Sure, they’re young earth creationists. That’s ridiculous enough, a view that is in complete denial of all of the evidence, and it makes them a fringe group that, if they didn’t have so much political influence, could be safely ignored. Just the fact that they reject the entirety of science ought to make them pariahs.
By the way, my latest reading is Martin Rudwick’s Earth’s Deep History: How It Was Discovered and Why It Matters
…I try to show how an emerging sense of the Earth’s deep history was related to earlier conceptions of a much briefer kind of history in far more interesting and important ways than this tired stereotype allows. The surprising revival of “young Earth” ideas by some modern religious fundamentalists, and the even more surprising political power of such ideas in certain parts of the world, should not distract us from tracing the main story. I deal briefly with the modern creationists at the very end of this book, but in such a way that I hope it will be clear that they are a bizarre sideshow, not the climax of the narrative.
Even as a bizarre sideshow, though, their beliefs have social and political repercussions, and unfortunately, belief in creationism has a host of correlated consequences.
One of those consequences is the possession of a set of rigid sexual mores that defy biological reality. Another of the horrible, nonsensical ideas that AiG promotes is that gender is fixed and unchangeable, ordained by God, and so transgender people are freakish abominations who should not be accommodated in any way.
This attitude comes right from the top. Ken Ham loves to cite the Bible to “prove” that there are only males and females.
Now gender distinction for humans is so important that in the very first chapter of the Bible, which is foundational to the whole Bible, God emphasizes this gender distinction:
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)
Jesus, the Son of God, our Creator, as the God-man, made this emphatic statement:
But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female. (Mark 10:6)
And again in Matthew 19:4, Jesus, in explaining the meaning of marriage, emphasized the following:
Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female . . . ? (Matthew 19:4)
And I love how He stated, “have you not read…?” I believe we could paraphrase this verse as, “Haven’t you people read the book of Genesis, that when I created humans, that I made them male and female?” (Matthew 19:4)
That is so familiar — it’s also how they justify creationism. It’s right there in the very first page of the Bible! How can you believe the rest if you don’t literally accept every word? The first book of the Bible says that the Earth was created in six days six thousand years ago, and it also says that sex is binary, and if you deny either of those things, why, you must hate Jesus.
This is not a one-time deal, either; it’s something of a growing theme at AiG. Here’s Ham in a different essay.
And God not only made the earth and everything in it, He also created gender. Gender is not a social construct that society can arbitrarily define or that can be changed based on our feelings. Gender—male and female—was created by God at the beginning (Genesis 1:27), and this distinction was reaffirmed by Jesus in the New Testament (Matthew 19:4–5). Although gender (like everything else) is marred by sin because of the Fall, we need to respect the distinction that God created and not seek to redefine it according to our fallible human wisdom and desires.
And again.
Really, what laws like this come down to is a rejection of the biblical distinction between males and females. Of course, we at Answers in Genesis acknowledge that this is a complex issue, but Scripture is clear that in the beginning, God created mankind as male and female (Genesis 1:27). There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that God created some as anatomically male but who identify as female or vice versa. (We do recognize that, because of sin’s effects on the world, there are physical variations and aberrations that do cause legitimate difficulty for a very small number of people, such as hermaphroditism.
So he’s willing to accept that transgender individuals exist, but they are a consequence of Original Sin and represent aberrations.
And now they have a post up by Owen Strachan, Transgender Identity—Wishing Away God’s Design. How do you like that? If you aren’t the perfect cis-het person, you are defying God.
And here we go again, with the literalists’ favorite quote:
Genesis 1:27 says God made them “male and female.” No matter how hard some people try, they can’t wish away this fundamental physical reality—and that’s a good thing.
The irony…the fundamental physical reality here is that sex is non-binary and more complex and fluid than bible-thumpers can imagine, and the only people trying to wish away reality are the kooks at conservative think-tanks.
If I wanted to be mean…oh, wait I’m always happy to be mean!…I’d point out that this is another irreconcilable conflict between their religion and reality, and that it ought to be regarded as an indictment of their damned stupid “worldview”.
Jessica Sideways has a most excellent rebuttal of Strachan’s idiocy, though, so I’ll stop there and let her take it away. I am amused at the fact that Strachan wobbles between two sources to justify his argument: the Bible and…Pinocchio? Two works of fiction to prop up his transphobic bigotry? I’m not impressed.
So did God make some of them male — and some of them female? Or did God make each person “male and female?” If we were created “in His image” then God must have had a little of both in “His” nature, no? As do we all. I mean, read what it says, not what you think it says.
Of course, the whole argument is silly. Any moral rule can be derived from a large, vague, and contradictory ancient book which needs to be “translated” by a “Holy Spirit” whispering into someone’s ear (in a completely metaphorical way which seriously resembles this.)
I’m tempted to point out that the Bible is also A-OK with slavery, but that might not impress the AIG folks much. I suspect that deep down they also think slavery is just dandy.
Fuck AIG and cissupremacist eliminationism anyway.
And people wonder I keep my antitheism claws sharpened…
It’s funny, because I was… not yelled at; it was very polite and respectful… recently about my continued insistence of the dangers of Creationism:
“But why is it such a big deal to you? Seems completely harmless to me. Aren’t there more important things to worry about, like inherent inequality, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and so on?”
I had to explain to them the connection between it all, and why any anti-science thinking is dangerous in the first place… now I can link them to this, as well.
Some anti-gay evangelicals are now acknowledging that sexuality is fluid (not sure they’ve come around on gender), and then making the argument that gay people should just be fluid and only have heterosexual sex. The argument goes that if one’s sexuality is fluid, then a person can choose to only express it heterosexually, and that’s the choice that should be made.
I sometimes wonder why anyone even bothers to talk to such people.
I already despised AIG if for no other reasons than that they despis, and tell egregious lies about, people like me (ie. atheist and evolutionist). But I’m quite willing to add more reasons to the pile, on behalf of others who have to put up with enough shit already.
(I actually met Ken Ham in person about 20 years ago, when he visited here. Went a couple of brief rounds with him over uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism. Guy’s just as much of a smug, arrogant idiot in person as he is in writing. Or as one of the pro-evo Christians on talk.origins once put it: “Ken Ham is a dope”.)
Ken Ham sez:
So intersex people exist because of sin. How…compassionate.
Sastra, a common Jewish reading is that the first humans were basically like conjoined twins, except one was male and the other female and the story about the rib was how they were separated. (And even those who proposed that reading did not necessarily take it literally.)
Let’s not forget that the catholic ideology is pretty much the same (on this topic), but has a farther reach in the world. :(
#3 CaitieCat, Harridan of Social Justice
I hear that.
*salute*
Jessica just posted Part 2. And I liked this one even better because it was more about the common views about what gender is and how we trans people try to deal with it.
I’m not sure this is a new reason as much as a corollary.
The root cause is a teleological understanding of reality, which inevitably puts everything into rigid categories. If I use a hammer as a door stop, though it may work as one, that is evil because the purpose of a hammer is to hammer stuff. If you acknowledge that I have to use it because I can’t find a doorstop, it might be OK but only “because of sin’s effects on the world.” When Jesus returns in all his glory, we will have doorstops exactly when we need them.
This is fundamentally opposed to science, because reality does not respect categories imposed ahead of time by people. And for some reason, this is beyond the comprehension of many people. Of course they apply it to sexual mores, and of course if it conveniently works out as a way to consolidate power and preserve their privilege, that can only reinforce the tendency. But I think not of this is surprising if you start with a mind that functions in terms of teleology instead of observation of data.
NateHevens@4: Agreed. Creationism considered in isolation is just another pseudo-scientific belief, and as such probably less immediately dangerous than many alt-med beliefs (notably anti-vaxism). But in practice, we find it bound up in this deeply pernicious, authoritarian, theocratic, totalizing worldview (AIG is right about the importance of “worldviews” insofar as they’ve created their own). And in this case, Genesis 1:27 is right there in the creation myth (along with the assumed teleology #12 talks about) — strict gender binaryism, and associated roles, is built into the system.
anat@8: Plato says something very similar in the Symposium. He uses it to justify homosexuality.
PaulBC #12 wrote:
Well put. Teleology is connected to the idea of perfect essences, the right and true nature of a thing.
Iirc Steven Pinker pointed out that a lot of taboo foods in the Bible were based on deciding that certain animals were impure or contaminated because they differed from what was considered intrinsic to the natural type (ie cloven vs. non-cloven hooves.) Evolution itself will seem problematic to someone with a “discontinuous mind” who thinks there must have been a first of every species and gets confused that species can change even if no mother ever gives birth to a child of a different species.
No. Things have their place and they must be put in proper order. The religious right has a spiritual version of OCD, perhaps.
NateHevens #4 wrote:
This argument bothers me not just because one pseudoscience is often connected to larger, more dangerous ones — but because it is so smug and dismissive of both the claim and the claimers.
Does truth not mean anything for its own sake ? Is the question of the origin of the earth and of life and of species of no importance? Are we supposed to cast-type creationists as dotty simple-minded folks who ‘can’t do no better?’ Is there a sudden glut on the market of skeptics arguing against pseudoscience, that this role is to be discouraged because we’re always tripping over science advocates in our day to day lives, we don’t need any more?
And of course, the question can just be turned around: “Why is it such a big deal that I get into harmless debates on harmless matters? Don’t YOU have anything better to do? There must be more important things to worry about than people who are being unnecessarily reasonable.”
Answers in Genesis is no answer at all.
So, a brief history of American culture wars:
* Slavery : Lost
* Miscegenation : Lost
* Right for Black Men to vote: Lost
* Right for Women voting: Lost
* Women outside of the house: Lost (though still rallying against)
* Birth control outside of marriage : Lost (though still trying to rally against)
* Abortion : Lost (but still pushing against. Successfully :(
* Same-sex marriage : Losing and soon to fully lose (though flailing around in order to deflect from losing)
* The ‘T’ of LGBT* rights : Rallying the troops to fight against a losing tide
May not be an accurate summary, but appears to another front of American religious bigots who detest Others* (anyone, including other religious practitioners) who are not like them. Hopefully, the separation of the idea for most Americans between Sex and Gender can occur as fast as the idea of SSM. Until the last 5 years, I never understood the difference between Sex and Gender.
Here’s power to the internet and activists!
But in Genesis 2 God made a man, cloned him, and did a quick sex change operation.
Adam —> Rib —> Evan(? pro tem) —>Eve…
Donnie@17, It is possible to find people who think slavery should be restored; There seems to be a surprising number of people who don’t want Blacks to vote (think all the voter suppression nonsense going on); and I once saw what I think was a serious claim women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. You can certainly find misogynist arseholes who are not keen on women doing lots of things, and voting could, I assume, be one of them.
So I’d say there is still some “pushback” on many of the seemingly-settled USArseholierthanthouian culture wars, with at least one — Black voting — unfortunately having some traction.
@Sastra #1,
So god is a hermaphrodite?
anat @ 8,
I’ve seen that claim before and I’d love to have a reference for it.
That description is right out of Platon’s Symposion, and there’s an argument (Phillippe Wajdenbaum) that the Old Testament is mostly reïmagined Greek myth and philosophy. Those certainly met again in second temple Judaism, neoplatonism and Christian origins, so I’m curious about that Jewish interpretation. Is it Philo or earlier or later?
Sili @21: Ran across a crank a couple of years ago who claimed that Socrates was a Jewish convert, and thus the entirety of Plato was inspired by the Old Testament (something along those lines). IOW: sees the connection but gets the direction of influence ass-backwards.
He’s in good company. That claim had been going since at least Eusebius.
(Owen Strachan, as quoted by Jessica Sideways)
Is this guy really pushing the old folk tale about a “man’s seed” planted in the “fertile ground” of a woman? He really thinks the male supplies all the “raw material” for procreation? And it’s not just metaphorical rhetoric; it appears as though it is expected to be taken as part of his core argument for the indisputable and immutable roles of Man and Woman.
And he’s showing off such an astounding ignorance of basic biology in public, and not being laughed at sufficiently to have him hanging his head in shame? Not surprising, I guess, for someone who inhabits such an intellectually impoverished community that he expects both his King James Bible and Disney’s rewrite of Pinocchio to be accepted as documentaries.
Well, male AND female are both supposedly made in His image, and science tells us gender and sex and biology are way more complicated than simple male/female, so… I’m a little disappointed I didn’t get to make the joke first, but then I couldn’t work out how to make it funny.
But don’t let the creationists know about God’s feminine side. You might hurt their fee-fees.
—
Creationists rallying against everything good in the world. Presbyterians now recognising same sex marriage. This “God” person was not a very good communicator.
Actually, Janine had mentioned intersex people respectfully way back at comment 7, but I guess it’s “funnier” if you use the word “hermaphrodite”? It’s lovely to know that there are a few of you here who think intersex people are inherently hilarious, though. And by lovely I mean creepy.
Apologies if I offended.
When I say I couldn’t make the joke funny, what I meant was I felt like there was something there that could mock creationists and their limited view of reality, but I couldn’t do anything with it that also didn’t cause any splash damage, or dehumanise anyone. Which would make the joke not funny and not a joke, and not OK. But I obviously didn’t think it through far enough.
For what it’s worth, you are one of my favourite people here, and whenever I see you comment I almost always look forward to learning something new.
Again, I’m sorry.
Now that I think about it, this is a stupid phrase. Of course there was offence or there wouldn’t be need to apologise. Let me try again:
Sorry for being an ass and causing offence.
Had an idea for a story about parents protesting Pinocchio going to school. Not sure if I should write it.
Even if you buy what’s in the Bible, what AIG serves up isn’t actually scriptural, since eunuchs are “made”:
“For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others–and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” – Matthew 19:12
Not to mention that they’re mentioned in both the Old and the New Testament. Once more, they just use their Bible to defend their bigotry.
There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that God created some as anatomically male but who identify as female or vice versa.
I guess it was God’s dumb cousin Ernie who created all those non-standard people.
In case anyone is still checking this thread, Jessica Sideways has just posted her final part about that AiG article.