disciples to observe the crucifixion, this eyewitness claim fails in point 2 above: you must see him dead if you want to later claim a resurrection. Matthew doesn’t even claim any disciples at the empty tomb. Note also that it’s modern Christians who claim that Matthew was an eyewitness; that gospel never makes that claim.

The women’s tale

But what about the women? They were there. The two Marys saw the crucifixion, they saw Jesus die, they saw the burial in the stone tomb, they saw the empty tomb, and they saw the risen Jesus. They were part of the inner circle, and surely their word was good enough.

The first problem is that the author of Matthew is still not an eyewitness. At best, he simply reported a story he’d been told.

And as for the women’s story being a reliable report, a popular Christian apologist argument won’t allow that. Here’s Greg Koukl’s version:

Women, disrespected in the ancient world, are the first to witness the risen Christ. Why include these unflattering details if the Gospels are works of fiction?

I’m arguing that the gospels are legend, not fiction, but set that aside. Koukl is using the Criterion of Embarrassment: why say something embarrassing about yourself unless it’s true? If women witnessing the empty tomb is embarrassing (because they’re unreliable) but that story element is still in each gospel, doesn’t that point to it being true?

It turns out that women being the sole witnesses at the tomb is not at all embarrassing. In fact, it’s the only way discovering the empty tomb makes sense in a culture where caring for the dead was women’s work, but let’s ignore that as well and watch the apologists dig their hole deeper.

[The reasons supporting Jesus’s empty tomb] include the potentially embarrassing but unanimous agreement in all four Gospels that women were the earliest witnesses. (Gary Habermas)

The discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable. Given the low status of women in Jewish society and their lack of qualification to serve as legal witnesses, the most plausible explanation . . . why women and not the male disciples were made discoverers of the empty tomb is that the women were in fact the ones who made this discovery. (William Lane Craig)

Anyone trying to pass off a false resurrection story as the truth would never say the women were the first witnesses at the tomb. In the first century, a woman’s testimony was not considered on par with that of a man. An invented story would say that the men—the brave men—had discovered the empty tomb. Yet all four gospels say the women were the first witnesses—all this while the sissy-pants men had their doors locked for fear of the Jews. (Frank Turek)

These apologists insist that women were seen as unreliable witnesses. This means that they can’t argue that while the author of Matthew wasn’t technically an eyewitness, that’s unimportant because he trusted the women’s report. They’ve left Matthew with no authority from which to document the most important (and least believable) part of the gospel.

See also: Why the Gospel of Mark Is Likely NOT an Eyewitness Account

Gospel of Mark

Another reason to discount Matthew as an eyewitness is that that book liberally copies from Mark, the first gospel. More than half of Matthew comes from Mark. Why would an eyewitness account copy from someone else rather than give his own version . . . unless it wasn’t an eyewitness account?

Perhaps that makes Mark the more authoritative gospel. However, Mark’s story is almost identical. After the arrest, “everyone deserted [Jesus] and fled” (Mark 14:50). Again, women watched the crucifixion from a distance. The two Marys are mentioned along with Salome, but there are no male disciples. The women saw the burial and they brought spices on Sunday morning, where they saw the empty tomb.

Mark’s ending is the big difference when compared with Matthew. The women see a young man in a white robe who tells them that Jesus has risen and that they should tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee. The gospel ends, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.”

Mark also shares the problems of Matthew. The author wasn’t an eyewitness to the death or resurrection, and the apologists’ own “women are unreliable” argument prevents the author from using them as reliable sources. Mark adds a unique problem: with its abrupt ending, how did anyone learn of the story since the women kept it to themselves?

Mark is traditionally said to be authored by John Mark, who documented the eyewitness story of the apostle Peter, but the book itself makes clear that neither Peter nor any disciple was an eyewitness to the death, so no disciple could claim to be an eyewitness to the resurrection.

Gospels of Luke and John

Luke and John correct most of the problems. Luke doesn’t have the disciples run away at the arrest of Jesus. At the crucifixion, “All those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching,” so the men were presumably there.

Men are also added to the empty tomb element: women saw the empty tomb and told the disciples, and Peter ran to the tomb to see for himself. Here again, though, Peter was only an eyewitness to an empty tomb. He only had the women’s authority that this was the one that had held Jesus’s body, since no disciple witnessed the burial.

The story in John is similar except that one disciple is mentioned as a witness along with a few women, and two disciples ran back to see the empty tomb.

With Luke and John, Christians have a better argument for disciples witnessing Jesus alive, then dead, then alive again, but they can only do so after admitting a worse problem, that the gospel stories are contradictory.

(This is an aside, but I can’t resist pointing out one more awkward element in the crucifixion story. According to John, when Jesus is on the cross, he sees his mother and “the disciple whom he loved.” Presumably concerned about who would care for Mary after his death, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother” (John 19:26–7). But Mary already had another son! Why would Jesus do this when James the Just was his brother? One simple explanation is that James’s assuming leadership of the church after the death of his brother Jesus was a later tradition, and the gospel of John documents the original tradition, that Jesus had no brothers.)

The resurrection is a ridiculous claim that needs a mountain of evidence to support it. Where is this evidence? We could explore how implausible it would be for this dying-and-rising god story to be history, unlike all the others and unlike the supernatural stories of other religions, but we don’t need to go there. Staying within the Bible, the claim that Matthew and Mark are eyewitness accounts fails, and apologists’ own “women were unreliable” argument makes their situation even more desperate.

See also:

Blasphemy:
a law to protect an all-powerful, supernatural deity
from getting its feelings hurt.
— Ricky Gervais


(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 2017-8-16.)

Image from Wikimedia (public domain)

Saving Haeckel: Why “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” isn’t so wrong

Ernst Haeckel published his influential theory of embryology, distilled as “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” in 1866, seven years after Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Haeckel’s theory fell out of favor and hasn’t been part of evolutionary theory for decades, but it’s still cited today as a cause of mischief by modern Creationists.

Haeckel’s theory

The similarities between embryos of different animal species were noted decades before Darwin: while adults of different species are easy to tell apart, their embryos are not. Haeckel took this further and is most known for his 1874 drawing (above) of the development of various animal embryos—fish, chicken, human, and so on—to illustrate his point.

Ontogeny is the development of an embryo, and phylogeny is an organism’s evolutionary history. So by “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” Haeckel was saying that you can watch through an organism’s development as an embryo a replay of its development through hundreds of million years of evolution. For example, a human embryo first looks like a fish (notice the gill-like structure), then like a reptile (four limbs and a tail), and finally like a mammal, which is the evolutionary path that humans took.

But it doesn’t work like that.

What embryology actually tells us

Let’s put Haeckel aside for now and look for clues to evolution within embryology. If Creationists could get beyond “Haeckel was wrong,” which no one denies, there are important insights here. What’s fascinating is how embryonic structures that developed in animals that preceded humans, like fish and reptiles, have been repurposed by evolution for humans.

Pharyngeal arches or folds (often improperly called “gill slits”) are the double-chin-like folds under the head in the early embryo stage. This striking feature is found in all vertebrate embryos.

The arches that develop into gills in fish become various cartilages, glands, muscles, and other tissue in the human neck and face.

These arches explain the strange path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Pharyngeal arches four, five, and six (arch one is closest to the head) fuse early in the development of mammal embryos. The recurrent laryngeal nerve comes from the fourth arch, and after the fusion, it is near an artery from the sixth arch. This creates a straightforward layout in fish, but in mammals the neck takes the brain and larynx (connected by this nerve) away from the heart. The problem is that the nerve is hooked around that artery. That means that in all mammals—yes, even the long-necked giraffe—the nerve goes from the brain, down around this artery, and back up to the larynx. No perfect designer would create this, but it is nicely explained by evolution.

Another example of repurposing (technically, exaptation) is the mammalian ear. Structures that develop into a multi-bone jaw in reptiles have been repurposed to become ear bones in mammals. In fact, it was embryology, not fossils, that provided the first clues of this evolution.

Turn back humans’ evolutionary clock and we see the tail grow back (as in other mammals), the ear bones become jaws (as in reptiles), and the throat becomes gills (as in fish).

The Creationists

Creationists respond that the perfect designer was making variations on a theme. If you’ve got a great design, why design everything from scratch? Why not simply tweak it for various environments? This designer is like a car company that makes small cars (shrew, mouse) and big ones (elephant, whale), cars that are beautiful (peacock, gazelle), and cars for tough environments (camel, yak), and so on.

The supernatural assumption adds nothing when we have a natural theory that explains evolution just fine. “God” is a solution looking for a problem, and we don’t have a problem here.

Another obvious similarity across early embryos is the tail. Human embryonic tails are absorbed later in development. The hind limbs of cetaceans like whales also appear in embryos and are likewise absorbed.

If you saw the movie Avatar, did you catch the evolution mistake it makes? The land animals had six limbs and breathed through a second mouth on their shoulders. The winged creatures also had six limbs—four legs and two wings. But the Na’vi people had four limbs and no shoulder mouths. If they had a common ancestor with the other animals of their world, like people on earth, you would see these fundamental characteristics shared.

Ah, well—Hollywood.

Creationism’s failure

Why do adult animals differ in appearance but look similar to embryos? Why should the same basic embryonic components become gills in fish but faces in mammals? Why do human embryos have a tail that is later reabsorbed? The common beginning as early embryos and later divergence to satisfy different body plans points to common ancestry, not design. Evolution explains all this nicely, while Creationism has no explanation.

The Creationist playbook is to attack evolution, usually by asking questions that are important but already answered. Biologists have a ready answer, but these questions stump the average person, and deceiving a lay audience is the goal, not changing biologists’ minds.

Even if Creationism’s questions were new and insightful (they never are), Creationism doesn’t become the dominant scientific paradigm by showing flaws in evolution; it could only do that by explaining the evidence better. But since Creationists are only pretending to be scientific, playing by science’s rules is never the goal. Creationists don’t participate in the domain of regular biology, which includes conferences, journals, and laboratories. They’ve already lost there, and that’s been true for a century. So they peddle their message exclusively to the public, a glaring admission that they aren’t doing science.

Yes, Haeckel was wrong, and his error, like any popular wrong turn, delayed progress. But evolution was never built with this as part of its foundation. Turn back humans’ evolutionary clock and we see the tail grow back (as in other mammals), the ear bones become jaws (as in reptiles), and the throat becomes gills (as in fish). Haeckel got a lot wrong, but he was right that embryology holds clues to where we came from.

Somebody’s gotta stand up to experts.
Don McLeroy,
on the Texas board of education but not a biologist,
speaking against evolution in public schools

You probably don’t understand what Leviticus says against homosexuality

The Old Testament book of Leviticus prohibits gay sex for a very different reason than modern evangelical Chicken Littles usually imagine. Understand gay sex from the Ancient Near East to see that it makes no prohibition against gay sex or same-sex marriage as we understand them today.

But before we get to the scholarly critique of Leviticus that makes this argument, let’s warm up with the conclusion of our critique of an article titled, “How gay marriage harms people.”

7. “Children long for and tend to be healthier when raised by their biological mother and father.”

And children tend to be healthier in a two-parent rather than single-parent household. So if a divorced lesbian is a single mother with a child and wants to marry another woman, step out of the way. (Or is the health of children just another smokescreen?)

It’d be great if every marriage were strong, divorce was unnecessary, and every family lived in a safe and nurturing neighborhood and had no financial worries. But it’s an imaginary world where every family is perfect, and some children grow up without their biological parents. We need to get out of the way of institutions that could help, and the newly expanded definition of marriage is one way to do that.

8. “It should not be surprising that, once gay marriage is declared legal, those who oppose it are seen as enemies of the law.”

How? Because no longer can you write an anti-gay article without risk of prison? I think you’ve just falsified that fear.

If you want to speak out against same-sex marriage, I will support your right to do so, even as I write articles to show how hateful, agenda-driven, and thoughtless your arguments are. If you don’t like the fact that the public square is a challenging place for those with flawed arguments, then stay away.

But if your complaint is about the Kim Davises of the world unable to impose their religious views on other people or Christian bakers punished for telling same-sex couples “We don’t serve your kind here” when asked to bake a wedding cake, then I have no sympathy. Christians don’t get an exemption from the law.

9. As Acts 5:29 says, “We must obey God rather than men.”

Do what you have to do. But know that in the real world, the secular Constitution is the foundation of the laws in the U.S. Violate those laws, and you’re punished, even if you’re a Christian. Remember that being a Christian and being able to share your moral opinions are legal in the U.S. thanks to the Constitution, not God.

See also: Does the Bible Reveal Objective Truth About Homosexuality?

If the prohibition in Leviticus is so important, we should understand what it meant

The article that explains gay sex from an Ancient Near Eastern perspective is “When a Man Lies with a Man as with a Woman” by Stephen J. Patterson (published in The Fourth R, May – June 2012). Dr. Patterson is a professor of Religious and Ethical Studies at Willamette University.

This article outlines three meanings of male-male sex in the Ancient Near East. The first meaning was domination during wartime, as seen today in rape in prison. This was violence, not gay sex.

The second meaning was sexual pleasure, something a man might do with a slave or servant in the absence of a female partner. A man wasn’t debased by this activity as long as he acted as a man, not a woman—that is, that he was the actor, not the recipient.

This activity was sometimes considered exploitative, however, both because the servant might not be able to refuse and because it demeaned him to be the recipient in homosexual activity.

When gay sex is a religious ritual

The third meaning was religious. In the Ancient Near East, where a successful harvest was uncertain, fertility rituals were common. Priests were the gods’ agents on earth, and fertility was ensured by planting one’s seed in a priest, who was imagined to be androgynous like the god he represented.

In none of these cases of male-male sex from biblical times was homosexuality a factor. Indeed, the opposite was assumed. In the case of rape during wartime, the actor was taking the role of male, humiliating his opponent by forcing him into the feminine role. In the case of recreation, the man is acting as a man, with the servant assuming the role of the woman. And in the case of the fertility ritual, the man is planting his seed in an (imagined) female. While gay sex as we understand it today—sex between two men who identify as homosexual—was likely practiced, it isn’t part of these three meanings and isn’t discussed in the surviving literature.

Given this background, let’s apply it to the prohibition “don’t lie with a man as one does a woman” in Leviticus. Patterson says that most scholars think that this kind of homosexuality is in the third category, the fertility rite, because of the word used to condemn it, “abomination.” This is the word used for religious offense. Judaism had no fertility rite like this, and a rite that called on other gods, as this one did, would obviously be offensive to Yahweh.

What about the issue at hand, using the Bible to criticize homosexual relationships as we understand them today? Patterson says that while we can’t be certain that we understand the original meaning of the relevant passages in Leviticus,

We can say very clearly what the Levitical prohibition does not mean. It does not forbid falling in love with another man and having intimate sexual relations with him. Male-male sex just did not have that connotation in the Ancient Near East. . . . Male-male sex in the Ancient Near East does not mean “I love you.” It means “I own you.” Today, of course, it is different. Male-male sex can mean “I love you.” To such a thing Leviticus offers no comment.

Not only have Christians themselves dispensed with the Levitical ritual laws, but even if they were still in force, they say nothing to inform the Christian of the correct response to modern homosexuality or same-sex marriage.

Christian fundamentalism:
the doctrine that there is an absolutely powerful,
infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity
that is deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
— Andrew Lias


(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 2017-8-2.)