Creationism and Xerox

Christian Fundies remain entirely confident in their assertions that the world has only been around a few thousand years, that it was "intelligently designed" recently, and that the end of the whole darn thing is just around the next corner anyway. One of the unemployed corners of my mind started looking for an explanation that could just bring us all together, let us all get along.

God seems to have gone to an awful lot of trouble to convince us that the world is billions of years old. There's all that "evidence" around, like rocks that are zillions of years old, sharks, monkeys that play checkers (but can't read bibles), and space junk like stars and whatever. But what if there are two universes? The first one has been around forever, like science and mathematics and logic tell us. The second one, this one, is a photocopy Of the first one, made just a couple of thousand years ago. Presto! No confusing lack of unity. It's not intelligent design. It's intelligent photocopying.

Just praise God that He wasn't a little drunk on that day, wearing stretchy pants, and in the mood for a little juvenile hijinks. Oh wait. Maybe that does explain the moon. Huh.

Posted by Ross Ross on   |   § 5

§ 5 Comments

1

Ross, you're a uniter. I like that about you. And yeah, what if we ARE all made in god's image, except it's the image of his ass?

2

Personally, I believe that the world was created last Tuesday. Anything before that I can neither remember or understand. The world will certainly be destroyed by fire on February 2, 2006, because that's groundhog day, the most important of the minor holidays.

3

It seems to me that God is not convincing us...

If God exists then it is probably the Devil convincing us that the world is billions or years old.

4

I say, why go to all the time and trouble photocopying the universe? Instead, to save on overhead costs, why not convince a large portion of the population that the existing world is only 6000 years old! You can sell them posters and banners and books. Half the population will be mollified, and the other half would be rich! It's a brilliant scheme, who's in?

5

Well, Ross, think of it this way:

Curiosity about, or the inability to deal with, the unknown (death) is the basis of most religions. That's what they're ultimately for. All of which is fine, up to the point where they start telling themselves lies for no reason. I was taught, early on, never to tell a lie about something that didn't matter, and never to tell a lie that can easily be proved as such. Even when talking to myself.

If one is so inclined, recognition that the worlds "beellions and beellions" of years old can be reconciled to religious belief by the simple expedient of faith. But the faithless feel a need to change objective reality instead.

If you were a'scared of having to, you know, actually explain things you believed, to yourself and your target demographic, given a timeframe and fact set too long to fit your predispositions, wouldn't you, too want to artificially shorten the calendar?

No, you wouldn't. And good for you. Otherwise, we'd never have had the theory of intelligent photocopying, which makes an order of magnitude more sense than the tripe the literalists would have us believe that they believe.

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]