Institute for Creation Research: "Proof" for Young Earth?

I ran across a fascinating article today. The article discusses “Thousands, Not Billions,” a new conference coordinated by ICR (Institute for Creation Research).

The purpose of the conference, simply enough, is to challenge the commonly accepted conclusions of scientific research which indicate that the universe is billions of years old, and that evolution is an accurate paradigm through which to describe the development of biological life on earth.

To substantiate this “challenge,” ICR commissioned its own scientists to conduct research to find proof for a 6,000 year-old earth.

Although I have some strong feelings about it, I will not spend time commenting on the merits of ICR’s “scientists,” nor of the methodology they employ to arrive at their conclusions (which, interestingly enough, are presupposed). However, I would like to simply outline some thoughts I have on the issues raised in this article, in general.

First of all, let me frame the issue. ICR’s website outlines their mission as follows:

We believe God has raised up [Institute for Creation Research] to spearhead biblical Christianity's defense against godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism.

Clearly, ICR believes that not only is evolutionary theory illegitimate, but moreover they make it a soteriological issue. In other words, if one happens to believe that life developed through the mechanism of evolution, one cannot possibly be a Christian. Or at least not a “biblical Christian.” Rather, to the ICR, affirming the findings of modern science is tantamount to compromising the faith, and aligning oneself with the “godless.”

Not content simply to base the argument on the “authority” of Scripture, the ICR presses the envelope farther:

Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible will Christians be successful in 'the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ' (II Corinthians 10:4, 5) [emphasis added]

Here, again, it is clear to see that the scientific merits of evolutionary theory are rejected. However, ICR proceeds to assert that part of their mission to “spearhead Christianity’s defense” is to not simply to make claims based upon interpretation, but moreover to provide alternative scientific proof that will undermine evolutionary theory and establish their understanding of the biblical view of creation.

To be blunt, I have serious problems with this.

First, such an approach, in my understanding, represents a dysfunctional understanding of the nature of the Scriptures and their role in the process of forming, shaping and in-forming belief. To the ICR, it seems that Scriptures are practically deified, propped up as a repository of absolute, infallible truth, not only of the theological variety, but of the scientific/historical flavor as well.

Larry Vardiman, a scientist of ICR, reflects this idea: “Even most Christians believe the Earth has been around for millions or even billions of years and that the Bible really isn't accurate when it talks about when God created the Earth.” By making the Scriptures an object of verifiable historical/scientific fact, the ICR has actually created the very problem they seek to overcome. An historical/scientific interpretations of a 6,000 year-old earth is only necessary when one assumes that the Scriptures are intended to communicate this kind of language. By presupposing that the Scriptures are providing this kind of information, the ICR has opened the Scriptures to the messy sea of verifiability. The largest problem with this, of course, is that if one has asserted that the Scriptures are a reservoir of “infallible” historical/scientific truth, and then this “truth” is overturned conclusively by other facts, one is left in a very precarious position. The only recourse will be 1.) To deny the legitimacy of that which has overturned the Scriptures as an historical/scientific source book or 2.) Discover/Manufacture contrary evidence. In the final analysis, by asserting that the Scriptures are authoritative in matters of science/critical history, one has, ultimately, introduced the possibility that the Scriptures can be overturned/disproved by these very same sources. As the Scriptures are clearly not meant to provide this kind of information, in a head-to-head battle with scientific methodology, the Scriptures will always lose.

Although the issue noted above is a serious one, I think what follows is an even more devious consequence of ICR’s approach. As noted above, ICR is not content to simply ignore the conclusions of scientific methodology–rather, they are taking the fight “to the streets,” gathering their own scientists to establish their own evidence concerning origins.

Before continuing, let me add a caveat. I am not advocating that scientific methodology should be left unquestioned. As with all things, an unchecked authority will always develop into a hegemony that totalitarily establishes “truth.” There is, no doubt, a definite danger that this could occur with scientific methodology, and one’s approach to the findings of scientific methodology should assuredly not be blind acquiescence.

With this said, however, ICR’s perspective of scientific methodology, especially in relation to the claims of evolutionary theory, almost assumes the rhetoric of conspiracy theorists. Evolutionary theory, and its adherents and proponents, are characterized as “godless compromisers” who have rejected the truth of God and are blinded by sin and the powers of evil. Given this level of rhetoric, it is difficult to believe that ICR’s approach is credible.

However, the biggest problem is that ICR is asserting that its conclusions are real “science.” While I am no scientist, it is not difficult to see the clear presuppositional biases being fleshed out in ICR’s scientist’s conclusions.

The most unfortunate consequence of this kind of “scientific” inquiry, however, is what it produces in the field of knowledge. While science is far from objective, objectivity is the ideal, and the principles which drive scientific research involve the well-known tenets of observation, measurement and replication, as well as the criterion of peer-review. None of these crucial elements have attained in ICR’s approach. Rather, a presupposition has been proposed, and manpower amassed to set out to substantiate it through “research.” This approach is completely antithetical to scientific methodology. So while ICR wishes to overcome the findings of modern science through science itself, ICR actually develops an entirely new paradigm for scientific research, one based on amassing proof as opposed to description. In effect, ICR’s approach reveals the commodification of scientific inquiry, in which PhD’s can be bought and commissioned to lend weight to a particular viewpoint. Unfortunately, lost in the mix of presuppositional proof-texting is any meaningful description and application the issues under consideration.

Biblical Inerrancy: Helpful?

Over the last year, I have engaged numerous individuals on the issue of biblical inerrancy. For many Protestant denominations, inerrancy is a catchword which differentiates conservatives from liberals, those who are “true to the Scriptures” and those who are not, etc. I am no stranger or newcomer to this argument, for the denomination to which I belong has a definitive stance on this issue. As our Articles of Religion clearly state,

[The Scriptures] are the inspired and infallibly written Word of God, fully inerrant in their original manuscripts and superior to all human authority, and have been transmitted to the present without corruption of any essential doctrine.

As seen above, the issue of inerrancy is a textual issue. But what, exactly, do evangelicals mean by biblical inerrancy? While a precise definition is difficult to provide given the fact that there is wide range of opinions as to the extent of “inerrancy,” a cursory understanding can be achieved by looking at The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), a document which has dramatically impacted the current evangelical position on biblical inerrancy.

Article VI of the Statement asserts,

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

Here, it is clear that the “inspiredness” of the Scriptures is precisely linked with the “original” biblical documents.

As Article X more explicitly notes,

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

Again, the contention is made that the inspiration (and therefore, inerrancy) of the Scriptures applies “only” to the original autographs, the actual paper and ink produced by the writers. Any copies following, according to the Statement, are only considered inspired and authoritative “to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.”

Articles XI and XII form a conclusion to these claims:

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

and

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

Obviously, to the writers of the Statement, the integrity of the actual, physical, and original documents is crucial. As the writers of the Statement assert, the terms “inerrancy” and “infallibility” are “negative terms [that] have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.” Furthermore, the reason for this “safeguard” is precisely related to new directions of thinking pursued in Enlightenment and Renaissance thinking. Again, the Statement:

Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since the Enlightenment, world views have been developed that involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets. Such are the agnosticism that denies that God is knowable, the rationalism that denies that He is incomprehensible, the idealism that denies that He is transcendent, and the existentialism that denies rationality in His relationships with us. When these un- and anti-Biblical principles seep into men's theologies at a presuppositional level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture becomes impossible.

Although the language of the Statement appears overly strong at points, its main theses have been adopted by most evangelical denominations in America. However, I believe the question must be raised, “Is biblical inerrancy a helpful doctrine?”

The issue of inerrancy is, for the most part, a Protestant conception, particularly within the evangelical community. While it is true that both Roman Catholics and Orthodox believers maintain a high view of the inspired nature of the Scriptures, one does not find the level of stress on inerrancy that one will find within Protestant evangelicalism.

The reason for this, obviously, is the way in which Roman Catholics and the Orthodox conceive of the authority of Scripture. While Protestants understand the regula fidei (rule of faith) through the paradigm of sola Scriptura, Roman Catholics and Orthodox maintain the dual authority of Scripture and tradition. To both groups (although to varying degrees, admittedly), Scripture is authoritative not simply because it is inspired, but more importantly because it is part of the apostolic tradition which Christ instituted and which continues to function to preserve Christ’s teachings in the apostolic tradition of the Church (maintained within the office of the bishop). In this way, Roman Catholics and Orthodox need not stress as heavily the “inerrancy” of the original texts, for the teaching of the apostles does not rest simply in a select group of texts, but rather is preserved and rightly interpreted within the ecclesial tradition of the historic church. Therefore, any attempts to undermine the authority of the texts based upon textual criticism is futile and irrelevant, for the authority of the church’s faith and belief is not based exclusively upon the texts, but rather rests within the larger apostolic tradition within the community of believers.

To the Protestant, however, there is no such recourse in the face of modern textual criticism. As Protestants affirm Scripture as the sole source of authoritative truth and right belief (for even the “truth” contained in the ecumenical creeds of the historic church are only authoritative as they are founded upon the Scriptures), an attack on the texts of Scripture represents a direct undermining of the only source of truth about Christ and salvation. In this way, it is not surprising that one finds “inerrancy” and “infallibility” to be such strong points of contention for Protestants, for to touch the Scriptures is to touch the only foundation of faith and belief.

For Protestants, it would be theological suicide to reject biblical inerrancy (and, in fact, this self-destruction is being seen in many Protestant groups today). Yet at the same time, I think that the very doctrine of inerrancy reveals a dysfunctional conception of the Scriptures. On one level, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy represents a materialist perspective on Scriptures. As noted in the Statement, the “inerrancy” of the Scriptures is located precisely in the original autographs of the biblical writings. This subsequently requires that one maintain a rigid defense of the textual fidelity of the autographs, for any discrepancy immediately undermines the “perfection” of the texts’ inspiration.

Unfortunately, in pursuing this line of thinking, Protestants have actually capitulated the argument to those against whom they are attempting to “safeguard” the Scriptures. Rather than affirming the value of Scripture in their role within the apostolic tradition of the Church, Protestants have gone “all in” and placed all emphasis upon the textual perfection of the original autographs. However, in doing so, they have opened up the door for textual criticism to wreak havoc on Scriptural authority, for any proof that can be offered as a variation in the physical texts of the original autographs inevitably brings the entire complex of inerrancy crashing to the ground. Ironically, in attempting to safeguard biblical “truth” from the negative forces perceived within textual criticism, Protestants have built their fortress in the territory of their “enemy,” moving all reinforcements to the front gate while failing to recognize that the rear wall lies in disrepair.

It is inevitable that textual criticism will eventually overrun the notion biblical inerrancy. One of the reasons for this is that inerrancy leads to literalism, and the rigidity with which many hold to inerrancy flows naturally into confessions about literality. For example, consider the issue of origins. Many who hold to inerrancy also believe that discussions in the Scriptures about the phenomenological history of the universe must be interpreted literally. This, in turn, leads to assertions that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, that all species on the planet were created instantly, etc. Despite these claims, the overwhelming burden of scientific observation concludes that these claims are patently nonfactual. Rather, according to the best naturalistic observations, the universe is billions of years old, evolution is a helpful and accurate paradigm for discussing biological origins and development, etc.

However, even though the mass of scientific evidence leads to these results, the biblical literalist must reject these claims. Consider the claims of the previously cited Statement:

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

In this way, such literalism, which is intended to “safeguard” the teachings and authority of Scripture, forces the adherent to divorce belief from existence–it requires that one ignore the universe in which one lives in order to affirm the claims of literalism and inerrancy. Such inevitably bifurcates Scriptural revelation from the revelation of God in the created order.

In conclusion, I would ask why biblical inerrancy is necessary. First of all, and as I have already noted, the categories upon which biblical inerrancy is built are the very same categories employed by textual critics whom biblical inerrantists believe are undermining the Scriptures. However, in doing so, the adoption of these same categories opens the door for the critiques against which biblical inerrancy is supposed to “safeguard” the Scriptures. By defining the Scriptures “negatively,” biblical inerrantists have already lost the battle–the continuing rhetoric is merely engaging in damage control, a defensive retreat to maintain whatever ground can be salvaged from that which was given away in the great capitulation.

Why should Christians care what textual critics say about the Scriptures? When it comes down to it, the church does not affirm the authority of the Scriptures because of the “magical” nature of the original autographs. And even if this were so, it would be impossible to “prove” the inerrancy of the documents, for 1.) they no longer exist and 2.) there is no objective criterion against which to determine whether or not they are inerrant. Therefore, biblical inerrancy, in the final analysis, is merely a tautology, and opens a door to textual criticism that should never even exist.

Contrary to this, the church affirms the authority of the Scriptures because they are the formative texts of our faith; they represent and encapsulate the earliest fragments of the apostolic tradition that has been preserved throughout the centuries in the lives and community of God’s people–the church. As such, the need for inerrancy only arises when the Scriptures are divorced from their historical role within the community of believers and abandoned to the subjective paradigms of the individual interpreter. In this way, biblical inerrancy represents the ultimate consummation of the privatization of the Scriptures. When the Scriptures function within the community of believers, there is no need to defend Scripture against “outside” forces, for the community forms a self-authenticating hermeneutic. Deviant interpretations and marginalizations, within such a community, will be rejected and corrected. However, when Scripture is catapulted into the privatized realm of individual interpretation, the field of hermeneutics is open wide and there is no authority–tradition or otherwise–against which to evaluate interpretation. In other words, there is no longer any “outside”–when Scripture is alone the authority, its interpretation, application and authentication is the property of all. Therefore, the only recourse is that of inerrancy. Biblical inerrancy represents the last effort of those who wish to affirm sola Scriptura while concomitantly “protecting” it from outside interpretation. The logic proceeds that if strong claims can be made about the inerrant nature of the original autographs, this affirmation will somehow prevent distortion. However, such is merely an exercise in futility. By wrenching interpretation from the community and placing it solely within the grasp of the individual, biblical inerrantists have effectively created the conditions in which textual criticism will actualize the inevitable outcome of interpretation divorced from tradition.

In the preceding, I have spoken strongly against biblical inerrancy. In doing so, I do not wish to undermine the authority of Scripture, nor do I seek to devalue the role of the biblical documents in the formation of the community of believers. However, I do see that biblical inerrancy represents a dysfunctional understanding of the nature and function of the Scriptures within the church and the lives of its individual members. While I affirm the authority of the Scriptures, I do not understand the necessity of affirming the inerrancy of the same. In fact, as I have extensively noted above, I see severe problems with such a view, not the least of which is the capitulation of the Scriptures to the categories of modern historical/textual criticism. What is needed, in my opinion, is a return to understanding Scripture within the apostolic tradition of the church, rather than as an atomized authority that is (falsely) self-authenticating. While Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy each have their own problems, I feel that their understanding of the role of Scripture within the life and history of the people of God is much healthier than that of Protestantism. To extend this claim farther, I truly believe that it will be from within these two segments of Christianity that the Scriptures will continue to be meaningful after Protestantism’s capitulation is fully actualized and textual/historical criticism wins the day.

I welcome any dialogue that will ensue from this.

The Problem with Atonement Metaphors

As I was making my arduous drive home the other day, I was listening to our local feed of Air1, the “positive alternative.” Often, Air1 has various Christian speakers, leaders, and artists record short, 30-second lessons in Christian theology and biblical interpretation. More often than not, these lessons are theologically uncritical and philosophically obtuse platitudes that only perpetuate the theological wasteland of American religiosity. This particular day did not disappoint. KJ-52, a Christian rap artist and regular contributor to Air1's segments, came on air to offer his take on the atonement. Not surprisingly, he conjured the tried and true story of the train conductor.

As the story goes, there was a man whose job was to make sure that the “switch”on a set of train tracks was appropriately thrown to prevent passing trains from smashing into each other. On one particular day, the man brought his son to work with him and told him to stay close to the booth. On schedule, two trains approached the switch, and the man prepared to throw the lever. As he was preparing to do this, however, he looked up and realized–with horror--that his son was playing on the train tracks. If he left to save his son, he would not be able to operate the switch at the appropriate time and the two trains would collide, killing hundreds of people. With tears blurring his eyes, the man faithfully performed his job, turning away as the successfully switched trains mutilated his son, never realizing that their safe passage resulted in the death of the man’s son. As the moral of the story goes, God’s love is such that God, like the man in the story, loved humanity so much that he was willing to sacrifice his son to save people.

On a sentimental level, this metaphor “works.” When effectively told, it communicates a powerful emotion, for who could not empathize with the man’s loss! Growing up, I remember hearing this story told at numerous camps, youth retreats, and Sunday school classes. At the time, I accepted it uncritically as an appropriate description of the atonement and God’s love in the cross of Christ. However, as I reflect upon this metaphor from my childhood, I realize that there is quite sinister side to it.

The first deficiency that I see in this metaphor concerns the relationship of Father and Son. In the metaphor, Christ is represented as a mindless child. Here, there is no sense of the biblical picture of Christ’s resolve to remain obedient to the will of God, even to the point of death. Rather, Christ’s death in the metaphor is presented as something extracted almost accidentally from him, as if death was the final “blindside” of God’s will against Christ. Quite to the contrary, the biblical record shows that Christ is fully aware that his faithfulness to the will of the Father will result in death, for “surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!” (Luke 13:33).

Secondly, the problem of sin is completely artificial. In the metaphor, humanity is not represented as being saved from something unnatural or contrary to the will of God. No, the trains are simply doing what trains are meant to do, and God (pictured in the man) is facilitating such action by throwing the switch. Contrary to this picture, the biblical record and the testimony of the church throughout history represents that humanity’s sinfulness is something entirely contrary to the will of God. It is an alienating force that severs the human/divine relationship irrevocably. Humanity, in its sinfulness, is left helpless, slaves to the forces of non-existence and self-destruction. This reality is completely lost in the metaphor, and the salvation of humanity is simply an artificial rescue from a series of unfortunate events.

Finally, and most devious of all, is the fact that not only is the problem of sin artificial, but more accurately it is created by the disobedience of Christ. If the had not disobeyed his father, he would not have walked onto the tracks. And if he had never walked onto the tracks, there would be no need for the salvation. Therefore, the “sacrifice” which occurs in the not out of necessity or related to humanity’s helplessness. Rather, it is exclusively centered upon the ineptitude of the father to maintain control over his son and upon the disobedience of the son to the father’s explicit instructions. In this way, while the problem (the collision of the trains) is solved by the sacrifice of the son, the problem itself was caused by the son. Therefore, if this is a metaphor of the atonement, one can only conclude that God is merely fixing the mess that Christ has made by allowing him to reap the consequences of his own disobedience.

Obviously, the dictum that metaphors can only “go” so far must be kept in mind. However, the value of a metaphor lies precisely in its ability to relate generally to the issue being descriptively explored. In this sense, this common “metaphor” of atonement fails, not simply because it cannot be “stretched” very far, but more importantly because it does not encapsulate the necessary beginning assumptions which are crucial to embarking upon any discussion of the relationship of the Father, Son, the cross and humanity in the atonement. “Metaphors” such as the one described above do not meet these primal requisites and should, therefore, be rejected by critically thinking people everywhere. This is primarily important because “metaphors such as the story critiqued above are utilized in the theological formation of young minds. If the foundation of atonement thinking is dysfunctional, there is little hope that any subsequent reasoning will lead to a fruitful understanding.

Kids Say the Darndest Things...and So Does God.

Recently, one of those oft-annoying "FWD:" emails went around the office. One of the gentlemen with whom I work is notorious (thank God) for coming up with deliciously sarcastic and belligerent responses to these emails. Below is an excellent sample of his masterful work:

You know how elementary school teachers are always having kids compose letters to God, and then everyone oohs and ahhs about how cute the letters are? Well, God doesnt' think it's so cute, according to SC. Here's what God has to say in reply...

1) Dear God: Are you really invisible or is that just a trick? - Lucy

ANSWER: It's just a trick. When manifesting in human form, I take the name of George W. Bush.

2) Dear God: Did you mean for giraffes to look like that or was it an accident? - Norma

ANSWER: I meant for it to happen. Just like I meant for your Daddy to beat your Mommy with a tire iron.

3) Dear God: Instead of letting people die and having to make new ones, why not just keep the ones you got now? - Jane

ANSWER: People die because they do bad things. Not my problem.

4) Dear God: I went to this wedding and they kissed right in church. Is that okay? - Neil

ANSWER: It is okay to kiss in church as long as you are kissing someone of the opposite sex. Otherwise, you're going to hell.

5) Dear God: In bible times, did they really talk that fancy? - Jennifer

ANSWER: No, they didn't talk that fancy in bible times. Only homosexual 17th-century English kings talked like that. But it's fun to pretend.

6) Dear God: I am American. What are you? - Robert

ANSWER: I am THE American.

7) Dear God: Thanks for the baby brother but what I prayed for was a puppy. - Joyce

ANSWER: Get used to not getting what you pray for. It's one of those amusing little quirks that you'll come to know and love about me.

8) Dear God: Please put another holiday in between Christmas and Easter. There is nothing good in there now. - Ginny

ANSWER: Christmas and Easter are the only two holidays you need to worry about. Spend the months in between praying forgiveness for that thing you did in the bathroom the other day.

9) Dear God: If we come back as something, please don't let me be Jennifer Horton because I hate her. - Denise

ANSWER: You'll be lucky to come back as a dung beetle, you little turd.

10) Dear God: If you give me a genie lamp like Alladin, I will give you anything you want except my money and my chess set. - Raphael

ANSWER: Listen, Raph-whatever your name is. I don't want your chess set anyway. Only geeks play chess.

11) Dear God: Please send Dennis Clark to a different camp this year. - Peter

ANSWER: How about I just smite him instead?

12) Dear God: Maybe Cain and Abel would not kill each other so much if they had their own rooms. It works with my brother. - Larry

ANSWER: Cain and Abel fought because Cain was a sinful, sinful man. Abel had to die so that ye might have life and have it more.... Oh wait. That was Jesus. Never mind. Wrong Testament.

13) Dear God: I want to be just like my dad when I get big, but not with so much hair all over. - Sam

ANSWER: So you're saying you want to be a hopeless loser with a bratty kid?

14) Dear God: I keep waiting for Spring, but it never comes yet. Don't forget. - Mark

ANSWER: How about you worry about not whining so much, and let me worry about the weather, mkay?

15) Dear God: You don't have to worry about me, I always look both ways. - Dean

ANSWER: Then I guess I'll have to come up with some other way to get rid of you.

16) Dear God: I think the stapler is one of your greatest inventions. - Ruth M.

ANSWER: Thank you. It certainly was a moment of inspiration that I didn't have when I invented you.

17) Dear God: I think about you sometimes even when I'm not praying. - Elliott

ANSWER: Really? I never think about you. Come to think of it, I don't even know who you are.

18) Dear God: I bet it is hard for you to love all of everybody in the whole world. There are only 4 people in my family and I can never do it. - Nan

ANSWER: I don't love everyone in the whole world. Only white, straight, Americans. And I prefer the males, although I put up with the women because they have the babies. A necessary evil, to be sure.

19) Dear God: If you watch in church on Sunday, I will show you my new shoes. - Mickey D.

ANSWER: It better only be your shoes you're showing, buddy boy.

20) Dear God: I would like to live 900 years like the guy in the bible. - Chris

ANSWER: I don't think I could handle you more than 12 or 13 years, I'm afraid.

21) Dear God: We read Thos. Edison made light. But in Sun. School they said you did it. I bet he stoled your idea. - Donna

ANSWER: Scientists like Thomas Edison are godless sinners for whom hell was made. If your school is teaching that, it may need to be destroyed by a well-placed bomb.

22) Dear God: If you didn't let the dinosaur go extinct, we would not have a country. You did the right thing. - Jonathon.

ANSWER: Dinosaurs? Haven't you figured out yet that dinosaurs are hoaxes, propogated by the vast atheist scientist conspiracy?

23) Dear God: I do not think anyone could be a better God. Well, I just want you to know but I am not just saying that because you are God. - Charles

ANSWER: I'll meet you one day in Paradise, my child.

(thanks to SC!)

Newsflash: Young Earth Creationists Secure Release of Criminals

The nation is in an uproar today as Young Earth Creationists (YECs) succeed in a supreme court bid to release thousands of criminals from prison.

Thousands of rapists, murderers and other felons have had their convictions overturned, following a ruling that results of forensic science are inadmissible in a criminal trial.

The court case which led to the ruling was initiated by a popular YEC organisation, Evidence in Genesis (EiG). EiG strongly believes that science is totally unreliable at revealing past events.

"It is pure arrogance that a human scientist can presume to piece together the past," EiG spokesman Ken Bacon said in a media conference outside court. "The scientific method cannot be applied to historical events. By definition, science must be repeatable."

Prosecutors have come to depend heavily upon forensic science in the last few decades. Countless guilty verdicts have been secured through the scientific analysis of crime scenes and forensic evidence.

"Only God can reliably tell us about the past", commented Bacon. "Man's science is, at best, speculative and theoretical."

"How can you know that the past which you are analysing worked the same as our science lab today? That is the assumption forensic science makes, it is an utterly foolish and fallacious assumption. It is an evolutionary approach to science and we condemn it."

When asked about their success, Bacon said "This is a very pleasing result. It shows that we need to be careful how we view science, especially when it attempts to provide answers about past events which cannot be repeated."

Bacon told reporters that EiG has been motivated by this win to continue their campaign against "historical" or "origins" science. Their next aim is to remove the teaching of ancient history from public schools -- since much of ancient history depends upon scientific analysis of archeological finds.

Forensic scientists from the nation's leading criminology departments are planning to appeal the ruling.

- Ruuters

(thanks to jareth)

Men, Show Us Your True Colors...

A recent discussion thread on Table Talk (the intracampus discussion forum at my seminary) involved the gender-appropriateness of certain colors. While many of the more rational participants noted that the color of one's shirt does not matter, an extreme and paranoid minority stood firmly behind what they believed to be culturally-inherent values and parameters for gender and color. One bold individual even called the wearing of pink by males something to the effect of the "intentional feminizing" of the American male and the deconstruction of social gender taboos.

In response, the powers-that-be in the seminary responded, siding (not surprisingly) with the radical, conservative element. Here is the official press release:

May 8, 2006
Contact: Joe Manly, Director of Color Communications
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Dear Asbury Community

It has come to our attention that there has been some severe color confusion on campus. Men of Asbury, please know that we are well aware that this situation and working hard to come up with a creative and authoritative solution to the problem.

Beginning next month, we will be installing someone in the position of Color Enforcement Officer. The main responsibility of this officer will be to maintain the approved status color quo. Demerits will be handed out for wearing anything other than your approved gender color. Men should be properly attired in Blue. The darker the shading the better. Anything below Royal Blue will be penalized. The wearing of any pastels, purples or pinks could result in immediate dismissal from ATS. Please also be aware that any signs of originality in dress could result in a formal hearing before the CEMT (Color Equals Manliness Tribunal).

We are still accepting applications for the position. The position requires extreme masculinity and intense insecurity. A degree of paranoia is preferred. A former or current Boy Scout would be ideal since they are known for their manliness. Please direct all application to the HuMAN Resources office.

Asbury will also be adhering to a strict enforcement of their new Ethos Statement regarding color schemes. All students will be required to sign and abide by the Color Ethos statement or their sexuality will be questioned. This new policy is to enforce the idea that ATS will not succumb to postmodern cultural destructivism and all its evils. Please see the approved color chart that is listed below. Thank you for your cooperation in making Asbury Seminary a confusion free zone with regards to color schemes. We are striving towards holiness and color clarity here on earth.

Approved Man Colors - Blue, Dark Blue, Midnight Blue, Black, Brown, Tan and Camouflage.

Approved Woman Colors - Pink

Thank you again for your cooperation!

IE is Back...Kind of...

Well, I can't say I'm entirely happy about this. After all, I have enjoyed vilifying Internet Explorer's ineptitude as expressed in all versions from 7.0 backward.

However, IE has recently released a new beta version of IE 7 (Beta 2). I downloaded it last night. Compared to Firefox, it is quite good (and, in the words of Albus Dumbledore, "that is saying something"). It has tabbed browsing (finally!), an automatic screen adjust on printing text, and it is super-fast. Faster, in fact, than Firefox's most recent update :(.

I am still not entirely happy with the way it handles a lot of the web language. Perhaps I am just an inept programmer (which is the most likely explanation), but IE 7 Beta 2 still won't properly interpret some of the commands that work flawlessly in Firefox, Safari and Opera.

Nonetheless, IE 7 Beta 2 is certainly worth checking out. While it will not handle all of the features of this website, it is at least able to quasi-properly display all of the design elements (such as transparency), so I can't continue on my quest to destroy all things IE--at least not yet. Perhaps the full release will suck.

Get IE 7 Beta 2 here.