Issue #179-Genesis & Evolution by DeHaan (13 Pts o

Biblical Errancy Issue #179-Genesis & Evolution by DeHaan (13 Pts on Belief Without Proof, Gen. 1:1, Bible Covers All?, Creation/ Evolution, A Beginning?, Debasing Mankind), Openness, Read Back Issues, Rivers of Egypt

Nov 10, '08 3:10 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #179 November 1997, Editor: Dennis McKinsey



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A national periodical focusing on Biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



REVIEW

One of the more prolific apologetic authors, Dr. M.R. DeHaan, published a book in 1962 entitled Genesis and Evolution. In light of the fact that this work was in its 16th printing in 1978 when I purchased a copy, one is tempted to conclude biblicists hold it in rather high regard. That is a judgment with which I cannot concur, however, because it is not only boringly repetitious but sprinkled with assertions that are intellectually deficient, as well as inaccurate. Some of the more prominent examples are the following.

First, almost from the beginning DeHaan tries to beguile the opposition by framing the biblical discussions within parameters of his choosing through focusing upon the very first verse in Scripture. On page 19 under a section entitled 'The Most Important Verse' he states, "...the first verse of the Bible becomes in a certain sense the most important verse in Scripture. The first verse of the Bible determines whether you are a believer or an infidel. What you think of this verse determines your whole attitude toward the rest of Scripture." Later, on the same page he states, "You either believe it or reject it." This is the kind of subtle indoctrination that is indicative of the more crafty apologetic writers because he is putting the entire issue in a context that works to his advantage. In effect, he wants us to think that accepting the Bible is a 50-50 proposition in which you have one out of two chances of being correct. One choice is as viable as the other; one deserves as much credibility as the other, and one is as provable as the other. So you pay your money and take your chances. That's the boundary within which he seeks to formulate the issue. The fatal mistake contained therein lies in the fact that he ignored my oft repeated refrain that the burden of proof lies on he who alleges. When DeHaan said "You either believe it or reject it" he erred egregiously. In truth, you either "prove it or reject it," and since he admitted on page 17 that "the Bible opens with a statement which must be believed. It cannot be understood, explained, or proven--it must be accepted by faith," the conclusion is obvious. He admits it cannot be proven, but we are supposed to believe it, nevertheless. Imagine the incredibly large number of preposterous ideas mankind would have to believe if it came down to someone saying, Admittedly what am contending cannot be proven but you should still believe it. One can say, without fear of exaggeration, that the sky would be the limit.

Second, on page 21 DeHaan resorts to some blatant hyperbole when he says with reference to Gen. 1:1, "If you reject this, you cannot believe anything else in the Bible. If Gen. 1:1 is not true, the Bible is a lie, for it begins with a lie." Even I would not go so far as to say every comment in the Bible is false because its initial assertion is erroneous. You would be hard pressed to find any book in a library that does not contain some truth, even if it is nothing more than the name of the author or publisher or the date of publication. Why would an entire book have to be erroneous just because the first verse is fallacious?

Third, continuing his ongoing attempt to cause others to accept the first verse on faith alone, DeHaan quotes Gen. 1:1 and then says on page 24, ""No argument is presented for the existence of God. No statement is given as to where He came from.... No details are added, no explanation is given. You are expected to believe it because God says it. Wrong again! You are expected to believe it because the author or authors of Scripture say it. DeHaan is assuming the very point at issue, namely, that the Bible is the perfect word of a perfect being--an assertion disproven by an avalanche of data. Intelligent biblical critics do not concede key points that are in dispute anymore than they accept the oppositions terminology or preferred bounds of discourse. One way or the other DeHaan is determined to cover the ground with fertilizer and seeds of his own choosing so that which grows will be of his own making. He knows that anyone with an agenda could hardly be expected to lose a game in which he wrote the rules.

Fourth, not only does DeHaan place great importance on the first verse in Scripture, but he attempts to encapsulate the entire book in the first three chapters by saying on page 18, "There is not a single doctrine, Revelation, or truth revealed in the rest of the 65 books of the Bible, which is not found in type or figure in the book of Genesis. The seed of every other Revelation is here. In the book of Genesis, and particularly in the first three chapters, we have every Bible doctrine introduced, and the rest of Scripture is but the unfolding of that which is already introduced in capsule form in the first three chapters of Genesis." He follows this up on page 33 by saying, "If the first three chapters of the Bible are merely a parable, or symbolism, a fable, an allegory, or a myth, then the rest of the Revelation of Scripture must also be accepted as a fable, an allegory, or a symbol. If the record of the material creation is not literal, how can we accept the new creation as literal?" And he follows this with, "...the situation is even more serious. If we get rid of the literal account of the fall of man, and Gods curse on creation..., then the necessity of the Cross is destroyed. Then the whole plan of salvation becomes myth, with no more credence than the mythological Pandora's Box. If the first three chapters of Genesis are not a literal account, then let us throw the Bible away and be done forever with the idle superstition and a senseless fetish of faith in a book which is only a collection of ancient fables." Sounds like a good idea to me and one that should be enacted posthaste in view of the fact that biblicists have no more proof for the first three chapters being literally true than they do for the first verse, which DeHaan concedes cannot be proven.

Fifth, DeHaan's biblical exuberance ascends to new heights of irresponsibility when he says on page 38, "The Bible is unique in its content, for it deals with every subject under heaven, and is the final authority on every subject with which it deals. This makes the Bible the most scientific Book under heaven." Aside from the fact that millions of subjects are not discussed in Scripture (football, yellow fever, the Panama Canal, Abraham Lincoln, wind surfing, computers, etc. ad infinitum) one can only shudder at the prospect of using the Bible as the final authority in a subject like chemistry, when none of the chemical elements is mentioned. Imagine studying the Bible to learn about our solar system when none of the other eight planets is discussed or to learn about cytology when the word cell never appears. If you had to rely upon the Bible to pass algebra or trigonometry, you might as well drop the course. Why go through the agony of preparing to flunk.

Sixth, on page 44 DeHaan states, "Where did the universe come from? What is its origin? How old is it? or is it without beginning? These questions have occupied the minds of men since the dawn of human history." So far so good. He continues, "The answers can be grouped under one of only two heads: Creation or Evolution. It is one or the other." False! These are by no means the only options, since different religions have provided a wide variety of answers as to the origin of the universe.

Seventh, DeHaan continues by accurately stating, "Either the record of Genesis is true, or it is false. Creation and evolution cannot both be true. The claim that theistic evolution is in harmony with the record of the Bible is a totally indefensible claim." But then he makes some flagrant mistakes that are committed by nearly all religionists. He says, "All of it harks back to the authority of that first verse in the Bible.... Right here in the very opening statement, the Bible declares something which science leaves totally untouched, and evolution persistently ignores and evades. And that is the matter of 'ultimate' origin. Where did everything begin? The Bible asserts that the universe was created out of nothing but God Himself. Evolution is defined as a scientific and philosophical effort to explain the origin and development of things in the universe. But this definition is not entirely true, for evolution does not solve the question of ultimate origin. It does not begin with nothing, but assumes there was something to begin with. It may go back and back and back indefinitely, but it must assume there was something from which everything came." Wrong on several counts.

(a) Evolution, or what I would prefer to call the materialist conception of history, accounts for ultimate origins quite easily. There were none, period. Matter is all that exists and it has always been here; it has always existed. It had no point of origin because it was never created to begin with.

(b) The materialist conception assumes there was something--matter--but it does not assume it had a beginning. It does not assume "there was something to begin with" because there was no "to begin with" to begin with.

(c) And since it had no beginning, it is utterly false to say "it must assume there was something from which everything came." That is precisely what it does not assume based on the very fact that it contends there was no beginning.

Eighth, DeHaan continues by saying of evolution that, "It assumes the existence of substances and forces working through successive transformations or evolutions, but it poses or offers no answer to the problem of a first cause." It does not answer the problem of a first cause because with materialists, unlike religionists/idealists, there is no first cause to pose a problem.

Ninth, DeHaan continues, "It begins with lifeless, inert matter or substance already existing, but cannot go back beyond this." No matter is inert in the sense of not moving because the atoms and molecules of which it is composed are constantly in motion. There is no such thing as motionless matter. And just as importantly there is no reason to go back beyond this because, again, there is no back beyond matter to go back to.

Tenth, DeHaan concludes this section by saying, "Here evolution stops, but the Bible goes back to the ultimate beginning and gives the answer in its opening statement, 'In the beginning God created....'" The Bible does not go back to an "ultimate beginning"; it manufactures one out of ethereal imaginings. It assumes, rather than proves, there was a "beginning", and completely evades the most obvious question in this regard, a query that has been asked by rational minds for centuries. If God created the universe, then who or what created God. If the religionist says, No one, God is eternal and was never created, then the sensible mind can easily reply, Then why can't I say that of matter. Why does matter, which is known to exist, have to have a creator, while God, who is not known to exist, does not?

Interestingly enough, DeHaan acknowledges this very problem on page 72 where he says regarding the materialist conception of beginnings, "Of course, we must admit that we are confronted with the same identical problem if we accept the Bible answer, 'In the beginning God.' We are still faced with the questions, How did God begin? Where did God come from? Who made God'?"

Eleventh, on page 56 DeHaan made another statement with which I would agree. He stated, "We repeat, that if the evolutionary theory of the origin of man by evolution from lower animals were ever proved true, it would automatically disprove the Bible, and reduce it to an antiquated compilation of superstitions, fables, and fancies unworthy of a place in human history."" Well, at least we now know where the Bible is headed.

Twelfth, DeHaan continues his attack on evolution by saying on page 57, Then, too, there is no room for a fall, for evolution teaches a development upward and not a fall downward to total depravity. Evolution has no place for sin and subsequently no place for an atonement, and since there is no need for an atonement, there is no need for a Savior." How right you are DeHaan. Evolution does, indeed, teach there is upward development and something to look forward to in this world.

I have always been amused, if not baffled, by the work of Christian psychologists, psychiatrists, priests, ministers, social workers and others. They can'St help but transmit their belief that man is sinful, corrupt, and depraved to those whom they counsel, which can only lower peoples sense of self-esteem and self-worth, when an overwhelming number of those with whom these biblicists interact are in trouble precisely because they have little or no sense of self-worth and self-esteem. In effect, the Bible in general and Paul in particular are telling people they are sinners corrupt to the core and destroying their sense of self worth and self-esteem in the process, while many of Paul's current followers are trying to instill the opposite feelings. Talk about the left hand not being synchronized with the right hand! How could anyone have feelings of self-worth, self-esteem, pride, and dignity, when the Bible is telling him that he is utterly corrupt and sinful and little more than a piece of dung to quote Martin Luther. Prisons are heavily populated with people who have low self-esteem, and giving them a Bible is far more likely to exacerbate this problem than solve it.

Thirteenth and lastly, on page 92 DeHaan makes a comment that is decidedly at variance with scientific data in so far as am aware. He states, "Modern scholarship prates about the dignity of man and then debases him by tracing his ancestry to a most undignified chimpanzee." This assertion has rung throughout the halls of anti-evolutionism since time immemorial and is no truer now than when first uttered by those opposed to the writings of Darwin over a hundred years ago. Although not a scientist by trade, I know of no reputable scientist who ever said that man descended from apes, monkeys or chimps. Biblicists persist in making this provincial and benighted assertion despite the fact that it demonstrates an abysmal ignorance of basic evolutionary theory. Scientists have never said that man descended from apes or monkeys; they say man and the apes/monkeys descended from a common ancestor. Its like viewing a slingshot. Off a common trunk, one went one way and the other went another, but neither evolved from the other. This point is by no means trivial because it exposes the degree to which anti-evolutionists are unlearned with respect to even the simplest component of evolutionary theory.

In summary, as far as DeHaan's book in general is concerned, it leaves a lot to be desired. All too often faith replaces proof, and constant repetition is used as a primary means by which to inform and convey the authors predilections. Its another one of those apologetic writings I would recommend only to people who are afflicted with insomnia or possessed by pronounced masochistic tendencies.


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #750 from DA of La Puenta, California (Part a)

(DA insists on sending us letters in which he does not lay any groundwork for his assertions but just leaps right in as if we had all been discussing the issue for the last 2 days. I have repeatedly warned DA about this but he insists on ignoring my remonstrances as often as he ignores my corrections of his inaccuracies. His letters are often too lengthy for inclusion in a mere 6 pages of BE and he leaps from topic to topic according to whatever strikes his fancy. But because his errors are so numerous, I just can't resist the opportunities he provides. Having said that, DA begins his letter by quoting me as having said to him in Issue 168, "I get the last word in an individual issue, since I don't know of any other practical way it can be done, do you?" He replies--Ed.),

Sure. Do it the same way loads of editors have done with my frequently hostile letters to them. Print it and make no response. Highly practical. Not merely as emotionally satisfying or fun, but entirely practical.

Editors Response to Letter #750 (Part a)

Oh! I see. I'm supposed to turn the publication over to you and provide pages of unhindered, uncorrected, unassailed airtime. You'd like that wouldn't you. Well you have come to the wrong forum for that scenario my friend. In case you have not noticed, this periodical is centered around dialogue, debate, correspondence and interaction, not unchecked propaganda. If other editors have given you the kind of hearing you described, which I doubt, then that is their error to make. Perhaps they did not have a reply or did not consider your points worth replying to. In any event, we have no intention of following suit, because we most assuredly do have potent responses to every argument you have submitted.

Imagine what would happen if you gained the kind of access you seek. Every critic would be clamoring for the same treatment and I would end up publishing issue after issue of my critics assertions. In effect, BE would become little more than a platform for the very ideology it is dedicated to exposing and refuting.

You already receive 100 times the amount of exposure I am allotted by all of the Christian (biblical) publications in the nation combined. I would be delighted were I permitted to insert the amount of material in my opponents publications that people like you are allocated in BE. The percentages aren't even remotely comparable. And you have the chutzpah to insidiously attribute restrictions on free speech by me.

You say, "Highly practical." Of course! Highly practical for you. That way you could implant even more inducement while being less concerned with accuracy. Apparently your lethargic propensities have prompted you to favor the simple expedient of co-opting your opponents publication rather than creating one of your own.

Letter #750 Continues (Part b)

When I point out that errors in the KJV have been copied in many successors, you make the extravagant claim that I am saying "...the Greek and Hebraic translators of modern versions agreeing with the KJV are incompetent". Not at all. I am saying they are producing flawed text, which is what you expect of any mortal in any case. They may be incompetent, competent but interested in other goals than a perfect text (cheapness, superior readability..), or other.

Editors Response to Letter #750 (Part b)

The only extravagance involved is your attempt to restrict incompetence to the ability to translate only. You admit they are producing flawed text but say they are competent because they are doing so intentionally in order to make the text cheaper, more readable, etc. Regardless of what their motives are, be they intentional or the result of inadequate mastery of the material, if the text is flawed, if the text is inaccurate, if the text conveys an erroneous impression, then you are saying they are incompetent translators.

The key word is "flawed" and you just admitted, "I am saying they are producing flawed text." Whether it is cheaper or more readable is of no consequence once you admit it is flawed. Cheaper and more readable is not synonymous with being flawed.

Letter #750 Continues (Part c)

(In the same issue said to DA, "To all those inclined to attack future issues of BE say, Please read our back issues first...." DA now replies by saying--Ed.),

Given you are well past 150 issues, that would be difficult, and not cheap either (maybe 1000 pages and $160). If you expect us to take such advice, you had best start referring to the particular issue(s) that cover the point in question.

Editors Response to Letter #750 (Part c)

Like all those indoctrinated into Christianity, you look for the kind of ulterior motives that are so prominent within those victimized by your own ideology. If I was as mercenary as you imply, do you think I would post all of my back issues on a web site? They are free for all to view and if you are too lazy to learn how to navigate the Internet, then don't come moaning to me, and don't try to con your readers into believing I am purposely restricting your access to information in order to feather my own nest.

As far as reading my back issues is concerned you employed the kind of subtle deception that is so endemic to biblicists in general and your line of argumentation in particular. There were no particular points at issue when I said the following (verbatim), "I am increasingly encountering defenders of the Bible who have not read BE over the years and are merely revivifying arguments that have long since been buried. To all those inclined to attack future issues of BE I say, Please read our back issues first before you pick up the poisoned pointed pen to ride out and fight for Jesus." In other words, I was advising you and all of your compatriots to read all of our back issues before embarking upon forays into hinterlands unknown, since a wise program of that nature would forestall hundreds of points you are poised to make or may be so inclined to utter in the future. To me that was excellent advice. Do your homework before you begin to speak about that which you have not properly researched. In other words, read our back issues before you begin to complain about what is contained therein or allege they lack an effective response to your criticisms. If you were really as concerned with finding the truth as you pretend, you would read first and write later.

Even if a particular point had been under discussion, you had no solid grounds for saying, "you had best start referring to the particular issue(s) that cover the point in question." In other words, I not only wrote the material for you but now I am supposed to go back through my issues and do your research. You remind me of a student I had years ago. He wanted to know where he could find some information on Egypt. When I said that kind of data can be found in the Encyclopedia, he wanted to know where in the book specifically. He not only wanted me to tell him where the data could be found but to look it up for him as well. In effect, he wanted me to do some of his basic work.

Even if were willing to do this kind of research, I do not have the time or the staff that would be required. Maybe you'd like to volunteer?

Letter #750 Continues (Part d)

[After citing Ezek. 30:12 ("And I will make the rivers of Egypt dry") in the 168th issue, I asked, "What rivers are in Egypt other than the Nile?"--DA now wishes to add to his earlier reply--Ed.],

Ezek. 30:12 says "rivers", or maybe "river", or "streams", or... Then there is the definition of "river" to consider. (By the way, my Webster's main definition of "river" is "a natural stream of water bigger than a creek and emptying into an ocean...") which would clearly make each branch of the Nile, or other delta a separate river. Where is the contradiction?

Editors Response to Letter #750 (Part d)

This reply proves that you ignored my advice and did not read our back issues, because this topic was addressed long ago. I am not going to keep reinventing the wheel. As I said before, biblicists are not going to be allowed to have many versions of each verse from which they can draw as expediency dictates. You, not I, are going to have to get anchored on one version of each verse, and if you think I am going to accept scores of versions of each and allow you to leap from one to the other as circumstances require, then you're engaged in reverie.

You stated, "Ezek. 30:12 says rivers, or maybe river, or streams, or..." What kind of a comment is that? You are defending a verse while admitting you don't even know what it says. That's anile! Where did you get these three words? From 3 different manuscripts? So which is correct. What does the real Bible say? You admit you don't know and this situation could be applied to hundreds of verses. Apparently you don't realize you are destroying your own Book. You can't tell me what it says for sure, but you are positive it's not contradictory. How could you possibly know that until you can produce the originals which is impossible. I, on the other hand, have no problem producing contradictions because they are written on the pages before me. You are attributing perfection to a phantom, while I am proving imperfection in a reality.

Moreover, you can't even find an accurate Webster's Dictionary, since it would be ridiculous to define a river as "a natural stream of water bigger than a creek and emptying into an ocean." Where on earth did you find that book? Would you be so gracious as to tell me what oceans the Jordan River, the Saskatchewan River, the Volga, the Don, and the Dnieper empty into. In Europe I could also mention the Po, the Rhone, or the Danube. Do have any idea how many rivers in Canada empty into lakes. I taught geography years ago and I don't think I have to tell you what grade you would have received if you had made that uneducated (I'm tempted to say ignorant) comment in my class.

Letter #750 Continues (Part e)

(DA quotes me as having said to him in Letter #168, "Are you telling me each branch of that delta is a separate river? If so give me the names of all these rivers. I'm sure people living in the delta would like them as well." DA now replies with--Ed.),

They already have them. Names like West Branch, North Branch, Lower Branch, X City Branch, etc. are common. You would need to go to the delta in question, or to a good mapmaker, to find all these names, but the branches of a river are routinely named, and well known to the locals.

Editors Response to Letter #750 (Part e)

It was all could do to restrain my laughter with this reply DA. You refuted your own argument. You started out to prove many rivers were involved and then clumsily fell into a tar pit and exposed your own duplicity by stating (verbatim), "the branches of a river." You just admitted only one river is involved. "A" river. So all your talk about branches just fell off the tree.

I don't know of any river in the world with branches of its delta classified as separate rivers, and that includes the Mekong, the Amazon, the Ganges, and the Nile. Branches of a river are no more separate rivers than branches or limbs of my body are separate people. Apparently desperation is setting in because your whole line of defense is vacuous and vividly reveals why I would not want my children getting anywhere near a philosophy that produces such intractable ideologues. (To Be Concluded Next Month)


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #751 from DM of Corpus Christi, Texas

Since know you are a busy man, I will keep this letter brief. I am writing to let you know that I am a huge fan of your television show. Finally we have someone who isn't afraid to reveal exactly what the Bible actually does say. I watch your program whenever possible, but unfortunately it doesn't air with any regular consistency in my area.

The other purpose of this letter is to ask if there are any publications interested parties can subscribe to that you publish, or if not, are any that you could recommend? In closing I want to offer you congratulations for a job very well done. Many thanks! Keep up the good work!

Editors Response to Letter #751

You comments are only too kind and clearly demonstrate the importance of having our TV programs played throughout the nation. EB in Corpus Christi, Texas is doing an excellent job of getting them aired on his local station and nothing proves this better than the number of inquiries we are getting from that area of Texas. We will send you a free list of our materials.

Letter #752 from MU of Corpus Christi, Texas

Dear Mr. McKinsey. I have watched with interest your program on the local TV. I am interested in knowing more about your in-depth research for apparent contradictions in the Holy Bible. Please mail me your free literature. Thank you for your cooperation.

Editors Response to Letter #752

Dear MU. Yours is just another letter testifying to the great job EB is doing in getting our programs aired in the Corpus Christ area. I even had a fellow employee tell me her son in the military saw our program while stationed in Corpus Christi. EB is proving it can be done, if the will is there, without negative results.

Letter #753 from Anonymous

I purchased your book quite a while ago, and found it well worth the price tag. It is literally jammed packed with more than enough information to blow away even the Pope!

Anyway, my main point is this. I purchased an expensive $55 NIV study bible. As I was reading it, a thought hit me. What a great idea it would be to have an 'Atheist Study Bible'; a standard issue KJV bible with running side bar commentary. I next thought, what better man to write it than Mr. McKinsey! Imagine the debating power one would possess with arguments and cross-references attached to each objectionable quote! Well, it's a suggestion anyway.

Editors Response to Letter #753

Thanks for your compliment. As far as issuing a critical study Bible from BE's perspective is concerned, I have pondered that idea on several occasions, but each quickly faded when I contemplated the problems associated with having it published.

In fact, I have considered even more often the possibility of publishing all five of my voluminous and exhaustive notebooks in one single tome. It would be an invaluable aid to those seeking a ready source of reference material for quick queries, replies, and refutations during biblical encounters. Instead of being in narrative form, which involves some digging, it would be organized in a manner similar to that of a dictionary. The plot would be thin but the facts thick. You would only have to look up any topic that interests you and all of the needed verses would be at your fingertips. The contents could even be arranged in order of potency which would be of tremendous aid to biblical critics and freethinkers.