Index to Creationist Claims,  edited by Mark Isaak,    Copyright © 2004

Previous Claim: CH001   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CH010.1

---

Claim CH010:

Response:

1. Many evils in the past have been justified by claiming biblical support. Claiming a biblical basis has no bearing whatsoever on whether something is good or not.
   
   
2. Creationism is not based on the Bible. Most people who accept the Bible do not accept creationism. Biblical creationism (we will not deal here with creationism based on the Qur'an or Vedas) is based on one particular interpretation of the Bible. It is a form of religious bigotry; it declares that a particular religious interpretation applies not just to people of that religion, but to everybody everywhere, and that the religion of anyone who believes otherwise is wrong. This bigotry is overt from many creationists (Tparents n.d.). In fact, creationism claims to apply an individual's religious opinion to the whole universe. That is not merely bigotry; it is also hubris. Since bigotry and hubris are immoral, creationism is immoral at its very foundation.
   
   
3. Creationism is as much a political movement as a religious one. For example, the "wedge" strategy of Phillip Johnson and the Discovery Institute is funded by Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. and his wife Roberta. (Johnson dedicated one of his books to them.) Ahmanson supports Christian Reconstructionism, which seeks to replace American democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. In the society he favors, the death penalty would be required for "offenders" such as witches, homosexuals, incorrigible children, and people who disagree with the state religion (Benen 2000; Forrest and Gross 2004, 22-23,265-267).
   
   
4. Morals are properly judged on the basis of deeds, not claims. There are several indications that creationist deeds are below average morally:
   
   
   • out-of-context quotes
   • bogus credentials (Vickers 1998)
   • fraudulent claims, such as the Paluxy footprints, Moab and Malachite man, and the Lady Hope story
   • repeated use of refuted claims, such as moon dust and the second law of thermodynamics
   • vilification of opponents; for example, the persistent comparison of them to mass murderers (Elsberry and Perakh, 2004).
   
   The examples above are not indicative of all creationists. Most creationists, like most people of any category, are good people on the whole. But creationists, unlike evolutionists or most other people, have a strong ideological commitment. Strong commitments such as theirs can, and judging by the examples above probably do, lead people into questionable morality if they think it will support what they consider a higher cause. Objective study is still necessary to determine definitively whether creationists are any less moral than average, but theory and what evidence there is suggests that that is the case.
   
   
5. The Bible is not a consistent guide to morality; it describes several actions that would generally be considered immoral if not downright repugnant:
   • In Numbers 31:17-18, Moses commands his troops to kill every woman and child in Midian, except young virgins, who the troops may keep for themselves.
   • In Exodus 32:27, Moses commands his people to kill their brothers, sons, and neighbors who worshipped improperly.
   • According to 2 Kings 2:23-24, Elisha called down a curse on some youths, resulting in forty-two of them being killed by a bear, simply because they mocked his baldness.
   • In 1 Chronicles 13:7-11, Uzza is killed for trying to keep the Ark of the Covenant from harm.
   See Robinson (2000) for more examples.

Links:

References:

Further Reading: