Unanswered questions in genesis
"For he who believes no explanation is necessary. For he who doesn't, none will suffice."
|today i visited a website called answers in genesis, and at first laughed out loud at its audacity. after reading a little more my high spirits were cropped, as the scale of the enterprise it heralded was revealed.|
seeing how desperately these religious fanatics were trying to reconcile their rigid beliefs to modern science is sickening. the purpose of answers in genesis (AIG) is to find popular media that suggests evolution is valid and genesis antiquated, and to then denigrate and berate the work, often by implying that the author is an atheistic fool.
these straight forward people at AIG put forward arguments that hold no weight except to the easily impressionable or already convinced. their reprimanding evidence consists only of distractions and abstractions, slithering away from the issues at hand, like a maggot through fresh faeces.
so as you may gather these kind of people annoy me. they construct a massive expensive website to front their wealthy organisation (apparently funded "by god's grace") and proceed to distribute disinformation about things that are really their own problems. if their beliefs are challenged by contemporary civilisation's knowledge, then why not go find some better beliefs?
sadly these people appear stuck, rigidly adhering to their archaic doctrine. the dogma is spread so thick you could surface roads with it (perhaps the true source of fundging for this dubious organisation?) †
well i sat and fumed. then i paced around, fuming more. after venting this steam i came round to the realisation that, despite this pitiful state of circumstances, in the long run they will be shattered and destroyed by virtue* of their own arrogance.
let me draw an analogy that will soothe the critical and pure mind of dogmatic blues:
the answers in genesis organisation represents a facet of massive group, like a leaf on a tree, with a stem linking it back to many other such leaves. this particular tree is very old, it is enormous with a great trunk piercing the earth, and deep roots spreading all around it. such is the strength of this tree that animals cannot even scratch it's surface, and it's leaves are too high to reach. winds and rains barely bend it. and all around it casts a great shadow, obscuring the light from the sun from other forms of life.
one day, the wind will come. dark clouds loom overhead, and the air becomes cold. this wind is unlike a breeze, or even a gale, easily shrugged off by this tree.... a hurricane will come. the rigid structure has kept the tree safe... until now, for the winds will blow so hard and for so long that the leaves will be snatched from their branches, the branches torn from the trunk, and the mighty trunk ripped from the earth from which it once fed.
the ground will be disturbed, and the fall of the tree will crush whatever is under it, but in the wake of this disaster, something is beginning. all around the smaller plants have largely survived, their flexible stems bending with the wind, allowing it to pass without fighting it's force. once the dark clouds have cleared from the sky, the light of the sun floods down upon the young life below. as the corpse of the tree rots, it will feed fungi, which will pass it's strength, leached over eons, back to the earth.
through flexibility and change the small will watch the great and strong fall.
as an antidote to religious fanaticism i scoured the net for something real, and found divine interventions. please pleasure yourself.
†myself, if using a source such as a book, or whatever, found it to contain inconsistencies with what i could see around me (my primary view of life) i'd know something had to be done. now the people at AIG are taking the route to painstakingly fill in the abyss between that book and current ideas about reality. personally i'd say fuck this stack of paper, i'll save it for the lavatory, and would go looking for a source of insight that is, frankly, useful to me.... something less wack.
*tempted to just say 'by virtue alone' but felt hypocritical, and dimly evangelical