Maybe the Atheists are onto something…

I was called a name recently which I had not been called before. A twit on twitter called me an “evolution denier.” Right off the bat I want to state for the record that, whatever differences we Creationists may have with the Evolutionists, and whatever heated arguments may be had with atheists, we should all agree that “evolution denier” would be a terrible name for a band.

But the accusation made me consider something I had not thought of before. Why are we Creationists trying so hard when the Atheists have set the bar so comfortably low? Let’s just take a few pages from their playbook and put up our feet and take it easy for a change! Here’s what I propose:

1. We will continue to say we think Evolution is a ridiculous religion for which there is no scientific evidence. But instead of calling ourselves “Creationists” we will call ourselves “evolution deniers.” Our official position is, we deny the evidence for evolution as insufficient. In fact, we will insist that this is all the word “Creationist” actually means- someone who isn’t convinced by evolution. People like Ken Ham are “Hard Creationists,” and it’s irrational to assume that ALL of us are the same kind of Creationist.

2. When the evolution believers ask us to defend our position, we will insist they not force the burden of proof on us when it CLEARLY belongs to them. After all, we’re not asserting a position, we’re simply saying we lack a belief in evolution. It’s them that needs to defend their ridiculous beliefs. And we will remind them that their extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

3. If an evolutionist provides evidence or arguments to defend evolution, we will ignore their evidence and arguments, make fun of them, call them names, and quickly change the subject. We will spend lots of time naming evil people who believe in evolution- like Hitler or Jeffery Dahmer.

4. We will then have a guy who used to have a popular kid’s show (and not a PhD in Biology) do popular debates against them. Someone see if Phil Visher wants this job. Or one of his puppets. That might actually be better.

This will save Creationists HOURS and HOURS of research and hard work creating lectures and lessons, web sites and books. We can be content merely to declare ourselves the side of “reason” and go on making fun of them for what they believe without offering any evidence or arguments for our position or against theirs. I can finally make use of my true spiritual gift- Sarcasm.

I’m sure you Creationists out there have already guessed that this whole article is sarcasm. But what I would like you all to do is to offer this as an alternative to those Atheists on the interwebs who already do this stuff. A taste of their own medicine. Hair of the dog that bit ya. Two can play at this game. See if they feel we should treat them like they treat us. But at the end of the day, we of course are called to make a reasoned defense of the faith and hope which we have, with kindness and respect, and above all, if we start a band, to give it a cool name. Something like “Visher’s Puppets.” That band sounds hard core.


About rentafriend2000
Rocking my 40's with a heart full of love and muffins, science and technology. Jesus loves me and wants me to totally rock! And I am here to help.

8 Responses to Maybe the Atheists are onto something…

  1. makagutu says:

    I hate to spoil the party, but evolutionist is not a synonym for atheist. Two, evolution isn’t a belief system. It’s an explanation of how life has progressed on earth so to speak. You either understand it or you don’t. There are no rituals tied with it.
    You could look for some other area to poke fun at atheists but this will not fly

    • Makagutu, Thanks for writing in! You are right, and I don’t mean to say “atheist” and “evolutionist” are synonymous. I mean, it’s rare for a atheist to be a Creationist, and it’s sadly common for Christians and Jews to be Evolutionists, but neither is the point of this blog post. See, what I’m saying is, Creationists wouldn’t have to work as hard to defend their position if, instead of appealing to science, scripture, logic and reason, we just used the 5th grade playground debate tactics which get thrown at us all of the time by internet atheist twitts. So the post is what we would do if we were to employ the methods which get tossed at us. See? Reductio Ad Absurdum! Roll reversal! Good times. Party Unspoiled.
      I do understand evolution, which is why I know it isn’t true. For more on that see our other page/youtube channel:
      And don’t worry. I will be poking fun at Atheists for a completely different reason in the upcoming series about the 10 (Non) commandments compiled from THOUSANDS of submissions from all over the world. Look for that through January. Good times!

      • makagutu says:

        Well, good for you. You understand evolution and know that it isn’t true. You are first of a kind.

        I am not sure I will read those posts but keep writing. There were thousands of submissions? I had no idea completely. Thanks for the info now I have to find these commendments

      • Welcome back. I find it odd that you think I’m the first person to understand and disbelieve evolution. Over on Creationsoapbox I list many scientists who abandoned evolution BECAUSE they came to understand it. My favorite example is Spike Psarris, who became a Creationist, and then searched for the creator and became a Christian. See him talk about it at the start of this talk:
        And you are always welcome to keep reading. I’ll be posting the 10 (non) commandments series this week or next. Thanks!

  2. Maria says:

    I really like your # 2 suggestion that we don’t have to defend a position, since we don’t HAVE a position. We’re simply denying that Macroevolution is an adequate explanation for how we got here, as we are today! And I HATE/ I mean love the retort that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence:)

    • Thanks for your comment, Maria! I’m glad you enjoyed the post, but if you check over at, you’ll see that I was actually being really cheeky here. I think you’re right of course, that the epic failure of macroevolution can be rejected merely for the weak sauce it is without a positive case against it, but there actually IS a positive care against it. Like I say over at CSB a lot, we don’t reject evolution because we don’t know how it could work, we reject it because we KNOW it could not work.
      And the extraordinary claims comment is one I see ALL the time from the atheists, which is not only a VERY lazy debate tactic, but so ironic. We think a brilliantly designed universe with amazingly complex life governed by a DNA language coding system that is more complex than any computer system we’ve ever built was made by a super intelligent being (God) and they claim it is the product of blind, accidental processes. Which is the more extraordinary claim? They claim the universe made itself, and we claim it was made by a God who is outside of Nature. Which is the more extraordinary claim? Evolution requires the addition of new genes and species to be produced my processes that REDUCE the number of existing genes and species. That’s not even good math, let alone biology of philosophy. It’s like they aren’t even trying! Anyhoo, thanks again.

      • Maria says:

        I’m saving your explanation to the claims v evidence retort. Thanks for that. And I did know you were being cheeky. I thought it was brilliant, nonetheless! Do you ever listen to the British radio show (I get it via iTunes) called Unbelievable? Justin Brierley hosts it on Premier Christian Radio…has conversations between believers and unbelievers. Very helpful. Also, in glancing at your creation site, I think we would differ in presuppositions. I am an old age creationist and I take it you are a young earther. We can still be brothers and sisters in Christ, and respectfully disagree. Blessings to you this 2015. Do you still teach science? I go back to school Monday where I teach french to middle schoolers

      • Well thank you kindly for your kind words! My grandmother says I’m a genius, but it’s always nice to get praise from someone else too. I’ve not heard Justin Brierly, but I shall check it out. I’m always happy to check out new things. As for the presuppositions of Creation, yes, I am part of the unpopular faction of Young earth Creationists, and you are absolutely right that we can be friends. I don’t know of any YEC’s who claim our position is necessary to get into heaven. However, I would suggest you look into it further, as I used to buy into the Old earth model as put forth my Hugh Ross at Reasons to believe. He makes a convincing case. I got to see him at a live event some years back. However, I have learned a lot since then, and have discovered that not only is the YEC interpretation the best within the text of scripture (Hebrew has several ways to indicate long periods of time, none of which are used in Genesis or about Creation, and the Genesis account uses all of the forms of context which can be used to communicate that the word Day- YOM- means a single calendar day), but old earth/old universe models have precious little scientific evidence to support them. Dinosaur bones have blood cells and other proteins in them. Those cannot be millions of years old- tens of thousands at MOST. Rock we KNOW to be 30 years old is dated by radiodating methods to be MILLIONS or BILLIONS of years old, so we know those methods are unreliable. Carbon 14 cannot last longer than a million years in any condition, but we find it in every coal seam and diamond that we’ve tested, meaning nothing we’ve ever tested can be older than a million years and CAN be less than 6,000. The salt content of the oceans, the rates of continental erosion, and the distance to the moon all attest to a ‘recent’ creation. The best question against YEC is the problem of distant starlight, but Dr Jason Lyle lists half a dozen plausible models and doesn’t need to rely on miraculous intervention; including Dr Russel Humphres’ white hole cosmology model. In short, there is nothing in modern science which strongly supports an old earth, lots that provides evidence against it, lots which provides evidence for a recent creation, and no reason to cram deep time into the Biblical account when the context of the bible (and not only in Genesis but in other books, and even in the words of Jesus) says the earth is far younger than those models demand.
        Like I said, we certainly can be friends, but as a science teacher I would not be a good friend if I didn’t share what I have learned. But don’t just take my word for it. You know Answers in Genesis is all over this question (See: and, and if you want fun science video, I recommend my main Canadian man, Ian Juby: His show is always a fun romp through science, and often very recent science news if a range of topics. I reccomend his CrevoRants.
        Anyhoo, thanks again! And thanks for letting me be your Rent-A-Friend.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics made Friendly

Reluctantly Aging

One man’s futile struggle against inevitability

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics Made Friendly

RaF Ministries News

What's new at Rent-A-Friend Ministries

Bible Science Forum

Creation Evolution Cosmology

Superhero etc.


Creation Science 4 Kids

creation science worded for all of us

christian ammunition

He that dasheth in pieces is come up before thy face: keep the munition...fortify thy power mightily--NAHUM 2:1

Surprised by Logic

Logic for the ordinary Joe and Jane is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

Rent-A-Friend 2000's Biblical Thinking and Good Times!

Part of the Creation Soapbox Apologetics Ministry

%d bloggers like this: