Belief in “God” comes with particular baggage.
Whomever reifies the conjecture of a Perfect, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Supernatural Being admits the transcendental and, inevitably, brooks certain ineluctable notions in the wake of this infelicitous supposition.
If there be a “God” it is inconceivable that it did not create – if not boldly, by booming voice and thundering theistic thaumaturgy, then at least by proxy, guiding the mechanics of Darwin’s elegant explanation after a “Behemian” manner, so to speak. Little wonder that The Chair of the Creation Truth Foundation, G. Thomas Sharp admitted that “If we lose Genesis as a legitimate scientific and historical explanation for man, then we lose the validity of Christianity. Period.”
Creationist idiotology (sic), in whatever evening attire, arrogating as argument, will not find expression in the pages of TART Remarks, and I iterate with impunity that evolution is supported by empirical results from a panoply of scientific disciplines – comparative anatomy, palaeontology, embryology, histology, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, micro biology and geology. One can indeed speak of evolution as a fact, without fear of contradiction.
Belief in “creation” speaks to breathtaking inanity. Creation simply did not happen. Period. So what about this “God” then? In the absence of a “Creation” the nullity of “God” is confirmed. Right there in Genesis 1!
Prof. Sakkie Spangenberg notes that many pastors and theologians ignore the challenges science presents theology. Others work hard in a futile attempt at reconciling pre-modern Christian creeds and dogmas with the modern world view. Therefore they insist upon a virgin birth, a physical and historic resurrection and a bodily ascension. They assert that Jesus will physically return to earth and that “God” will judge all who ever lived. (The statistical approximation of the number of people born to date is a cosmic court congesting 106.5 billion – 106,456,367,669.)
Christianity is founded in the “Risen Christ”. This statement does not admit of discussion. Reject this statement and one breaks with the Christian message.
The Resurrection – and resurrections common, such as the Lazarus event and the rising of the dead at eschatology’s acme – speaks directly to Creation: A “God” that can restore the decomposing body; the decomposed body; the bare bones of ancient graves, and reunite the bushelled product with the “soul” is a Creator “God”. It is unconscionable that a “God” who rises to restoring a disintegrated body was not involved in the creation of the original.
All measure of metaphore are employed by theologians when the Resurrection is exposed in lumine sicco – in the dry light of reason, of rational knowledge or thought. Yet no measure of exegetical contortion and interpretive prevarication can deny the fallaciousness of “God” creating humans only to have them suffer sickness and mishap for three score and ten years before their defective bodies are ultimately undone. No abundance of Rorschach hermeneutics can impart “meaning” to an ephemeral created life. There simply has to be more! And the more is eternal life, a function of bodily resurrection, a function of creation, a function of “God”.
“…certain beliefs”, observes Sam Harris, “are so lacking in merit that there should be no question of our ‘respecting’ them. People who claim to be certain about things they cannot be certain about should meet resistance in our discourse. This happens quite naturally on every subject but religion. For instance, a person who believes that Elvis is still alive (Jesus lives!) is very unlikely to get promoted to a position of great power and responsibility in our society. Neither will a person who believes that the holocaust was a hoax (evolution is nonsense!). But people who believe equally irrational things about God and the Bible are now running [the United States]. This is genuinely terrifying. We must find a way of criticizing and marginalizing bad ideas, even when they come under the cloak of religion.” (My parentheses.)
To deny the physical resurrection of Christ and to deny eternal life and to deny creation is to deny “God”.
To acknowledge “God” is to subscribe to an ancient world view, devoid of scientific insight and process and boils down to elective stupitidy.
“I now understand”, writes Günther Weber, “why the church is instinctively defensive about changes in world-views. Because the whole structure of its faith is grounded in the world-view of antiquity, any change in the world-view must shake the foundations of that structure.”
Adds Erhard Gerstenberger, “As a rule our normal scientific explanation of the world cannot be reconciled with the ancient ideas of the personal direction of the world by divine powers. So we are challenged to develop new ideas of God for the anonymous spheres, perhaps in dialogue with Jewish and Christian (and Muslim) mysticism and with the Far Eastern religions, for which the category of person has quite a different status.”
So what about this “God” then?
Yet the issue at hand is not one of existence, but one of the inescapable consequences of reifying “God”.
The statement “I believe in God” confirms that the believer accepts Creation without questioning or challenge.
And once “God” is sold and Creation delivered to heart’s front door, anything, but just anything, can be sold to the buyer.
“God”, the gateway drug, opens the entire ambit of psychedelic human experience: “God” is a cheap analgesic; a ready hallucinogenic; the ultimate silver bullet. Not “the beginning and the end”, but the beginning of the end… the end of reason.
“God” is a package deal. “God” is an encumbered acquisition. Buy “God”… be saddled with agnosy.
 Thaumaturgy, n. Any art that invokes supernatural powers; an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers. A play on “bohemian”, and after Michael Behe, the creationist wholly discredited in the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District Decision. Anderson, Lisa. August 7, 2005. Museum exhibits a creationist viewpoint. Chicago Tribune. “Intelligent Design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” Leonard Krishtalka, Director, University of Kansas Natural History Museum.
 Hennie Stander, Greek scholar at the University of Pretoria: “As jy Jesus se liggaamlike opstanding ontken, het jy geen boodskap om vir die wêreld te verkondig nie. Dan is jou teologie bankrot! Jesus se opstanding uit die dood was nog altyd die fondament van die Christelike geloof, en as ‘n mens ‘n streep daardeur trek, dan breek jy met die kern van die boodskap van die Christendom.” (Hennie Stander se blog – Carpe Diem, Teoloë staan op, July 29, 2007.)
 John 11:43; 12:1
 1 Thessalonians 4:16
 Weber, G. 1998. I Believe, I Doubt: Notes on Christian Experience. London: SCM. 19.
 Gerstenberger, E S 2002. Theologies in the Old Testament. London: Continuum. 291.
 The First Cause Argument; the Restitution Argument; the Natural Law Argument; the Argument from Design; the Moral Argument.
 Of course, even if creation could be verified, the ultimate conundrum of God’s origin would remain unanswered.
 Revelation 22:13
 Agnosy, n. Ignorance; especially ignorance shared by the whole human race.