Arts & Media Beliefs Columns Culture Doctrine & Practice Education Ethics Faith Jonathan Merritt: On Faith and Culture Leaders & Institutions News Opinion Social Issues

Alan Jacobs’ antidote to Christian anti-intellectualism

Rodin's "The Thinker" in the Rodin Museum in Paris.

Conservative theologian J.P. Moreland once wrote, “The contemporary Christian mind is starved, and as a result we have small, impoverished souls.” Indeed, Western Christianity, particularly in its evangelical Protestant expressions has often been accused of anti-intellectualism by the secular academy.

Enter Alan Jacobs–both a Christian and distinguished professor of humanities at Baylor University–and his newest book, “How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds.” He argues that in a world of “alternative facts” and “truthiness,” most of us are not as good at thinking as we assume. But all is not lost, Jacobs says, because it is possible to reclaim our mental lives without sacrificing our inner lives. Here we discussed via email the common intellectual pitfalls of American Christians and how they can learn to better love God with their minds.

RNS: What do you see is the core problem with many “thinkers?”

AJ: It’s hard to name just one thing — there are so many problems! So much bad thinking! But if I were forced to name one universal one it would be a lack of awareness of our own motives and incentives. A failure to realize that there are forces at work on and in all of us to discourage thought or even prevent it altogether.

RNS: What about American Christians, generally speaking? Are they good thinkers?

AJ: Ummm … not so much.

Image courtesy of Convergent Books

RNS: How can followers of Jesus become better critical thinkers? Give us one or two points that come to mind.

AJ: Christians of all people ought to be attentive to our own shortcomings, and the ways our dispositions of mind and heart and spirit can get in the way of knowing what’s true. After all, we’e the people who are supposed to believe that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” and “the heart is deceitfully wicked above all things” and that sort of stuff. If we want to think better, then the first step should be to take those beliefs as seriously as many of us say we do, and to turn a ruthlessly skeptical eye on ourselves — before we turn it on our neighbors. There’s a line about specks in our neighbors’ eyes and logs in our own that applies here.

There’s a lot more to say, obviously, but I think self-skepticism is the place to begin.

RNS: Alan Wolfe once said that 20th century conservative evangelicalism ranks least among religious groups in terms of intellectual stature. What do you think?

AJ: Certainly it’s true if by “stature” you mean “reputation among other groups.” If by “stature” you mean “actual intellectual achievement” then the situation is more complicated. But there’s no question that conservative evangelicalism — within which I include fundamentalism — has been an overwhelmingly activist movement that has had little time for scholarly, or more generally intellectual, reflection. (Souls must be saved!) There’s also no question that conservative evangelicals have rarely cared what anyone else thought about their intellectual standards, and that kind of not-caring is no way to build stature.

These tendencies — activism and indifference to general public opinion — are not always bad. Indeed, at times they have served the evangelical movement well, by keeping it on mission. But an unconditional emphasis on activism can easily become anti-intellectual, which can restrain people from thinking about matters they really need to think about. After all, effective activism will be informed activism.

Similarly, if you don’t care what anyone else thinks about you, you can easily find yourself locked in an echo-chamber. It can become what C. S. Lewis called an “Inner Ring,” a self-congratulating, self-justifying circle of people who are “in the right.” So overall, I think conservative evangelicals have paid a hefty price for being unreflective and self-enclosed — too hefty a price.

RNS: The Bible says to love God with, among other things, our minds. Does this factor into what it means to be a thinker?

AJ: For me, it sure does! I wrote this book for a general audience, hoping to reach many people who are not Christians as well as my fellow believers. But the fact that we Christians and are indeed commanded to love the Lord with all our minds ought to give us a powerful added incentive to think our best thoughts — if I may steal and change a Joel Osteen line. (But maybe if I’m stealing lines from Joel Osteen I’m not thinking my best thoughts now.)

More seriously, St. Augustine gave us a great warning, many centuries ago, of the dangers Christians court when they fail to use their minds — especially in matters of what we now call science:

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

RNS: What are some myths about thinking that people of faith often hold?

AJ: Continuing my pattern of insulting people across the spectrum, theological as well as political, I’ll mention two opposing ones. For many theologically conservative folk, thinking is often opposed to faith: if you’re thinking too much, asking too many questions, you’re not living in the kind of simple childlike faith that we all (according to this theory) are supposed to have.

The liberal or progressive counterpart of that is when people congratulate themselves on having open minds and questioning spirits when they have never questioned for a moment the core principles of their own liberalism or progressivism, and would be horrified if anyone in their church did so. Consider this statement: “Only those who openly confess Jesus as Lord can be saved.” In some conservative Christian communities the truth of that statement is unquestionable; in some progressive Christian communities the falsehood of it is equally unquestionable. The moral of the story: you can rarely tell whether someone has done serious thinking simply by finding out what positions he or she holds.

RNS: How does social media affect our ability to think well?

AJ: A great many extremely smart people work diligently every day to make Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook et al. into reaction-stimulation engines powerful enough to jolt you into obsessive, ceaselessly repetitive reactions–like-retweet-repost-snark, like-retweet-repost-snark, like-retweet-repost-snark. Faster and faster and faster, sweating, laughing hysterically, shouting with outrage, screaming obscenities. Who has time to read posts or even tweets, much less inquire further to establish context or fact-check claims?

Let’s not kid ourselves. The entire architecture of every social-media service militates relentlessly against thinking. The kind of eyeball-and-finger control those sites thrive on is wholly incompatible with thinking.

RNS: You say that the terms “open-minded” and “close-minded” are nonsensical. Why?

AJ: Have you noticed that people only praise others for being open-minded when those people are moving closer to the praiser’s preferred ideas? If a member of a community starts to express doubts about that community’s core beliefs, he or she won’t be celebrated as open-minded but rather condemned for being weak-willed, vacillating, cowardly, maybe even a traitor to the cause. So when people give a thumbs-up to open-mindedness, that’s typically not really what they mean. It’s more a case of “good for you, you’re becoming more like me.”

RNS: But there is a difference between someone who is open to new possibilities and ideas (what we call “open-minded”) and someone who is not, yes?

AJ: I would dissent from the question’s assumption that being “open to new possibilities and ideas” is the same as being generally open-minded. People open to the new are often not at all open to the old. They like the new because it’s new. They are, as the term of art has it, neophilic. Other people are neophobic, they fear and mistrust the new; but those people are often inclined to find value in ideas and practices from the past. They are more open-minded about old ideas than neophilics are.

This is another one of those things that I’m not sure how to measure or evaluate, but for what it’s worth, I’m inclined to think that every mind is open in some directions and closed in others. Those directions just vary from person to person, and from time to time.

You might hear someone claim to be open-minded because of, say, a willingness to listen seriously to the experiences of transgender people; but you’ll never hear that person claim to be open-minded because of a willingness to listen seriously to the arguments of those who want to confine the vote to men. It’s obviously not wrong to be skeptical about restricting the franchise to men! Even if we could be generally open-minded, which I deny, it wouldn’t be healthy to be open to any and all ideas.

There is such a thing as a proper firmness of conviction — a proper reluctance to changing your mind about some things. But I suspect — I don’t know, but merely suspect — almost all of us will be sometimes too firm, sometimes not firm enough, depending on circumstances.

RNS: You say it is impossible to “think for yourself.” What do you mean by that?

AJ: Since I finished my book, another book came out that makes this point better and in far more detail than I could. In The Knowledge Illusion: Why We never Think Alone, Steven Slomanand Philip Fernbach explain, using several interesting experiments, that very few of us know as much as we think we do. Instead, we find ways to count the knowledge that people around us have as our own.

We typically don’t know enough individually to form knowledgeable, nuanced views about new technologies and scientific developments. We simply have no choice but to adopt the positions of those we trust. Our attitudes and those of the people around us thus become mutually reinforcing. And the fact that we have a strong opinion makes us think that there must be a firm basis for our opinion, so we think we know a lot, more than in fact we do.

So we are always thinking along with others. We are always dependent on what others think.  We need to think with others. So what we must focus on is choosing the best others we can find to think with. If I have to trust other people, I need to practice due diligence to ensure, as best I can, that they’re trustworthy.


About the author

Jonathan Merritt

Jonathan Merritt is senior columnist for Religion News Service and a contributing writer for The Atlantic. He has published more than 2500 articles in outlets like USA Today, The Week, Buzzfeed and National Journal. Jonathan is author of "Jesus is Better Than You Imagined" and "A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars." He resides in Brooklyn, NY.


Click here to post a comment

  • Just a small note, since St. Augustine was mentioned. Augustine, a great thinker, was a young-earth creationist.

  • Depends on how you define that, and the evidence he had at the time needs to be taken into consideration. More importantly, St. Augustine took a metaphorical reading of Genesis, and like some other early Christians, recognized that interpreting it literally was absurd.

  • It’s pretty obvious. A young-earth creationist is somebody who truly believes that the Earth was created about 6000 years ago, right? Well, that’s where the great Christian intellectual St. Augustine comes in (and make no mistake, Christian intellectualism IS what this article is all about).

    “Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.” (City of God, Book 12, chapter 11.) Spot-on!

    He’s NOT talking about 6000 metaphorical years, but 6000 literal, 365-day years. Augustine’s reading of Genesis led him to conclude that God’s creation was instantaneous instead of entailing seven literal days, but that still gives you an Earth that’s roughly 6000 years old. So St. Augustine was clearly a YEC, (which Alan Jacobs should have told you upfront!)

  • There are some definite limits to this kind of generalized canned argument. One typically leveled by conservatives when they encounter criticism on issues they don’t really want to address the substance of.

    Certain things have a definite correct, sane or moral position which is not particularly open to polite disagreement.

    1. When the issue is scientific knowledge, the correct and sane position is to take the scientific consensus in the field until there is something which would demonstrates a change in position based on new evidence.

    2. When the issue is whether to treat others as human beings or to promote discrimination and malicious conduct, there can be no open-minded genteel discussion. There is a moral side of the issue and an immoral one. One never has to tolerate the intolerance of others.

  • Oh, the info’s quite accurate; see my response to Jon.

    The point’s already clear. The Augustine quote in the RNS article is wrongly used as a backdoor weapon to discourage Christians from agreeing with, and advocating for, the many anti-evolutionary claims of Genesis 1-2.

    As you know, those Bible claims utterly clash with the Theory of Evolution. Not just the seven literal days, but the origin of every biological object in there, including the humans, utterly disagrees with what Evolution says. (Even the biblical origin and timing of the sun, moon, stars, utterly clashes with the claims of stellar evolution.)

    So Christians are supposed to roll over, play dead, ditch the creation and timing claims of the Bible, and sign up for Evolution. But Evolution is absolutely NOT what St. Augustine is offering you as a thinker. It’s actually Young-Earth Creationism.

  • Interesting…..someone wanting to tell people what to think, having difficulties with Christ, who taught us how to think. sad really

  • “The Augustine quote in the RNS article is wrongly used as a backdoor
    weapon to discourage Christians from agreeing with, and advocating for,
    the many anti-evolutionary claims of Genesis 1-2.”

    The vast majority of Christians apparently don’t see it that way.

  • No, Christians are supposed to follow scripture, and not believe in “outer space” or that the Earth rotates. The Sun, Moon and stars are affixed to a Firmament, above which are the waters. To believe otherwise is not just incorrect, it is wicked. To say that scripture is to be interpreted “metaphorically” is presumption.

    “Scripture simply says that the sun, the moon and the stars were placed in the Firmament of the heaven, above and below which are the waters…. It is likely that the stars are fixed to the firmament like globes of fire to shed light at night… Christians must be different from the (natural) philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.”
    Martin Luther, Luther’s Works vol 1 lectures on Genesis, Ed Janoslaw Pelican

    Belief that the Earth is not fixed is worse, it is a thing of the Devil, according to Calvin.

  • Kind of like you regularly use your manuscript to tell people how to think, speak, and behave in order to be included in your special inner ring.
    You seem to take special pleasure in shaming others (clobber verses) into submission, that your circus is the only thing going globally . Your pious solipsism is dangerous and has been for millennia.

  • No, he tells you What to think, not how to. Faith often requires a suspension of logic and reason, i.e. thinking.

  • It wasn’t until the early 20th century that we realized the earth was very old. Even great thinkers need facts and evidence.

  • They have no problems with the benefits science conveys, but little appreciation for how one gets to there. They have no problems compromising principles of scientific research and methodology when it is inconvenient to their religious belief.

  • Those damned intellectual elites. Always knowing stuff… ‘n’ stuff.
    That’s why I am follower of that most holy Catholic saint, St. Stupid, who says…
    “I know I know, but you know, you never know.”

  • The vast majority of Christians are wrong. If they knew anything, they would know that literal translations of a collection of ancient books ranging over at least 1000 years from a time where there was a spirit hiding behind every rock and tree, just waiting to say, “BOO!”…
    is all that you need to know.

  • “Christians”–that is to say, devout believers in some form of Xianity–don’t want to “think better”. They understand implicitly that better thinking will undermine their faith.

  • There are several ways in which Science inherently conflicts with religion. For starters, science is about doubt; my hunch is that in terms of personality, most believers are uncomfortable with ideas like doubt and skepticism.

    Second, and perhaps even more significant, science says “who cares that some Authority Figure said xyz? We don’t respect authority here. Show us the data.” Religion is all about respecting, indeed revering, authority figures.

  • This is the problem God has always had with his people, they just don’t listen to their Father; and where is the Merritt in quoting Augustine when a pope and a king had Tyndale put to death because it was the only way to keep his mouth shut. Most of the time dead men do not talk but with all their superior knowledge they failed to realize Tyndale is not dead, he lives forever. The pope and the king are long gone.

  • Hi Sandi, the three branches are three days: the three baskets are three days. Noah sent out the Dove three times; what day is it when you see the Spirit of a dove?

  • You can’t. You ignore that modern man is over 40,000 years and there was no Adam and Eve. But you don’t think or reason, but deny the evidence because it conflicts with what the Bible tells you to think or believe. If the Bible said same-sex was OK you would believe because Jesus said so. So when it comes to the Bible you suspend your rational thinking.

  • My point was poorly stated, Ben. The vast majority of Christians do not believe in a literal Genesis, which is why they do not view Augustine’s writing as a “backdoor weapon”.

  • This was an excellent interview and I found little to quibble with Mr. Jacobs about. Rather than contending with others about the truth or falsity, logic or illogic, scientific or non-scientific nature of the faith, I merely applaud Mr. Jacobs’ basic premise that even the most careful Christians are subject to the frailties and infirmities of human carnality in its broadest sense. The Christian life is, temporarily speaking, not a destination but a journey.

  • Not so. It is rather a matter of arriving at a conclusion via logic and reason that differs from your own, and that is one of Mr. Jacobs’ primary points.

  • What about if Jesus said there really WAS an actual Adam & Eve, the first two humans on Earth, just as described in Genesis? What if He affirmed it out loud before both friends and foes, like in Matt. 19: 4-5?

    I know you’re not a Christian, but does it seem reasonable to you for Christians to disagree with Jesus Christ?

  • One of the common nick names for us Episcopalians is Educated Christians indicating we are not hide bound anti-intellectuals. I also had an Episcopal priest tell me the church rested on a three legged stool of Faith/scripture, Reason, and Tradition. If anyone of the three legs failed so would the church.

  • I saw this repeated many times when I taught at Mississippi State University as I would hear students commenting the knew the “real answer” but would have to answer a test question that was acceptable in order to pass a course. This was most especially true of those taking a biology class that included material on evolution.

  • I heard of the book. I seriously had that one on my non-fiction short list of stuff to read. My amazon suggestions list gets pretty varied.

  • I think he understates the extreme difficulty that an intellectual search presents. The issues almost immediately become intensely complicated. We quickly find ourselves needing to understand logic, modal logic, metaphysics, exegesis, at least a little math and physics, etc.

    We are soon overwhelmed and give in to the temptation to simply a wallow in faith and dogma.

  • Teaching at MSU! Phew, that must’ve been –some– experience!!

    It is staggering how much fundamentalists [et al] misunderstand science…and come to think of it, so much of modern society, law, liberty, the Constitution, etc…

    I always got a kick out of hearing these rednecks say “it’s only a theory”–not understanding that “theory” is what you’d call a “special” word in science.

  • I always wondered: padre, (and ordinary parishoners too), if you accept X and Y and Z on faith, where do you draw the line? How do you decide what to accept “on faith”, and what requires evidence?

  • Actually, Christians of all stripes are constantly disagreeing with Jesus. When they can’t find something they want Jesus to have said, they invent it–the Catholic church, for example, are masters of this, in their eternal pursuit of temporal power. When Jesus clearly says something they find disagreeable, e.g. his remarks about wealth and poverty, they twist his words.

  • I have a SBC “preacher” brother who also falsely claims to have a doctorate (I have a doc in workforce development from Oklahoma State Univ). He is so ignorant it is scary. Quotes Limbaugh as if he is one of the disciples.

  • I see Christianity and Christian Thinkers different than the article. I judge Christianity’s growth especially during the renaissance and the age of discovery. Between these two ages the world was defined by European Christianity, and in the 20th century, by the American age.

  • That all sounds very scary. I gather he has no shame in lying about his “doctorate”? And not much in the way of brains or reasoning power?

    The bible says that believers will be able to handle snakes or drink poison without harm. What’s his excuse for not doing either of those?

    How do you manage to talk to him?

    It can be hard to escape one’s cultural conditioning–I suspect you both grew up in the bible belt?

  • No, we humans didn’t “realize” that “the earth was very old.” It ain’t. But what slowly took place over generations in Europe and America, was that people exchanged one set of religious presuppositions for a false, corrosve set, and brought the false pre-assumptions to the science table.

    Instead of bringing theistic presuppositions to the scientific table, they brought materialistic, atheistic, and uniformItarian presuppositions & assumptions. And not just brought all that mess, but **enforced** it.

    But that situation is changing, as now there are vocal Christian PhD YEC geologists presenting to seculars in their own venues..
    You can now get an accredited Bachelor of Science degree in geology from an established YEC-friendly Christian school (Cedarville Univ.) Competition has arrived, Jim. A most refreshing “evolution”!!

  • No. God punished us for seeking knowledge in the Garden of Eden. Christ thinks — thinking is bad, no pun intended.

  • No I grew up in northern Ohio going to the First Brethren Church which had principles very similar to those of the Society of Friends, or Quakers. It was very active in the anti-Vietnam War movement.

    As to speaking I think he learned his lesson when he sent me Franklin Graham’s speaking schedule and I e-mailed back that FG’s behavior is anything but Christian and worse than his father Billy. Our Dad a SBC preaher’s kid had nothing to do with BG as he combined politics & religion, something his father and his twin both opposed. BTW my Great Uncle was also a SBC preacher.

    My wife’s funeral was as high church as I could make it, everything but incense. I also included Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen and My Sweet Lord by George Harrison and a Lakota Sioux hymn. There were very few words exchanged

    As to his conversion to extremism that was due to his father-in-law. He made an inappropriate comment to me in his home so I kept my mouth shut to keep the peace, but I made sure word got back to him if I ever saw him again it would be too soon.

  • It’s sad when stuff like this breaks up relationships of any kind. My best guess is that this is probably a case of you relying on thinking, and he using his gut to get through life–which includes fears.

  • The bible says “raise up a child in the way he should go, and he will not depart.”

    Billybob Graham was a fairly awful person–some racist tendencies, a clear anti-Semite (Nixon tapes), a liar, a fool, etc.

    He raised up FranklinBob (“..bob” to me denotes a southern redneck) to be a truly horrible, Jesus-hating person, Franklinbob is a wonderful exemplar of everything a true Christian is not.

  • That’s called an “argumentum ad populum”, Anton. It’s a logical fallacy.

    It’s like saying, “A million flies eat cr*p, therefore there is nothing wrong with eating cr*p.”</ Just because you appeal to "a majority", doesn't mean that your claim is true.

    What really matters is whether those Christians can rationally justify their acceptance of the major, large – scale evolutionary claims in light of their own Bible's very clear and direct negation of those claims.

    (P.S. Merely saying "non-literal" doesn't work either, because first Genesis is clearly written as history, and second you would be calling Jesus a liar regarding the historicity of Adam, Eve, and Noah.)

  • Sure. Evolution worshippers with a gradebook in their hands can get VERY fascist in some cases. They know that their beloved Darwinist religion is in Crisis Mode, and they’re not happy these days.

    So I have advised Christian students regarding biology-test essay or paragraph questions, to first fully give the teacher all the correct “textbook” answers, but THEN go back and give one or two known, secular-science-published weak-spots or blank-spots, if time permits (and if their teacher isn’t into mindless revenge.)

    At any rate, I’m glad some of your students understood the real deal. Get good grades from the evo-teacher, get a good degree from the secular university, and get other students OUT of the evolutionist jail already.

  • Floydlee you’ve demonstrated your complete & total ignorance once again. BTW, just who invited you into this conversation, I suspect no one. Therefore go away, stick you head back in the sand and stay there. Your presence is not wanted nor is it helpful.

  • A statement of fact is not an argument so it cannot be a logical fallacy. What I said was like saying, “A million flies eat cr*p.”

  • Christian PhD YEC geologists can bring all the theistic presuppositions they want to the scientific table, but if they want a seat, they will have to defend their ideas with material evidence and sound logic, neither of which, is found in the Bible.

  • What alternate universe are you living in? Darwin’s theories are doing well after nearly 200 years and evidence for evolution keeps pouring in with new fossil discoveries and advances in genetics. There is no doubt whatsoever that modern man is at least 40,000 years old and no doubt that Genesis is not true and Adam and Eve are characters in a story. Try to branch out to more accurate sources of information. But you won’t, of course.

  • Not when you ignore facts not favorable to your beliefs and ultimately god and the Bible are right.

    Roman’s 3:4

    Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:

    “So that you may be proved right when you speak
    and prevail when you judge.”

  • You are ignoring evidence and using faith in an ancient book, proven to have many inaccuracies (fatal flaws) of history and science and the purported words of a man who claimed to be god’s son.

  • They’ve already found their seats, at least with the Geological Society of America.

    Times have changed (or “evolved”). Your scientific competition has arrived, and they aren’t leaving.

  • It is certainly possible to do good science while holding an unscientific wold view and I am sure some YEC scientist do. But proving an unscientific world view with good science is another matter entirely. If that is what you are suggesting is going on in GSA publications or meetings, please provide references.

  • If I tell you I am sleeping with your wife, or can take your $5 investment and turn it into a million, you demand evidence.
    If I tell you I understand the mind of the creator of the infinite universe, and his “plan” for each and every human being, no evidence is required.

  • Exactly.

    I think a key point to remember is that statements about the “plan of the creator” and so on, say nothing about “the creator”, but contain lots of info about the speaker.

  • It always amuses me when someone says I have no proof for my beliefs. However….this same person usually believes in Evolution. This is the joke. Then they say…….”Life after Death is a myth”. But such a person can’t even critically evaluate their own belief that they have no clue as to whether ‘life after death’ exists or not. Hypocrites everywhere! “Humility” is a lost human trait.

  • “the world was defined by European Christianity,”
    Well, the European world was.

    Later on these “Christian” Europeans would discover an old, rich, thriving, scientifically advanced culture in the Americas. And destroy it.

  • It doesn’t really matter whether anyone believes in Evolution or not. It actually happens, and we can observe it happening. No belief required.

    “Life after Death is a myth” Depending on what definition of “myth” we use, it inarguably is. But if you are arguing nobody can prove there is no life after death, you are right. It’s equally true that nobody can prove there are no leprechauns.

    “‘Humility’ is a lost human trait.”
    Well, some people have it. Not sure about you and I though. Let’s work toward it.

  • Sort of like BQRQ going on and on and on and on and on and on and on about sodomizing children.

  • I have no idea what or who BQRQ is.

    However….the solution to nuts pushing outrageous lies is always to ask for details.

  • Frequent poster here, especially when he can talk about children and gay sex. Surely, you haven’t missed is lucid, intelligent, and totally-not-interested-in-sex-and-children fantasias?

    You can’t ask him for details. Not unless you can breathe under sewage.

  • I guess all I can say is that I’m reminded of all the Repugnican politicians who’ve been so vociferously anti-gay–and were subsequently outed as gay.

    BTW, semi-a propos of this, the current New Yorker has a very nice piece by Jane Mayer about Mike Pence–a lying, stinking, hypocritical evangelical (are the adjectives redundant?)

  • Well, Trumpee did “joke” that pence would like to see gay people hanged, so I guess it’s pretty funny.

  • It actually happens, and we can observe it happening. No belief required.
    Sure. Humor me?
    Let’s hypothetically say no other race, except the black race, existed on the continent of Africa. Are you to tell me that “eventually” we will see white babies and yellow babies emerging from the loins of two black people?

  • “Are you to tell me that…”
    No, that’s not how evolution works. If you want to learn more it’s all explained out there in the biology textbooks and science sites.

  • “Think I’ll believe in Evolution now”
    There is no reason for you to lie. Reality doesn’t care what you believe, and this little chat is not worth compromising your honesty.

  • I agree. I will never have anything in common with a person who believes he exists because his ancestors evolved out of the mud.

  • ” will never have anything in common with a person who believes”
    Well, you’ll still share a common genome and pedigree.

  • Called “Intelligent Design”. You should study the “eye” and then tell me that was just an accident. Are you proud the Ape is your ancestor???

  • “You should study the “eye” and then tell me that was just an accident.”

    Why would I tell you that? You have absolutely no idea what evolution is, do you?

  • Neither do you. Because you read it in ‘school’ you now believe you are an expert.
    The ‘point’ we were supposed to be addressing was the origin of man. You believe man evolved out of the mud — from primordial ooze to fish to monkey to ape to human….somewhere along those lines. How did I misunderstand?
    Whose ‘faith’ is naïve?

  • “How did I misunderstand? ”
    1) You think evolution means black couples have yellow babies
    2) You think evolution suggests eyes are “just an accident”

    Your understanding of evolution appears to derive from ridiculous straw men, perhaps proferred from church pulpits.

    “Whose ‘faith’ is naïve?”

    I suppose everybody who believes without evidence could be considered “naive”, but I’d describe them more as intellectually lazy.

  • but I’d describe them more as intellectually lazy.
    LOL. Your “Logic” is at a 3rd grade level.
    In regards to ‘intelligence’……………you have been fooled that a text book or some man with a “PhD” behind his name knows ‘truth’.

  • If you want to help me improve, you should point out the errors I’m making, or the perspectives I’m neglecting.

    Scientists [at the University of Copenhagen] have mapped the genome of a four-year-old boy who died in south-central Siberia 24,000 years ago. It is the oldest modern human genome sequenced to date, researchers report in the journal Nature. The results provide a window into the origins of Native Americans, whose ancestors crossed from Siberia into the New World during the last Ice Age. They suggest about a third of Native American ancestry came from an ancient population related to Europeans.

  • New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America. “The Solutrean (European originating) Native Americans were either partly absorbed by the newcomers (Asian-originating Indians) or were substantially obliterated by them either physically or through competition for resources.”

    The Paiutes, a Native-American tribe indigenous to parts of Nevada, have an oral tradition that they told to early white settlers of the area about a race of red-haired, white giants or ‘barbarians’ that their ancestors referred to as the “Si-Te-Cah.” The story was written down in 1882 by Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins, daughter of a Paiute Indian chief in her book: “Life Among the Piutes: Their Wrongs and Claims.” These “giants” were described as vicious, unfriendly and cannibalistic. In this story, the Paiutes speak of a great battle that took place which led to their extermination at site known today as Lovelock Cave.

    “Red Haired Giants & Sitecah – Lovelock Cave, Nevada”

  • “Radical theory of first Americans places Stone Age Europeans in Delmarva 20,000 years ago”.

    The remains of the Windover Bog People were discovered in January 1982 during the construction of a new road near Titusville, Florida. The discovery yielded the skeletons of 168 men, women and children dating back over 7000 years ago. DNA testing indicated these people were of European descent indicating some of the first peoples in America were White.

  • Megadeath in Mexico. Epidemics followed the Spanish arrival in the New World, but the worst killer may have been a shadowy native—a killer that could still be out there.

    Mexican epidemiologist Rodolfo Acuña-Soto’s studies of ancient documents revealed that the Aztecs were familiar with smallpox, perhaps even before Cortés arrived. They called it zahuatl. Spanish colonists wrote at the time that outbreaks of zahuatl occurred in 1520 and 1531 and, typical of smallpox, lasted about a year. As many as 8 million people died from those outbreaks. But the epidemic that appeared in 1545, followed by another in 1576, seemed to be another disease altogether. The Aztecs called those outbreaks by a separate name, cocolitzli. “For them, cocolitzli was something completely different and far more virulent,” Acuña-Soto says. “Cocolitzli brought incomparable devastation that passed readily from one region to the next and killed quickly.”

  • Strong’s Exhaustive Bible Concordance definition of ADAM is to: “SHOW BLOOD (in the FACE), i.e. FLUSH or TURN ROSY — be (dyed, made) red (RUDDY).” See

    Adam’s physical characteristics, “Showing blood in the face, Ruddy, Flushing, or turning Rosy,” are physical attributes used to describe White people. (a Negro does not “turn rosy”). Adam’s description matches that of a white male, and Eve can only be a white female, as God made Eve from Adam’s rib, [Genesis 2:22]. Adam and Eve’s descendants share their parents appearance, and are white, starting with their son SETH, and further down the line, NOAH, who was “perfect in his generations” [Genesis 6:9] and Noah’s sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, who repopulated the earth after Noah’s flood [Genesis 9:1] with the Adamic race, which the bible is dedicated to.

    Genesis 5:1This is the BOOK of the GENERATIONS OF ADAM. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;”

    KING DAVID is described as “RUDDY” in 1 Samuel 16:12, and 1 Samuel 17:42. The Lord Jesus Christ is a descendant of King David. Ruddy: adjective. (of a person’s face) having a healthy red colour:

    The ISRAELITES are described as “WHITE” and “RUDDY” in Song of Solomon 5:10 “My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.” In Revelation 1:14, JESUS CHRIST is described as having a HEAD that is “WHITE AS SNOW” (Head includes face), in Lamentations 4:7, Nazarites are described as being “purer than snow, WHITER THAN MILK,” (Nazarites = ISRAELITES, Numbers 6:2)

  • It costs $144 for the paperback on Amazon. There’s another of “unknown binding” for $705.
    Use your “white privilege”. I just assumed you are college educated and therefore can afford it. No doubt you would spend that kind of money on some Cultural Marxist author.
    But in all seriousness………………….you just proved YOUR laziness. PDF’s are everywhere. But…..I think you are just trolling another Christian.

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.