Yet another creationist movie: “Genesis 3D”

Creation Today is a literalist Christian ministry now headed by Eric Hovind, and was founded by his father Kent Hovind, now serving ten years in the federal penitentiary for tax evasion and other charges. And now they’ve gotten into the creationist movie business.

As The Blaze reports, as of October Hovind’s crowdsourced funding efforts met their initial goal of $150,000, and hope for another $100,000 so they can ramp up the “special effects” and ensure a wider distribution.

The Blaze also reported, in a separate piece several months ago, some information about this movie, which I think is the first creationist movie to be made in 3D:

Hovind is calling the movie a “bold statement,” telling TheBlaze this week in an e-mail interview that he wants viewers to experience the creation story in a very personal way — so personal, in fact, that they actually feel like they were there when it happened (hence the 3D effects).

“Genesis 3D will bring to life the Genesis account as it has never been done before,” he said. “And not just with great visual effects, but also up to date scientific research from leading experts in biblical creation.”

“Scientific research from leading experts in biblical creation”? If there’s been such research, and it’s supported creationism (as opposed to just mining and criticizing the literature supporting evolution), I don’t know about it.

Many scientists, atheists and others who embrace evolutionary theory and who reject the Bible’s take on creation will be less-than-thrilled with the project, especially considering it’s literal look at the world’s formation. But Hovind believes that there is plenty of scientific research to support the “truth,” which he claims is rooted in the creationist message.

“The new Genesis 3D Movie is thrilled to be working with some of the leading scientists and theologians in the Creation movement,” Hovind continued. “Renowned ministries like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research have expressed their enthusiasm to lend their PhD power to Genesis 3D.”

I wonder if their “PhD power” can outweigh ours. We have MORE PhDs! At any rate, the movie seems to be more or less what you expect: the lame arguments for ex nihilo creationism:

Hovind and his team claim that they have spent years looking at the creation issue and the film will be the perfect opportunity to add perspective to the ongoing debate. “Genesis 3D” will essential corroborate the reasons why he believes Christians are justified in taking the Bible’s creation account literally.

“Those who dismiss the Bible will need to reconsider their position upon experiencing Genesis 3D,” he added, also claiming that the film will be a major barrier for evolutionary enthusiasts. “[The film] directly confronts the lie of evolution which has so permeated our culture.”

And for those like the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), who maintain in the face of all data that there’s no connection between science and atheism, or that science and religion are compatible, have a look at this:

Evolution, Hovind believes, has separated people from embracing God and the Bible. So, rather than sit back and complain, he’s set out to come up with a purported solution that will surely spark debate.

For Hovind—unlike the NCSE, the National Academy of Sciences, and other organizations who argue that there’s no antagonism between science and religion—knows fullwell that learning real evolution, or even the methods of science themselves, instill a form of doubt that ultimately makes people question their faith. A  survey by the Barna Group—an evangelical Christian polling firm—distilled five years of research into “Six reasons young Christians leave the church.” Here’s one of them:

Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science.
One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.

It’s a science-y world we live in, and you don’t have to be a genius to see that. If your church is anti-science, you don’t only look anti-modern, you look stupid.  But since some modern science (particularly evolution) violates the tenets of evangelical Christiantiy, they have to pretend that their creationists myths are actually supported by science. I’d claim that creationist propaganda is more than just getting creationism taught in the schools; it’s getting creationism to look scientific and therefore more credible. That’s what “Genesis 3D” is all about.

For your delectation, here’s the trailer, which is mostly blurbs and begging for dosh, with very few scenes from the movie. At least the filmmakers admit that taking Genesis literally is a big hurdle to accepting Christianity.

The fundraising site is here, but remember: the final movie hasn’t yet been made. I’m not sure what the people in the clip above were watching.


  1. Posted January 29, 2014 at 7:15 am | Permalink

    It is sad to see how much money is wasted on denying reality.

  2. Vaal
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    Well, if it’s in 3D I’ll believe it.

    I mean…3D = more realer!


  3. Posted January 29, 2014 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    “As The Blaze reports, as of October Hovind’s crowdsourced funding efforts met their initial goal of $150,000, and hope for another $100,000 so they can ramp up the “special effects” and ensure a wider distribution.”

    And congress refuses to raise minimum wage?

  4. Posted January 29, 2014 at 7:30 am | Permalink

    Hey — I have an idea.

    How ’bout getting Jesus on board as an animator? I bet he’d do a bang-up job, and probably wouldn’t even charge his usual rates. And his personal experience of the events should be a real plus for realism.

    Whaddyamean, he’s unreachable?


    • Posted January 29, 2014 at 7:35 am | Permalink

      Jebus doesn’t “do” post-production anymore. The road to Damascus was recently bought by ILM.

    • L.W. Dicker
      Posted January 29, 2014 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

      Jesus is much too busy to be involved in a movie.

      He has to spend every day deciding which babies will be born with birth defects, which children will be diagnosed with cancer, who dies in a tornado or gets blown up by a suicide bomber, who’s going to win the Super Bowl, etc, etc.

      One Savior can only do so much.

      • Posted January 29, 2014 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

        Apparently, he’s also too busy to protect kids from buggery by his official agents, too….


  5. Tulse
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Given the family history, I wonder how likely it is the film will actually get made.

  6. Diana MacPherson
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    Well it seems that Hovind has gone one further. In addition to enlisting “science” to support biblical genesis, he’s also enlisting technology in the form of cheesy movie effects. I think literalists who use technology are hypocrites – if you diss science, you can’t honestly use the outcomes of science. Hovind’s genesis message should be carved into clay tablets or take the form of a guy speaking in booming voice from the sky while lighting a bush on fire.

    • Achrachno
      Posted January 29, 2014 at 7:54 am | Permalink

      Aren’t they allowed to cherry-pick their tech as they do their evidence?

    • Caleb Jablonicky
      Posted January 29, 2014 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

      Well, that’s why they have to rely on presuppositional arguments to define “science” any way they like…

  7. Linda Grilli Calhoun
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    No matter how much these people claim that “science” supports their beliefs, they have not cleared the first, most basic hurdle of actual science, a mastery of the scientific method.

    When you draw your conclusion first and look for your evidence afterward, what you’re doing is NOT science.

    It may be philosophy, it may be religion, it may be fictional literature, but it’s NOT science. L

    • Joseph
      Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:56 am | Permalink

      Exactly and to me its just silly that these are the same people who just want to shove there ignorance into school’s, and hurt science and reality.

    • Posted January 29, 2014 at 9:08 am | Permalink

      Indeed. Forget transubstantiation — every christian confession teaches that souls exist inside us and eventually travel to Heaven. A concrete claim about the world and universe which is completely unsupported by evidence, and also non-consilient with verified findings of science.

    • Caleb Jablonicky
      Posted January 29, 2014 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

      Well, that’s why they adhere so tightly to presuppositionalism. If you contend that we all start out with overarching metaphysical beliefs, then you can call anything “science.”

  8. trombus
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    I am curious how they are gonna show naked people sinnin’.

    • Posted January 29, 2014 at 9:17 am | Permalink

      Are they going to include the part where Lot offers his daughters to be gang-raped, then later they get him drunk and have sex with their own dad?

      Who’s the director, Almodovar?

    • Bob J.
      Posted January 29, 2014 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

      I’m hoping for Chapter 9 – Noah drunk and naked.

  9. Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    I’m always amused when some TrueChristians insist that other TrueChristians are wrong when it comes to what’s to be taken literal and what is to be taken figuratively. Rather than seeing one more atheist/theist debate, I want to see a debate between a literal creationist (young earth) and an old earth one.

    That does seem to be a rarity because they seem to know that the same arguments can be used against both of them.

  10. francis
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:21 am | Permalink


    • francis
      Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:24 am | Permalink

      1D, 2D, or 3D; its still a myth…

      • Bob J.
        Posted January 29, 2014 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

        So is Lord of the Rings. Why won’t somebody make Gilgamesh?

        • John Scanlon, FCD
          Posted February 1, 2014 at 7:25 am | Permalink

          That’s an excellent idea, I hope somebody is on it.

  11. Hempenstein
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    That’s a trailer? I think most fundies have more neurons than to accept that as a trailer.

  12. Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    Looks like 2014 is set to become the year of the Bible flick. Ridley Scott is busy making “Exodus” and Russel Crowe will star in “Noah”. I’m more curious about the approach those films will take and the impact they’ll have than I am about this “Genesis” project, which looks about as interesting as a History Channel biblical “documentary”.

    • Posted January 29, 2014 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      I am hoping the ‘Exodus’ film tells the story in the lines described by historians. I very much doubt they will, but it would be interesting. According to what facts we know, the Isrealites were genocidal maniacs, and Moses (if he existed at all) was a completely messianic bonkers nut-job.

      • Posted January 29, 2014 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

        Actually, if it’s going to be historically accurate, it’ll just show ancient Egypt entirely unaware of even the existence Israelites. And it’s long been known that Moses is entirely fictional.

        The whole thing’s a faery tale, through and through.

        I suppose they could show some priest / scribe making up the story sometime around, roughly, say, about 500 AUC, but I don’t think that would be very interesting, and it would still have to have a big asterisk of it being only a guess.



        • Dermot C
          Posted January 29, 2014 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

          The Merneptah Stela (1209 BCE), named after the pharaoh, is the earliest non-biblical mention of the Israelites, referred to as a people not as a land: nevertheless, they are mentioned in the same context as 3 city-states. So they had some significance in Egyptian eyes by then.

          Btw. this first mention in history of the Israelites alleges their complete destruction.

          The main extra-biblical sources for Israelite history come from the east much later, the Assyrian empire and the Babylonian clay tablets.


          • Posted January 29, 2014 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

            I think it’s only fair to mention that that’s almost a millennium before the next mention of the Israelites, and the consensus amongst egyptologists isn’t unanimous, and it all comes down to the phonetic interpretation of a few glyphs. It could very well be either a similar name, or that the millennium-later Israelites named themselves after an ancient forgotten memory.

            Indeed, it would seem most remarkable for a society to last for centuries and never be mentioned, save for the oldest mention which is all about their utter destruction. We should be reasonably confident that there’s no continuity or other relationship between the two, unless it’s the same sort of revival as the modern state of Israel is.


            • Dermot C
              Posted January 30, 2014 at 2:06 am | Permalink

              Very few Egyptologists disagree with traditional interpretation of the final lines of the Merneptah stela.

              Archaeology places the Israelites as emerging from the Transjordan and the hill country around about 1200 BCE into the Iron I and Iron II periods from a rural subsistence culture little different from the polities around them.

              There is no archaeological evidence for Saul, nor for David’s empire, nor Solomon’s monumental architecture.

              The evidence is that the northern Israelite kingdom emerged no later than the start of the 9th century: after Assyria’s campaigns, Judah in the south had a sudden demographic growth and social evolution, becoming a fully-fledged state by the late 8th century.

              The first external dating is Shishak the Pharaoh (1 Kings 11:40) during the 10th Century Solomon’s reign: Egyptian monuments confirm Shishak’s presence in Palestine but not the details or exact date.

              The first externally mentioned Jew is King Ahab of Israel; referred to by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III on a royal inscription, probably in the summer of 853; the Bible account comes from the historically unreliable Deuteronomist historian(s), ca. 550-540 in the books of Kings.

              On the question of the Deuteronomist sources, most scholars believe that he/they interpreted, with little regard for dates or historical accuracy, a primary source of the northern kings’ chronicles which came south after the Assyrian invasion.

              King Mesha of Moab is mentioned on a stone of black basalt possibly contemporaneous with Ahab and his son Omri around 850 BCE: again the 2 accounts wildly differ.

              Assyrian inscriptions make Omri a landmark long after his death.

              Assyrian evidence fixes Jehu’s surrender at 843. Jehu by the way, is the only Israelite king represented artistically by a contemporary, kowtowing to Shalmaneser III.

              The Biblical governor Tattenai can be matched with Taat[anu] in a Babylonian text from 502.

              Documents from Elephantine in Egypt in the fifth century BCE tell of diaspora Jews worshipping Yahweh and his consort and being willing to sacrifice to the Persian gods.

              Those are some of the external mentions of the Israelites during the transition from nomadism to state formation.


              • Posted January 30, 2014 at 9:52 am | Permalink

                See, the thing is…even right here in your summary, it’s a non-stop tale of ambiguity and conflicting reports. And the picture it paints, if any, is of ancient “Jews” as unlike the Jews of the time of the Caesars as toy poodles are unlike the dire wolf. Even if there is some sort of continuity — and I’d argue that the case for continuity other than of the most generic type is weak, indeed — of what sense does it make to equate the two? It’s like calling the first wolves domesticated by ancient humans, “toy poodles,” because one of those bitches whelped the great-great…great-ancestor of some pop singer’s pocket pet.

                You could just as well make the case that the people in question are really Ethiopian Muslims, because some of the lineages trace that direction, too. Or, call them the earliest of the Provo Mormons for the same reason.

                The people of three millennia ago under discussion would in no way be recognizable as Jews in any sense of the term that’s been used in the past couple millennia. The people from a couple millennia ago whom we call Jews certainly trace some of their roots back to these three-millennia-ago people you’re pointing to, but so do so many others in the region, and the two-millennia-ago Jews also trace other roots back to other groups from that era.

                That’s why it makes much more sense to identify the origins of Judaism with the establishment of Rabbinical Torah study in the last couple / few centuries before the common era. It’s the same as one would identify the establishment of Protestantism with the Reformation, even though, to an outsider, you have to search long and hard before you spot the doctrinal and ritualistic differences between Lutheranism and Catholicism, especially when comparing the two at the time of the Reformation. Putting the origins of Judaism at three millennia ago is like putting the origins of Protestantism at two millennia ago, because Protestants claim to be truer to the origins of Christianity than Catholics. Aside from questions of propaganda, that sort of reasoning just doesn’t make any sense at all.



              • Dermot C
                Posted January 30, 2014 at 11:20 am | Permalink

                Regarding continuity over the 1200 BCE pivot, it is difficult to distinguish settlement patterns between say, the “Israelites” and Jebusites, Hivites and Canaanites etc. Because of the similarities in their material culture. Even the latter three have little or no pig remains. Finkelstein goes so far as to say that the Israelites were the Canaanites and the archaeological record bears him out.

                So, rather than the genocides we all know of, there was a gradual mixing of the cultures in the region. The corollary is of course that the Deuteronomistic history, through which we view early Israelite events, is plain wrong: but evidence nevertheless of Israelite belief in God acting in history for his people, that the Israelites themselves and not just their anointed King, as in other cultures, are the sons of God.

                The Deuteronomist’s willingness to play fast and loose with dates, interpretation and the facts also explains our difficulty in dating exactly when something happened: we can, to within a few years in most cases.

                I think that to understand Rabbinic Judaism, you have to start much further back. For it consisted largely of a dialogue of what constituted scripture. Josephus for instance counted 22 books in the Hebrew Bible: all of them written in the theocratic culture of Israel/Judah in their various guises between about 722 and 164 BCE.


      • Posted January 30, 2014 at 5:13 am | Permalink

        Nah. Scott will have the Red Sea being parted by Engineers …


  13. Reginald Selkirk
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    Technology FTW!

    And here’s some more technology: Exorcisms via Skype.

  14. Newish Gnu
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    OP: “If your church is anti-science, you don’t only look anti-modern, you look stupid.”

    I can attest personally that not looking stupid was a big motivator for me back in the days when I abandoned faith.

    I think (and hope) that the fraction of the American population that accepts evolution (and evidenced-based thinking generally) can ramp up at an increasing rate over the next generation. And not looking stupid can play a big role in that amongst teenagers.

  15. John K.
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    Do you think they are going to have the biblical flat earth and heavenly dome in this movie? It seems they are not. I also wonder which account of creating humans they will go with, they can’t do both.

    I for one encourage them to do this kind of thing. Kind of in the same way as building an actual Noah’s Ark, the clearer and more accessibly you present outrageous ideas the easier it is to see through them. It seems like it will be tricky to make light before the sun not look very silly indeed, for example.

    • Caleb Jablonicky
      Posted January 29, 2014 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      Or to represent the moon as an equally special, unique creation, for that matter.

  16. Joseph
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    I don’t wanna live in this country anymore. I think after college ill go to either Japan or the UK.

    • Achrachno
      Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

      Don’t run way! The rest of us need the help.

    • John Scanlon, FCD
      Posted February 1, 2014 at 7:32 am | Permalink

      You like crowded, frigid, radioactive islands with a strong record of xenophobia and militarism?

      Those seem odd criteria for livability, but maybe that’s just me.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted February 1, 2014 at 8:12 am | Permalink

      Awww, just do like a lot of Americans and come cool off in Canada for a while (and I’m not talking about the winter). Then you can go back fighting.

  17. Newish Gnu
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    A somewhat related aside:

    In a on-line discussion with a literalist just recently, I got the Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve treatment. The discussion was nominally about marriage equality. He specifically stated Eve was created from Adam’s rib. So I asked if Eve had both X and Y chromosomes since her DNA came from Adam and didn’t that mean Eve was chromosomally male and, hence, marriage equality!

    I could tell from his evasions over the next few exchanges that he was scrambling for an answer. He finally came up with the inevitable “Just cause the bible doesn’t say it doesn’t mean god didn’t do it” dodge.

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted January 29, 2014 at 9:39 am | Permalink

      Which is precisely the opposite of his original answer. Nice job.

      • Newish Gnu
        Posted January 30, 2014 at 10:55 am | Permalink

        And I failed to point that out to the moron!

        Next time. (There always is one.)

  18. Sastra
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    And for those like the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), who maintain in the face of all data that there’s no connection between science and atheism, or that science and religion are compatible, have a look at this … For Hovind—unlike the NCSE, the National Academy of Sciences, and other organizations who argue that there’s no antagonism between science and religion—knows fullwell that learning real evolution, or even the methods of science themselves, instill a form of doubt that ultimately makes people question their faith.

    I don’t think the accomodationists at the NCSE or elsewhere will be impressed with any argument which uses YEC to refute their assurance that there is “no connection between science and atheism” or that “science and religion are compatible.” On the contrary, they use Creationism as their poster child for how NOT to do science OR religion. Keep them apart.

    The statistic you cite is one they would cite for their own case: people tend to lose their faith when they see that their religion conflicts with science. Ergo, make sure your religion doesn’t conflict with science. Problem solved.

    After all, since the supernatural aspect is simply made up, it is infinitely flexible on what it can and cannot accept. Use “faith” to keep changing your beliefs so that they put God into a smaller and smaller gap, insisting all the while that this is what all the smart people believed all the time. It can be done.

    It just can’t be done with integrity.

    Or consistency. It’s not just learning the theory of evolution and the methods of science but applying them to God which leads to atheism as a legitimate working hypothesis and naturalism as a scientific theory. That’s why the big thrust of the accomodationist argument is not that particular religions never conflict with science, but that scientific thinking should NEVER take the place of religious thinking for fundamental defining claims. You don’t treat God like a hypothesis. You can’t. It can’t be done. It shouldn’t be done. It’s never been done. Stop doing it now. I mean it. You are drawing our scorn, our contempt, our befuddlement.

    “Let people believe what they want and be who they are as long as they keep it to themselves.” That’s the accomodationist mantra. Hovind doesn’t keep his religion out of science — he violates it. But so do the gnu atheists by not keeping atheism to themselves. It’s a peace based on an agreement that one side should never confront the other.

    But that only makes sense if both sides agree that whether or not God exists doesn’t really matter. Accomodationists need to think about that one. This agreement is not possible for theists — regardless of whether they are the ‘good’ type which keeps God out of politics and science or the ‘bad’ type which doesn’t. So it’s not in our interests to accept the terms of peace being offered, is it?

    How the hell are the theists supposed to get together and agree where the magic violations of nature begin and where they stop? And why should they listen to the accomodationists instead of “God?” Enough with the eternal Whack-a-Mole game. Cut it off at the root with some honesty.

  19. Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    While they’re at it, they should make a FLAT EARTH 2D movie.

  20. gravelinspector-Aidan
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    “Genesis 3D will bring to life the Genesis account as it has never been done before,”

    What, you mean that it would be better than the real events, or that those events never took place as related?
    Oh, it’s in 3D. Guaranteed kiss of death ; it’s a dying technology.
    Not that it’ll actually get made, given the family history.

  21. Dango
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    Those poor Hovind kids. I was raised in a hyper-Pentecostal church complete with 7-day creation bible school lessons, so I can relate. Although my parents (doctor and engineer) thankfully never brought the nonsense home with them. And “PhD Power”? Proof that any idiot can get a PhD.

    Speaking of which, Edward Feser has called you out AGAIN in less than one week. What’s his deal?

    • Caleb Jablonicky
      Posted January 29, 2014 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

      I just can’t imagine a real scientific enterprise bolstering support by verbally touting its “PhD power”…

  22. thylacinidae
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Nothing like a disjointed series of meaningless scenes meant to look impressive but are only one tiny step above a Sy-Fy channel movie in quality of CGI (they are near bottom of the barrel) to show off their grand notion.
    Oh well, at least their ‘cutting edge’ effects will match their ‘cutting edge’ science. Say good-bye to professional work and hello to amateur hour but we are doing it “In 3D” so it has to be impressive!

  23. codemonkeysteve
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    Hovind and his team claim that they have spent years looking at the creation issue

    Does that mean they’ve finally reconciled the creation myths between chapters 1 and 2?

    I might have to watch this, just to see if Adam and Eve show up at the same time, or what.

  24. Daniel Oberer
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    How crazy is this: those guys use the technology of the 21st century, applying an 18th century’s mindset!

    • Achrachno
      Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

      Ahemm! 2nd century.

      18th century had Thomas Paine and the Enlightenment. These guys are way more backward than that.

  25. Dermot C
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    Well, if the Ground of our Being dates from 23rd October, 4004 BCE, Mr. Hovind will need to address these questions:

    • The Sabbatical creation account dates from 530 to 500 BCE in the Priestly source; 3,500 years after the event, how could the author know?
    • The story of Eden was written probably in the early 8th century in the J source: again how could the author know?
    • Genesis, and the rest of the Pentateuch made up of the J, E and P sources, must have been ordered into their current form by a fourth author or editor by 400 BCE. We do not know the names of any of those authors; how can we know that they were inspired by God?
    • Why are there so many duplicate stories in Genesis (e.g. God changing Jacob’s name to Israel, the naming of the town of Bethel)? This indicates an old oral history from separate strands.
    • Why the anachronisms? For example the King of Gerar is a Philistine before the latter even occupied the coastal strip of Canaan. The uses to which camels were put, anachronistic rather in the way Homer’s description of Greek military gear was.
    • Why are some stories contradictory? Is all Israel descended from the 12 sons of Jacob? Or from the 10 tribes mentioned in the Song of Deborah? And in the latter there are two ‘new’ tribes.

    How could God make so many mistakes? And that’s just the historical ones: never mind the science.

    George Eliot attacked a now unknown evangelist, a Dr. Cumming (Second Cumming, anyone?), for his mulish insistence on the Bible’s literal truth: she predicted that he would be made to look a fool. 150 years later, Hovind astonishingly insists on doing the same thing.


    • Posted January 30, 2014 at 5:18 am | Permalink

      God is omnipotent. He can easily make mistakes.


      • Posted January 30, 2014 at 9:53 am | Permalink

        Not to go all spelling nazi on you, but the word is, “omni-impotent.” I know the elision is popular, but it’s highly misleading….



  26. Bob J.
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    And then we can add a new soundtrack. Maybe recut the film. Parody is legal under copyright law. The old saying, “give him enough rope and he’ll hang himself.” comes to mind.

  27. Posted January 29, 2014 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    I was a bit disappointed – all those shots of dinosaurs, and not a single one being ridden by a human.

    It was so unrealistic.

  28. cremnomaniac
    Posted January 29, 2014 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    I have the impression that the more creationists and the generally religious argue their case for literal truth of the bible, the more ridiculous they look.

    I’m guessing they will try to bill this a a mockumentary? Nah, on second thought that would be too accurate. That’s not a creationists forte.

    • Posted January 31, 2014 at 8:24 am | Permalink

      “I have the impression that the more creationists and the generally religious argue their case for literal truth of the bible, the more ridiculous they look.” So do I.

  29. Jim Thomerson
    Posted January 30, 2014 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    There is a sign about Genesis study on the roadside outside a local church. It resembles in general the link shown. I wonder if there is any connection.

  30. Posted January 30, 2014 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    “It’s a science-y world we live in, and you don’t have to be a genius to see that.”

    That idea doesn’t make the science correct. The first thing for evolutionists to do is actually prove that origins took place the way they claim it did.

    Until you do that, you are just blowing smoke.

    Remember, creation did not take place the scientific way, it took place the supernatural way thus those ‘doing real science’ are looking in the wrong places, down the wrong paths using the wrong tools.

    • John Scanlon, FCD
      Posted February 1, 2014 at 7:40 am | Permalink

      Science has the tools to demonstrate supernatural effects if they exist. Religion can borrow them. You’re welcome.

      Science can also explain the origin of matter and energy ex nihilo, but theistic creation stories are more accurately ex fundo.

%d bloggers like this: