BLOGGERS BELIEF - DEREK OUELLETTE

The Bible is almost wholly (as apposed to Holy) nonscientific and nonsensical in it's story telling and that's not really surprising as when it was all put together there was little, if no, scientific method to speak of.  The only way teachers of the day could answer some of the more interesting questions was to tell stories, most of which were passed down from generation to generation before been put into book form - the Bible.  In the face of scientific discovery there are still those that ardently follow what the bible tells them and swallow it hook, line and sinker even after all the evidence is to the contrary.  That's the kind of lazy thinking I abhor but  we live and let live - or do we?  Some followers cause more harm than good.  Those that follow the myth and continue to support many antiquated laws created from simple stories in an ancient script should be torn down and ridiculed.  If you haven't already noticed we are living in the age of enlightenment where the scientific method and critical thinking will take us into the future.

So, I shall put my money where my mouth is but I thought I would start by picking some of the lower hanging fruit such as the author of this blog What I believe Genesis 1 teaches and why.

Derek Ouelette started out by saying he is not a scientist which is abundantly clear throughout this particular blog, he is, by all accounts, an apologist.  He says there is nothing inherently wrong with believing the world is only 6000 years old and there is nothing inherently wrong with believing in evolution but misses the fact that evolution is not something to believe in and is in no way to be put in the same belief structure of a young earth, you can't even put those two things in the same sentence but lets move on.
  Derek correctly points that the belief in God doesn't have to mean that you have to believe in creation and that the bible is not a historical document but a theological book about God.  I am of course paraphrasing as he also said the books of the bible were written at those times in history which is far from accurate so I'd give him a 5/10 for trying.
  He falls over the argument from authority with his "clincher" being Jesus and Paul spoke of Adam as if he was a real person but that's just another book in the Bible backing up the first book in the Bible - not a "clincher" I'm afraid.  Interestingly, Derek points out on more than one occasion that the bible is a testament to mans fallibility and there are some interesting wholes in the scriptures and the chronology does not line up.  This is apologetic, almost denial, when he eludes to the fact this is proof of gods character.  Ironic isn't it, the gaps in the bible is proof of God.  The creationists use the very same argument when pointing out gaps in the fossil records - proof of god.

I will give Derek credit for saying the scriptures do not tell us how long ago everything was created, let alone 6000 years ago, as the genealogical records cannot be used.  But then things go south for him.  He has fallen into the trap of "look at the artist, not the art", which he believes is the real message behind the bible.  That is one interpretation of the bible but there are many others.  His interpretation creates an argument from authority - in other words, god created everything because god said so.  Do not ask questions the bible can't answer, you just have to take it on blind faith that God created everything and that Noah and the flood did in fact happen even though there is no evidence to support it. 

I may be coming at this blog in the wrong way to what he had in mind and he did preface by saying he does not believe in evolution because there is no evidence of macroevolution, which is just ridiculous as there is no such thing as macroevolution, and because, in short, the bible says so.  The biggest mistake he has made is saying that:

   "evolution is losing credibility in many spheres – and say with a critical eye that I cannot accept that theory. "   

That is pure, whole cloth bullshit and in effect he has thrown out pretty much every piece of scientific evidence and discovery since the publication of the bible in favour of a book that is full of gaps.  He is using circular reasoning and telling the reader that if you're going to get all scientific about it then don't bother reading it.  Well I read it and I would like to challenge, from one non-scientific person to another, what are your reasons for not "believing" in the theory (read fact) of evolution and give me examples of the loss of credibility in any spheres.

His conclusion: take everything on faith and don't ask questions.


I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way even I learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write this blog.  If you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.

Thank you all
Justin