I hope to raise consciousness about why Christianity and science are not a sensible coexistence. I accept that one can reasonably interpret Genesis as compatible with the age of the universe and Earth. It does, after all, specify creating organisms in a six day period, not the Earth or Universe. One could reasonably say the Earth and Universe took however long they want to reach our present time. On the contrary, the six days of organism orchestration cannot be rationally evaded. Genesis is extremely unequivocal with specification of day and night. Before anyone pulls the "out of context" card, here is the most widely spread version of Genesis (King James Version), from a Christian source, in its entirety: KJV's Genesis.
Allow me to portray how unambiguously straightforward and far from allegory the days of Genesis are. Not only does it say "day", it also specifies both day and evening.
And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Genesis 1:13)
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Genesis 1:19)
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Genesis 1:23)
Need I continue? It's clearly not symbolic. The genuine theory of evolution proposes that billions of years were required to achieve what the Bible proposes six days accomplished. Evolution and the Bible's account are mutually exclusive. If one denies this or tries to invoke the "but you have to learn the ancient languages" card, I think this clearly reveals either indoctrination or desperation to support a premise. Don't believe me? See for yourself. I can't help but wonder why the modern New International Version still asserts six days if the interpretation is off, but I've elaborated and overkilled this point enough.
I wondered if the New Testament was somehow more compatible with science. I learned that direct account of Jesus is based on four books of the Bible, in this order: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I was not surprised to find that the very first page of the first book, Matthew, claims a woman named Mary was impregnated by a "Holy Ghost." In other words, she was physically impregnated without sexual intercourse with a male. Here is what it says:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 1:18)
It is not impossible, and modern science would certainly consider it extremely improbable, but that's not the point. My point is the same as it was in the first paragraph. If this were any other context, would people believe it? If someone explained to you that their female boss named Sally became pregnant without a male significant other, would you demand evidence to support the claim? Would you think someone who believed it without evidence is gullible? I think raising a child to believe this is a sure way to distort his/her perception of reality. I think it's a blatant path to misinform, impoverish, inhibit the potential of, and waste the time (or even lifetime) of children. While it may be unintentional because the legal guardian is not down to Earth themselves, it is a method of ideologically preying on them.
I'd like to add that the first page of Matthew also speaks of Abraham, the character in the Old Testament. One cannot separate the Old Testament from the New Testament. The New Testament heavily builds on the Old Testament.
So, wow... The first page of the New Testament and the first page of the Old Testament were entirely enough to expose why taking the Bible seriously (without evidence) is utterly irrational. Nothing exposes the abdurdities better than actually reading the Bible.
It's time to move onto any god defined as a conscious entity that intentionally plotted humans. First of all, evolution theory explains a process that looks the one way we expect it to look if there's no intent. If one mutation after another built a human, it would look like it is designed. The polar opposite concept is that mutations ramify and disperse on the tree of life. That is precisely what happens. 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct. Seriously, it is almost humorous that a person could look one in the eyes with a serious face and state that evolution does nothing to damage the idea of design. I often hear people cherry pick the biologists in the minute minority of creationist biologists, like Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Francis Collins wrote a book called The Language of God that includes:
On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains…the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.
Dr. Francis Collins was a director of the Human Genome Project, but he's obviously acting on emotion and not acquiring a world view based on reason. Collins seems to be the favorite biologist example of creationists I've engaged in discourse with. That is their Christian biology hero they bring up when an atheist claims evolution theory contradicts the Bible. Once again, I'm not surprised. In Sam Harris's words:
I hope it is immediately obvious to you, and to every one of our readers, that there is nothing about seeing a frozen waterfall (no matter how frozen) that offers the slightest corroboration of the doctrine of Christianity.
I never cease to hear a notion like: "God exists outside of time. We know know everything about other dimensions." Since Einstein introduced his theory of special relativity, we have known that time is part of the natural, physical universe. In order for anything to think, interpret, feel, or communicate, it requires time. I question whether it's even coherent to say a god that intervenes in the universe exists outside of time. Of course, we don't know everything, so it's possible, but it's another one of those ideas that requires immense evidence to be rationally entertained as true.
Should we allow innocent young children to literally waste their entire lives on unsupported ideas? The traditional interpretation of Hell flames that are founded on Jesus quotes, the instructions to operate in a way that women return to rapists (Deuteronomy 22:22-29), and arbitrarily making critical decisions (faith) are no ethical guide for children. Distorting perception of altruism is not just unfair to the child, it's bad for society. All I ask is that we help people to stop ignoring evidence at the expense of others. Out of genuine compassion, let's criticize Christianity and apply pressure to nonsense.
