Gen. 1:1-3:24 v. “Origin of the Species”

In his book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America," Chris Hedges makes a strong case, backed with evidence, that it is not gays, as Sally Kern would say, or a few Muslim terrorists, as our political leaders would argue, who are the greatest threat to America and American freedom. It is the well-meaning, deluded folks who pack the megachurches of the Christian Right, and give of their wealth and being to the great Pharisees of our time, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. In other words, it is Sally Kern, and a lot of the folks who run around abusing tea instead of putting it to good use in a cup of hot water, not Barney Frank, you need to watch out for. People who believe that the first three chapters of the Bible are the true, literal account of the origin of our species.

I'll clarify that in a bit, but first I want to address the "controversy" between creationism and evolution. After all, Hedges refers to a 2004 Gallup poll reporting that "45 percent [of Americans] said the Genesis account of creation was a true story" (p. 117). Creation museums are sprouting up around the nation, at the cost of millions and millions of dollars. There must be something there, right?

Well, first, let's compare the sources of the two diverse theories, creationism v. evolution. Genesis 1:1 – Gen. 3:24 v. "The Origin of Species," by Charles Darwin.

The first, creationism, relies on two ancient metaphorical or allegorical tales, handed down verbally for eons before getting locked onto paper. The authors of these two stories are lost in the mists of time, as are their intents in creating them. And yes, there are two distinctly different stories here, with different authors and different deities (Elohim & Yahweh), which are also antagonistic to and contradict each other.

"The Origin of Species" was written by a scientist, based on his observation of physical reality, and developed over time by use of the scientific method.

One is myth-based, the other is science- and reality-based.

In other words, there is no controversy. Evolution is not in doubt; it's scientific fact. The supposed controversy between creationism and evolution amounts to no more than the comparison of myth with truth. Apples with oranges. Metaphor with fact. Creationism is bullshit. The effort to require the teaching of creationism in schools amounts to no more than an attempt to degenerate the education system still further, and indoctrinate our children to believe a lie.

But if you look more carefully, you'll see that Genesis and Darwin aren't contradictory or antagonistic at all. They are irrelevant to each other – they address different issues, they talk about different things. "Origin of Species" talks about the physical development over time of biological diversity. Genesis talks about the spiritual condition of humankind, and two contradictory paradigms of human relations. It teaches not to believe a lie.

The first account, Genesis 1:1 – Gen. 2:3, is a beautiful metaphor of God (Elohim) as Love and Spirit (as Jesus taught), and of what Riane Eisler, in "The Chalice & the Blade," would call the "partnership" paradigm of human relations. It begins with light (perhaps metaphorical of the Big Bang), develops from the most basic forms of life to man and woman as both co-equal and co-created, and ends with God blessing all, which is "good."

The second account, Genesis 2:4 – Gen. 3:24, describes metaphorically what Eisler would call the "dominator" paradigm of human relations. It begins with mist. Adam (man) is created first, and God (Yahweh) needs his help to finish the creation. Eve (woman) is an afterthought, created solely for man's service and enjoyment. And at the end, it is cursed.

It teaches not to believe a lie.

It is this second model that fundamentalist Christians have chosen to adopt, and that permeates our culture – a model of male domination over women, adults over children, white people over people of color, rich over poor, powerful men over less powerful men, powerful nations over those nations they can conquer and exploit, greedy men over the earth that sustains us and gives us life. A model that enthrones oppression, cruelty, tyranny, violence, pain, greed, and environmental destruction.

The first Genesis metaphor celebrates the creation of life as the power to be worshipped. The second celebrates death – the destruction of life – as the power to be worshipped. The first celebrates in foresight Jesus's life, work, and resurrection; the second celebrates in foresight his betrayal, trial, and execution.

What would Jesus do?

On p. 113 of "American Fascists," Hedges quotes Hannah Arendt, in "The Origins of Totalitarianism: "The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda – before the movements have the power to drop iron curtains to prevent anyone's disturbing, by the slightest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world – lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world." Expounding on that, he (Hedges) says, "The power of these non-reality-based movements is that they appeal to our deepest-held, most primitive prejudices, or classism, sexism, racism – perversions based on fear of complexity or change. So the propaganda contains much of what we already yearn to believe. Its subversive message is that it's OK to believe what we want, to believe lies." Creationists, by buying into the belief in magic and denying scientific fact, have abdicated their grasp on reality, and thus their responsibility and ability to make choices based on reality, to cynical, power-hungry men who wish to establish in the United States a Christo-fascist state, unlike Iran's Islamo-facist state only in the name of the tyrannical deity they profess to serve.

Read the books. Wake up. And resist.

The creationist editor

A friend of mine, Anne, recently published an story in an online publication, The Opinion Guy (http://theopinionguy.com/page2.html). Anne wrote a book called Living in the Light, a sort-of-instruction manual to help atheist parents teach their kids to resist religious proselytizing. The Opinion Guy opens his publication by attempting to skewer evolutionary theory in favor of creationism.

I love irony.

Anyway, just for kicks (and because it’s easy), I thought I’d take a few minutes to offer a rebuttal.

OP’s argument is based on this evidence:
It doesn’t seem reasonable that all this matter out there suddenly gathered in one place and exploded in the Big Bang.

Well, quantum physics has demonstrated that the actual construction of matter is almost completely energy (or perhaps completely). If you took the earth and squashed out all the empty space inside atoms and quarks, you’d have a tiny ball of intense energy you could hold in the palm of your hand. And anyway, doesn’t The Bible say, “With God all things are possible”?

If evolution is true, it must still be happening, but we haven’t seen it in the last 8,000 years, therefore it stopped. (There’s a “lack of recurring examples.”)

8,000 years is the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Any changes we would see in this period are gonna be pretty small. Even so, in the last few hundred years, we’ve seen canis lupus familiarus develop into German Shepherd and pug. Assuming both survived, what would they look like in 100,000 years? A million? New species are being discovered on a regular basis – how many of these have emerged through a process of evolution, and weren’t there 8,000 years ago? Nobody knows, obviously. So maybe we’re witnessing evolution all the time, and just haven’t noticed, since it hasn’t been replicated in a laboratory yet. Meanwhile, the fossil record provides lots of evidence that various hominid and other species lived in the past, and are not alive now; and lots of species that are alive now, apparently weren’t alive then – unless we just haven’t found the fossils yet. If the species of the past are completely different from those of the present, then either there must be a continual, gradual change (evolution) going on, or a continual, sudden creation of new critters from ‘the dust of the ground,’ or whatever. Natural selection, which is proven, implies the first.

“… to believe evolution, one has to believe that evolution suddenly happened and strangely stopped in strange bursts throughout history. Isn’t that far-fetched?”

Well, actually, no. That is exactly what evolutionary theory says, and what common sense implies. It's a pattern recreated throughout nature and life, from the growth of kids (they crawl for months and months, then, in a few days, they're walking) to seasons to economic cycles to supernovas.

In periods of environmental stability, such as we’ve enjoyed for the last 10,000 or so years, there is very little evolutionary change, and it’ll most likely happen in minor ways, such as the natural selection OP admits we’ve witnessed. In periods of climactic shift (such as the global warming we are now beginning to encounter) and intense environmental pressure, evolution occurs in bursts as the species dependent on their specific climates change rapidly or die out (become extinct).

The funny thing is, from an objective viewpoint evolution isn’t in doubt. The fossil record and process of natural selection are indisputable. What we can argue about rationally is how and whether it is directed. The real question is, Does evolution occur by random chance, or divine intervention? If you don’t read The Bible literally, it begins with a pretty good allegorical description of Big Bang-style creation (“… and God said Let there be light, and there was light,” etc.), so I don’t see why you can’t believe in The Bible and evolution at the same time. But it really doesn’t matter. Resolving that issue has bearing only on personal questions of faith. I see no reason to resolve it in the public realm.