Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Because the Truth Matters or Darwin vs. the Holy Flaming Snowflake of God!

Because the Truth Matters
“Is evolution racist?” is the insensible title of an article on CRI, or the Christian Research Institute, website which can be found at and which is spear headed by Evangelist Hank Hanegraaff (considered one of the world’s leading Christian apologist—according to his own bio on his own website and blog—although I wouldn’t really know since this is the first time I’ve ever heard of him).

After Googling his tome of work I was even less impressed. His book on the resurrection of Christ, simply titled Resurrection, seems to be all rhetoric and nonsense. After using to look inside the book I found some amazingly blinkered apologetics, such as Hanegraaff’s question “Will there be sex after the Resurrection?” His answer, simply put, “Yes and no—it all depends on what you mean by sex.” How could anyone not know what sex is?! Yes folks, that’s the exact level of sophistication we have been primed to expect from Christian apologists like Hank Hanegraaff (apparently this is what happens when your parents forget to have “the talk” with you).

You're probably thinking it couldn’t get any worse than this disconcerting display of claustral thought and, well, you’d be wrong. Hanegraaff’s explanation for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is flabbergasting, to say the least. In summation it goes something like: The Lord is the resurrection, and His resurrection was the beginning of the release of His divine life into His believers. He came back and breathed Himself into His disciples… and it continues on like this ad nauseam. I mean, do Christians even bother trying to sift through the vague assumptions and convoluted content just to decipher the so-called truth? For some reason I highly doubt it.

Be aware, however, that like most Christian apologetics/ministry websites, most of the site is a money making racket. Every other link takes you to some sort of CRI sponsored merchandise for purchase, DVDs, books, direct donations, etc. Of the websites motto, because truth matters, I fully concur, but sadly, as you may have predicted, that’s where the search for the truth begins and ends—with a quaint sounding epigraph.

The mission of CRI, according to their official mission statement, is to provide Christians with carefully researched information (although this is contestable) and well-reasoned answers (even though this is likewise debatable) that encourage them in their faith and equip them to intelligently represent it to people influenced by ideas and teachings that assault or undermine orthodox, biblical Christianity (which begs the question, does this mean they will not accept the truth even if it should undermine orthodox, biblical Christianity?).

I first came across this apologetics website on my Facebook page when a Christian acquaintance had put up a link sponsoring the site's rhetoric (which we’ll get to momentarily). Ironically enough, however, the CRI post followed a James Randi Education Foundation post ( Just as an aside, if you are a believer and want to learn how to critically access the facts and use reason to scrutinize theories then there is probably no better place than the James Randi Education Foundation to learn about the methods and techniques of critical analysis. If I were you, I’d simply skip bad apologetics websites like CRI and go straight to and start reading. But that’s just me.

At any rate, I recently stated that I was feeling a little burnt out with the whole God debate, but perhaps that’s because I was not properly motivated. But then I came across this polemic filled misinformation machine called CRI and was just appalled at the sort of misconceptions it was sponsoring and the sort of misapprehensions of science and everyday reality it was churning out. That’s when I thought to myself, somebody has to shut this evil propaganda and misinformation machine down. Down with Newspeak!

Needless to say CRI is chock-full of pitiful (i.e., not even researched), embarrassing, incompetent, intellectually shaming, articles—tens of dozens of them. As such, I cannot waste my time and energy responding to every bit of incorrect information of each poorly researched article, since that would be quite impossible, but I shall attempt to address two really degrading and inferior articles called: “Is Evolutionism Racist” and “What about Theistic Evolution?” (which can be found at: and on the CRI website).

Like the aforementioned James Randi, however, I too feel it necessary to set about correcting the misinformation and debunking the erroneous and flabbergasting propaganda out there.

Is evolution racist?
The title “Is evolution racist” is a dead giveaway that Hanegraaff, et al. (et al.—because it is unclear whether he is writing himself or has a bunch of born again lackeys doing it for him) knows absolutely zilch, nadda, nothing about Darwin’s theory of evolution—but apparently Hanegraaff wrote an entire book on the subject (cf., Fatal Flaws: What Evolutionsists Don’t Want You to Know, Nashville: W Publishing, 2003). The article opens with the disclaimer, “while not all evolutionists are racists, the theory of evolution is racist in the extreme.”

If I may make an observation, it appears the author is either incompetent or just completely ignorant, just as surely as an competent person of average intelligence wouldn’t mistake a natural theory about cellular reproduction and adaptation via natural selection for something as hackneyed as the social construct of racism. I got hammered for bringing this up to my Christian friend, who said I was simply engaging in a bit of name calling, but I reassured him that my intentions were sincere—and that I genuinely felt sorry for this poor deluded person (i.e., Hank Hanegraaff, et al.) since he was only propagating a lie and making himself look foolish and shaming himself in the process.

Next our author, after embarrassing himself with his lack of knowledge (as if Googling or typing into Wikipedia the key-phrase ‘the theory of evolution’ was just too difficult) he continues on to quote Charles Darwin, citing The Descent of Man in which Darwin states, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” Ironically enough, something which is lost on our author, is that Darwin makes it explicitly clear that “race” simply refers to the common descent of man (hence the title of the book). Never mind that Christianity for centuries has sponsored a strong support for racism and even used it as an excuse to maintain slavery! (I refer you to the writing of Louis Agassiz who advocated polygenism, which was popular among the Christian slaveholders of the South, since for many of the day his opinions legitimized the belief in a lower status of the “negro.” Darwin’s book The Descent of Man, however, is opposed to most of Agassiz’s theories—as anyone who has read it could tell you—and I have—and I just did).

Nice quote from Charles Darwin, but for some odd reason Hanegraaff, et al. seems to think it supports some sort of concealed form of racism when, in fact, it does not. Apparently our Christian apologist didn’t take the time to familiarize himself with the book (i.e., actually read it). Anyone who has read The Descent of Man knows that it explains, in exacting detail, one very important fact not to be forgotten—we’re all savages that will be replaced by highly evolved versions of ourselves, which Darwin makes perfectly evident in the very next few lines of the same paragraph, which our author would have known if he had read The Descent of Man in the first place. In the next several lines Darwin writes:

At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (Darwin, The Decent of Man, 1871, pp.200-201)

Thrashing the “Bulldog”
Predictably, our Christian apologists launches a tirade against Darwin’s “bulldog” the distinguished Thomas Huxley, stating that Huxley was “most responsible for advancing Darwinian doctrine.” Instantly, I was perplexed, and wondered what the hell “Darwinian doctrine” might be, but alas, our author does not define it—we can merely assume our author means it is some sort of “Bible of Evolutionism” which evolutionists keep in their top dresser drawer by their beds. 

Upon doing an online search on “Darwinian doctrine” I instantly found thousands of hits related to the “Doctrine of Creation” as sponsored by Creationists, which clues me in that “Darwinian doctrine” is merely Creationist terminology devised to earmark anything related to evolution or which might contend with their pet theory. Subsequently, this does nothing to clarify what “Darwinian doctrine” may entail, probably because it’s not a real doctrine of any sort, but let’s not bother ourselves with the trivial.

Our author then points out that Thomas Huxley titles his magnum opus The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, and then goes on to states that Huxley coined the term ‘agnostic’—as if this has any bearing on whether or not evolutionists are racist. Neither account, however, counts as evidence—and of course our author proves his ignorance of the text he refers to by failing to cite and address why he finds it, quote unquote, “racist.”

Following this illogical rationalization, team Hanegraaff quote mines from Huxley, who once stated, “No rational man cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.” Then our author adds that “Huxley was not only militantly racist but also lectured frequently against the resurrection of Jesus Christ in whom we are all one (Gal. 3:28).” Yet our author, in true form, fails to cite anything which shows Huxley’s so-called “militant attitudes” or, for that matter, fails to cite anything related to Huxley’s lectures against the resurrection of Jesus Christ (which is a pity because I was hoping to read some of that).

Once again, the Internet proves an invaluable research aid, as I again took the time to track down the Huxley quote. As it turns out, Huxley’s phrase has been lifted from his essay “Emancipation—Black and White” in which Huxley actually defends the emancipation of black slaves! What this means is, contrary to what the author may believe, Huxley’s quote is actually evidence against the rise of racism sponsored by any so-called “Darwinian doctrine.” In fact, Huxley states:

The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest. But whatever the position of stable equilibrium into which the laws of social gravitation may bring the negro, all responsibility for the result will henceforward lie between Nature and him.” (Huxley, “Emancipation—Black and White,” available online:

Here lies proof that Huxley was making the call for an emancipated black race, bound not by others, but only restricted by the laws of Nature—the same laws we all must abide. While some might mistake Huxley’s usage of the term negro as racist, we mustn’t neglect to take into account the basic histiography of the day. Indeed, because an author from the 1850’s uses an outdated term, which has since become obsolete, doesn’t mean the author was in fact racist. Nor could we expect someone to avoid usage of the terminology, especially one coming from the privileged class and could not foretell the future equality blacks would eventually come to share, even if they were acutely aware of the evils of racism in their day.

Mark Twain is another example of an author who frequently employed the colloquial terminology of his day, making quick use of the word nigger, as he penned the great American classic the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885). Many have accused Twain of being a racist, thus banning his book from school and public libraries (often coming under attack by religious critics), yet obviously having missed the message of emancipation not having read the book—which is about the freeing of a black slave. After all, the story ends with Huck’s intention to head West—and back then the West was the land of opportunity—the frontier where one could stake out his own destiny.

Thus it does us good to pay attention to the basic histiography of the era we are quoting from lest we mistakenly accuse others of being racist, or inciting racism, when in fact they are not. Just as Twain wrote on themes which embodied the search for freedom, and took aim squarely against racial prejudice, rising segregation, lynchings, and the generally accepted belief that blacks were sub-human, so too the radical consequences of Darwinian evolution seek to render any notion of racism counterfeit while simultaneously emancipating our thought from the manacles of age old shibboleths. Along with Darwin, Huxley was a monogenist, which is a ten dollar word for the belief that all humans are part of the same species! What’s racist about that? In fact, that’s the opposite of racist, if you ask me. Ultimately, Darwin’s theory of evolution is unifying—showing that we are all brothers and sisters who are part of the same great big family—we are all made equal.

Night of the Long Knives
Without any transition, or warning, our unscientific and ahistorical minded apologist brings up “survival of the fittest” and the German Fuhrer, claiming both were consequences of the theory of evolution. Hanegraaff, et al. even goes as far as to state that “Adolf Hitler’s philosophy that Jews were subhuman and that Aryans were supermen led to the extermination of six million Jews.” Never mind that Aryanism stems from metaphysical (i.e., religiously based) misconceptions about human decent (again siding with polygenist opinion—in accordance to Biblical doctrine—e.g., Adam and Eve were the first humans *created by God. This Creationist ideology directly conflicts with the theory of evolution which supports the monogenist opinion that we evolved from one biological specimen that was not created by God but, rather, derived from Nature).

In a swift attempt to get rid of any opposition our author quotes the physical anthropologist Arthur Keith who maintained that Adolf Hitler’s philosophy conformed to the theory of evolution—something echoed in the work of Richard Weikart (see From Darwin to Hitler, 2004). Even as this sentiment directly contradicts Hitler’s own accounts of being a devout Catholic who was obliged to rid the world of Jews because they condemned Christ to death. In a speech given on April 12, 1922, Adolf Hitler had this to say: 

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison and as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. (Speech cited in Letter to a Christian Nation, p.14, originally from Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939. Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20. Oxford University Press, 1942).

Nevertheless, what we have here is Hitler’s own testimony to be a devoted follower of Jesus Christ! Hanegraaff, et al’s ploy is distinctly a religious attempt, once again, to tie all things secular to the atrocities of Adolf Hitler rather than the religious beliefs directly compelling his depraved ideology. The Biblical scholar and historian Hector Avalos has put this issue to rest in his essay “Atheism Was Not the Cause of the Holocaust” (which can be found in the anthology The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, ed. John W. Loftus, Prometheus Books, 2010). If you’re under the impression that Hitler wasn't, as he himself claims to be, a pious Christian—then you are mistaken.

Hanegraaff, et al. next states, surprisingly enough, something which makes sense, adding, “social Darwinism has provided the scientific substructure for some of the most significant atrocities in human history.” This is probably the only accurate comment in the whole piece, as far as I can tell, but for one small deficiency: Hanegraaff, et al. conflates social Darwinism (the origins of which are attributed to Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton—who coined the term eugenics in his book Hereditary Genius in 1869—and was later advocated by Herbert Spencer which was, in turn, greatly misused by Nazi and American scientists alike: see the BBC miniseries “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” for the history of social Darwinism and the misapplication of Darwin’s theories) and confused it with Darwin’s theory of evolution (a scientific theory based on incontestable evidence). This is a hugely embarrassing mistake which no knowledgeable person (or any person with a working Internet connection and ability to type a keyboard) would ever make.

Also, as with most Christian apologists, team Hanegraaff shows a shockingly superficial knowledge of Christian anti-Judaism. In fact, the link between Christianity and anti-Semitism is well documented, and realistically speaking, likely would not be contested by any serious historian in the know (see: Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of anti-Semiticism by Rosemary Ruether and The Origins of Anti-Semetism: Attitudes Towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity by John Gager).

Finally, in a bizarre conclusion, Hanegraaff, et al. writes on the racism sponsored by recapitulation theory and then informs that “modern molecular genetics has demonstrated the utter falsity of the recapitulation theory.” That’s how he concludes the piece. If you have a thought bubble floating above your head filled with a bold faced “???”—then you’re not alone. Yet such an ill-informed person would, in theory, be capable of making such a grandiose mistake as this—since only a dimwit or a delusional person would say something as self-contradicting as “Modern molecular genetics, which is rooted in the success of Darwin’s theory of evolution, disproves Darwin’s theory of evolution.” Well, to be precise, he said it disproves recapitulation theory—which subsequently disproves Darwin’s theory of evolution—recapitulation indeed. But as any well informed (Internet savvy) person knows—molecular genetics is sine qua non the best proof available that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and the incontestable success of it was made by the prediction capabilities of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The Sing-a-Long Sing Song Against Evolution!
This is the song that never ends—yes, it goes on and on my friends. By now we have come to expect nothing less than the former example of dogmatic certitude coupled with lack of research and sheer scientific ignorance from Christian apologists who oppose the theory of evolution, and to a larger extent, science in general. Preferring their metaphysical assumptions about reality—instead of, well, reality—most apologists do not even bother looking into actual science—after all, they have the only book they’re ever going to need to read—God’s good book. How do Christians know evolution is wrong? Because it says so in the Bible. Well, not actually, but it does affirm a Creationist account of how things came to be—and this is clearly incompatible with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Clearly.

Christians who deny the theory of evolution, in my experience, are simply unknowledgeable in the areas that they criticize. I’m no scientist either, but at least I have taken the time to pick up a book on the subject and engage in the literature before I share my contrived opinion. As the saying goes, an uneducated opinion is like an asshole, everyone’s got one. But an educated opinion, that’s nothing the like—it’s something that is respectable because it counts in the realm of ideas—it is, literally, the proliferation of information, ideas, and knowledge. I cannot respect an uneducated opinion, because like an asshole, it is fetid and continuously constipates the realm of good ideas with bad ones.

Regardless, many Christians like to jump on the “evolutions is false” bandwagon and chime in with the tune, as if it’s become a tired-out church hymnal, and habitually their choir leaders love to wail the solo part at the top of their lungs—hoping to move the hymnists to their very core with the gut feeling that what they have to say is all true—evolution really is a sham—it hasn’t been proved—and science is untrustworthy! Hallelujah! Praise God on High! We believe, we believe, evolution is false, and if you chant it enough, you may even start to believe it too—that is, if you’re a weak minded twit.

This parochial sentiment is no clearer than on apologetics websites like CRI and in the ensuing article, entitled, “What about Theistic Evolution?” Yes, pray tell Mr. Hanegraaff, et al., what about theistic evolution? We can’t neglect to address that thorn in our theological back-side.

Apes evolving into Astronauts?! God forbid!!!
Our brave apologist, for this is the only redeeming character trait I can find in someone so totally ignorant that they are a borderline menace to society, I find his next endeavor a bit beyond his ability to research and access information. That is to say, without trying to sound too elitist, the incompetence to do any basic research or requisite fact checking proves that team Hanegraaff neither has the intellectual capacity or capability of even approaching a topic as philosophically complex as theistic evolution. But that doesn’t mean they don’t try—because they do—and, once again, fail miserably.

Hanegraaff, et al. goes on to state that “a growing number of Christians maintain that God used evolution as his method for creation. This, in my estimation, is the worst of all possibilities.” Worse than naturalistic atheism, I wonder? Okay, so let’s assume he means it, what is his evidence for this lofty presupposition? “It is one thing to believe in evolution; it is quite another to blame God for it. Not only is theistic evolution a contradiction in terms—like the phrase flaming snowflakes…. The biblical account of creation specifically states that God created living creatures according to their own “kinds”… As confirmed by science... Thus while the Bible allows for microevolution (transitions within “the kinds”) it does not allow for macroevolution (amoebas evolving into apes or apes evolving into astronauts).” Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle, science really does confirm Creationism, suck on them flaming snowflakes you damn dirty evolutionists!

Wait… what???

As per usual, the whole microevolution vs. macroevolution debate is once again called to the forefront of the theist’s repertoire—never mind it is a moot issue. Although I would typically expound on why it’s a moot issue, I don’t see the need to since our apologist neither explains the difference or the reasons for why one or the other supports his case—so, moving on.

Holy Flaming Snowflake of Metaphysical Reality Batman!
My favorite quote is the next fabulous piece of writing, in which our author affirms:

Evolutionary biology cannot account for metaphysical realities such as ego and ethos. Without data demonstrating the physical processes can produce metaphysical realities, there is no warrant to dogmatically declaring that humans evolved from hominids…. Finally, an omnipotent, omniscient God does not have to painfully plod through millions of mistakes, misfits, and mutations in order to have fellowship with humans. As the biblical account of creation confirms he can create humans instantaneously (Gen. 2:7)…. Evolutionism is fighting for its very life. Rather than prop it up with theories like theistic evolution, thinking people everywhere must be on the vanguard of demonstrating its demise.

Let’s unpack this jumbled up rambling series of thoughts and ideas, shall we?

First, ego has to do with ‘the thinking self’ or, in modern terms, self-consciousness. Kant distinguished between two types of ego, the empirical ego (or ordinary self-consciousness generated by our brains) and the transcendental or pure ego (something that cannot be known be known but must be presupposed for our experience to have any meaning). Freud would later develop the psychology of the conscious self, further developing the empirical ego, whereas Descartes would develop the transcendental or pure ego, also known as the Cartesian ego. Recent strides in the cognitive sciences, on the other hand, have done a lot to show that self-consciousness is entirely the byproduct of our brains functioning—and that without our brains—consciousness ceases to exist (there is a dense and growing literature on the subject, but for a quick summary I recommend reading Daniel Dennett’s work Consciousness Explained, The Mind’s Eye, as well as Zoltan Torey’s book The Crucible of Consciousness).

Secondly, ethos simply deals with the characteristics of current trends or trains of thought within a culture, era, or community. The Greek word ethos literally means “natural disposition” and is often translated as “customs.” I don’t know what our author intends by saying evolution is incapable of proving either, since it seems to me, that our evolutionary traits go a long way in explaining certain customs (e.g., courtship rituals and dating customs are, predictably, brought on by sexual selection). Meanwhile, cognitive science, such a natural psychology and neuroscience, seem to show that our brains, and so too our thoughts, are the end results of a long evolutionary process involving the handiwork of natural selection—that is we have adapted over the course of history to have larger brains (as evident in our species’ fossil record). This sort of disproves the Hanegraaff, et al. thesis right there. Even so, we ought to continue on with our critique, as not to say we ducked the responsibility of correcting the bad information.

Thirdly, if metaphysical realities did exist, then wouldn’t they have physical (detectable) consequences? If not, then why invoke an improbable and improvable concepts as evidence for something you wish to prove? If, on the other hand, metaphysical realities do exist—then I suppose, in theory, anything would be possible—even flaming snowflakes. Which just goes to show that our author seriously needs to put a halt on his jabbering and turn on that light bulb upstairs—you know the one—the one that’s been gathering all that dust. Hanegraaff, et al. needs to stop, do some real research, and then engage in some major reanalysis if they want to be taken seriously. Otherwise, the only thing Hanegraaff, et al. apologetics ministry and the CRI community has proven is that they are proud of their own reality defying ignorance. After all, they proudly plaster it on the World Wide Web for all to see, they unashamedly display it on the CRI website as badge of blind faith—a badge of Christian honor! But, maybe, in the end, that’s good enough for them?

Fourthly, I do not see what sharing a “fellowship with God” has to do with the topic of evolution. Again, this tangent is wrought with dubious allusions to other allusions about theological premises which involve Creation doctrine and a dubious talking snake. But whatever our author might mean, I’m certain it does him no good in proving his point, whatever it may be.

Fifthly, I really like the last sentence, “Evolutionism is fighting for its very life. Rather than prop it up with theories like theistic evolution, thinking people everywhere must be on the vanguard of demonstrating its demise.” It’s well written, it’s poetic, and it really makes you think. Also, it raises a lot of good questions, like, how does a scientific theory fight for its life? Are we merely mixing metaphors or is there some deeper meaning here? Having done nothing to show how theistic evolution is unsound, how do we expect to know when it’s being propped up when we don’t even know what it is and how it (supposedly) fails? Those on the vanguard of demonstrating its demise must wonder what it is exactly, I should think. Are we talking about evolutionism here or theistic evolution? Because last I checked, proving the validity of a scientific theory, such as the theory of evolution via natural selection, was distinctly not the same as validating a theological consideration. That is to say, as I understand it, science and theism are different disciplines entirely. Regardless of whether the theory of evolution fits with Christian doctrine or not, my point is, nothing of this sort was discussed—assertions were made to the effect that theistic evolution is false—but this has yet to be demonstrated.

As such, we must reject this unfounded theological conjecture not only because it is altogether unsupported but, perhaps more importantly, it makes utterly no logical sense to demonstrate the failure of something (i.e., demonstrably falsify it), and replace it with something that cannot be demonstrably falsified (e.g., the Christian concept God). If we take anything away from this though, it’s this: Christian apologetics websites are not places we should look to in order to get real, up to date, information about science any more so than a cooking website would contain useful information for motorcycle repair.

Don’t be that Guy
When I was a believing Christian I used to write essays like these, not knowing a thing about the positions I was arguing against, usually due to the fact that I hadn’t read any of the relevant literature out there. This is why I am confident that Hanegraaff, or whoever else may be behind these lackluster essays, did not read any of the relevant literature either—which, as a happy coincidence, accounts for their utter scientific ignorance.

At the same time, this is why genuine scientists like Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and Victor Stenger (among other professionals) don’t typically waste their time arguing with second rate Christian apologists. First off, it is examples like the above which prove most apologists aren’t even familiar with the other side’s position in the first place, which is typically why whenever they argue against such positions they are merely arguing against themselves (and whatever clichéd version of the theory they have devised for themselves—this is a blatant case of the strawman fallacy). Indeed, the one thing that is abundantly clear is that evolution deniers, such as Creationists and Christian Fundamentalists, aren’t really arguing against evolution per se, since they (as we have seen) unwittingly invoke it as support more often than not, but they are arguing against their own concoction of whatever they imagine evolution might be (while being entirely in the dark as to what it really is—likely due to their stupendous scientific ignorance and sanctimonious certitude in their own pre-established religious beliefs).

Second of all, I might add, that I feel dismayed whenever I see Christians posting links to such apologetic drivel, as my online friend did, because it only acts as a disclaimer which boldly advertises their own stupendous ignorance and incredulity! As if they were proudly wearing the popular T-shirt which reads, “I’m with stupid” and sports a big cartoon finger (or arrow) pointing at, you guessed it, themselves. No need to advertise your own ignorance folks, have some dignity for crying out loud!

Christians would be wiser just to drop the middle-man, that is to say, stop reading apologetics websites hosted by second rate apologists like Hank Haengraaff and CRI, which may promise the truth but only offer up scantily clad generalizations of things which barely even remotely resemble the truth. Furthermore, take it from an ex-Christian who saw the light (that brilliant and illuminating Promethean flame), if you truly want answers, it helps to go straight to the source.

If you want to know about gardening you ask a horticulturist. If you want to know about the weather you ask a meteorologist. If you want to know about dinosaurs you ask a paleontologist. If you want to know about the best possible diet for you then ask a dietition. You want to learn about sex you consult a physiologist, psychologist, or porn star (perhaps all three). You want to learn to roll a cigarette with one hand, your best bet is, ask your uncle (who may or may not have once been a porn star). Understanding evolution then requires we ask someone in-the-know, namely an evolutionary biologist, as it certainly helps to become acquainted with the theories as proposed by the actual scientists—not some unqualified religious quack who has his own website—anybody can do that—don’t be that guy.

Granted, I don’t have all the answers, I never have pretended to—especially when it comes to advanced scientific theories beyond my domain of expertise. I try to leave that up to the professionals. But every now and again I will come across something so dreadfully appalling as to constitute a new sort of offense, in this case the offense being the spread and propagation of misinformation for the purpose of buttressing an already robust faith, all at the expense of the genuine truth. That’s why I felt compelled to step out of my domain of expertise for one moment and refute the wild fly by night theories coming out of the twice baked theology of Christian apologists, because I earnestly do believe the truth matters.

Advocatus Atheist

Advocatus Atheist