In a letter to the editor at The Oklahoman newspaper, dated March 12, 2011, a John D. Sargent of Oklahoma City wrote the following in response to an earlier letter to the editor:
". . .First, the Bible is too incomplete to explain the 'how' of practically anything. If the entirety of human history, much less the cosmos, can be demonstrated by the amount of water contained within the Pacific Ocean, then the Bible represents the historical equivalent of a one-gallon pitcher. In reality, the Bible is religio-political propaganda, created by tribal shamans and first-century clergy, to explain the 'why' to their adherents.
Second, considering that he was an uneducated peasant, Jesus could not have known even a portion of what a modern person knows second hand about the cosmos or germ theory. Christianity is a multimillion-dollar business and its sustainability relies upon an effective marketing program (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Bible literalists/fundamentalists must wake up and realize that the clergy's livelihood and position within their respective organizations is dependent upon their ability to convince consumers of the effectiveness of their product.
Using the Bible in support of intelligent Design is a a fool's errand"
Here is my Dear John letter:
With all due respect to John Sargent's vacuous, worn-out arguments, his last statement is a remarkable example of evolutionary hypocrisy: "Using the Bible in support of intelligent design is a fool's errand."
Now did John Sargent use his intelligence to come to the conclusion that we all came from non-intelligent matter?
And as a famous philosopher once said, "If there is a God, nothing is impossible; but if there is no God, then everything is permissible", then how can we make any value judgments of what is foolish and what is intelligent in the first place? Would it be foolish or wrong for me to kill someone I don't like, or would it be an act of intelligence to speed up the process of the survival of the fittest? No one can say, because everything becomes permissible.
The inspired, inerrant Bible never makes the claim of being a "scientific textbook"; neither do William Shakespeare's works nor any other great work of literature. We don't use the Bible to teach calculus, business law, architecture, civil engineering, interior design, computer technology, German, or any other worthwhile pursuit. We can be educated to learn how to make a living, but we need Something or Someone to tell us how to make a life.
God gave created man a dominion mandate in Genesis 1:26, and involved in that is the discovery of God's wonderful creation. The human body is wonderfully and fearfully made, so says the psalmist. If God told us everything how He did it, then that would put scientists out of a job. So it would be intelligent not to bite the Hand that feeds you and made you. "It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." (Proverbs 25:2)
Just last night I was watching a science program on PBS, hardly a Bible fundamentalist mouthpiece, and I learned that scientists do not know what 95% of the universe is made of, because it is mostly dark invisible matter. If scientists only know 5% of the universe's composition, then how can they tell us with such certainty what did or did not make the universe? That would be the fool's errand.
Whom John Sargent calls "an uneducated peasant", Jesus Christ has done more to change people's lives for the better now and forever than all the John Sargents and Chris Humphreyses in the world put together. If Jesus were just "an uneducated peasant", then why do secular works, such as encyclopedias, still devote more time and space to His life than to any other person in the history of mankind?
Maybe John Sargent can use his intelligence from non-intelligent matter to figure that one out for us.
Respectfully yours,
Chris Humphreys
