From Jello to Jesus

While doing a google image search for Jello molds I came across this website article Theological Jello. This article, written by Ken Ham*, says that Christians who don't interpret the book of Genesis literally, because of conflicting scientific evidence, are hypocrites because they believe (in order to be Christian) in the equally scientifically impossible virgin birth and resurrection of Christ.

A quote from the article:
"Most of these leaders [Christians who teach non-literal translations of the bible] insist, however, that we must accept the billions of years for the age of the Earth (which they call science?), and thus interpret Genesis accordingly. But if we use science to interpret the Word of God in Genesis, then if these leaders were consistent, they would have to reject the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Birth. After all, science would regard such events as impossible. The reason I believe in the bodily Resurrection of Christ, and the Virgin Birth is because of the words of Scripture. I believe in six days of Creation because of the words of Scripture (not because I am interpreting them in any way I'm taking them at face value, as clearly written). Thus because of the words of Scripture, I judge man's theories accordingly if they don't agree, then man's theories must be discarded."

I think all Christians do a certain amount of sticking-fingers-in-their-ears-and-singing to drown out the facts which bluntly disprove their beliefs. I envision a Christian's belief system (or any religious belief system) as an egg shell surrounding that person. The believer inside that shell can happily keep their beliefs as long as the shell remains intact around them. As things like scientific advances bombard a believer's shell they will alter their beliefs to patch up the cracks in their shells. These acts of crack-patching rationalization take all kinds of crazy forms and usually include interpreting sections of the bible as figurative instead of literal and actively working to be in complete denial or ignorance of the threatening knowledge. Mr. Ham's technique is heavy on the denial.

I suspect for many former Christians, as it happened to me, the cracks in the shell became so numerous that the rationalizations needed to keep the egg together were so absurd and outrageous that they couldn't possibly believe them anymore and the shell crumbled away.


*An amusing discription of Ken Ham from www.answersingenisis.org:
"His Australian accent, keen sense of humor, captivating stories and exceptional PowerPoint illustrations have made him one of North America’s most effective Christian communicators."