Cheap Creation and Magic Tomatoes

If you had a magic wand that could make tomatoes, you probably wouldn’t care about tomatoes very much. I mean, why would you? Why worry about preserving them in the refrigerator, when you can make more anytime you want? Need a tomato? Abracadabra, a wave of the wand and poof there it is. Do you think you would really pull out a Ziploc to save the unused half of a tomato that you had cut for a salad if you could conjure them at will? Quite likely you would pass them out to the neighbors with abandon. You could use them as compost. You could employ them as the lubricant on a slippery slide for your kids on sunny summer days. You certainly would not cultivate them, nourish them from carefully chosen starters, or set up cages to guide and cherish their growing form. Cheap, magically-made tomatoes would not induce you care about tomatoes. They would be eminently disposable.

This is what creationism buys you. A cheap disposable Earth. I saw a painting at the BYU Bookstore that captured this well. It was a picture of Christ moving his hand across a starry universe with colorful planets, including the Earth, streaming from his fingers. Its colors reminded me of the black-velvet paintings so popular in some places where I served my mission in Arkansas and which typically depicted Elvis or a group of English country dogs in waistcoats playing poker. I suppose that is why I took an immediate dislike to it. But upon closer inspection, I realized that what I hated most was the cheapness of the creation it projected. I saw the roots of our ecological crisis written in the Harry Potter-like wave of the black-velvet Jesus’ hand.

Back to tomatoes. I like tomatoes. My wife makes a salsa that has led to conspiratorial murders and brought down weak governments. Our tomatoes for this ambrosia grow in our backyard unmolested by pesticides. I like watching the gnat-sized parasitic wasps that hunt for the caterpillars on which they lay their eggs. It is fun to spy on the confident yellow jackets pulling off plant hoppers and aphids to feed their larvae. I love our garden. We always have a lot of tomatoes. I cannot predict where the tomatoes are going to appear on the plant. And I’m often surprised by their shape and variety.

But I have to watch them unfold in time. I love seeing the bees visit the flowers and watch the small fruits form new on the vine. I do what I can to shepherd their growth, but it really comes down to a bunch of laws governing genetics, photosynthesis, protein unfolding and some good weather, among other things, to see these come into being. Because of the work involved, the time it takes to develop these wondrous red orbs and the joy that goes into their creation, these tomatoes are precious. Each one is honored and used with care. Not a slice will end up unused. Even the juicy ends (after destemming of course) are popped into our mouths and treasured. Yes, Ziplocs are used for the unused halves.

I believe that such patience and care went into the creation of the universe. I believe it took time. I believe that the universe had to unfold. That life and its gradual evolution on earth is imbedded in deep time. Caring time. That when you see a robin flitting on the branch it was many millions of years in the making. It emerged into the world in an act of patient becoming. Its exact form a surprise perhaps. It is of infinite value because like our tomatoes it took the laws of universe and lots of space and time to become what it is.

How can we value this Earth if we believe that it was an act of a wanded magician rather than a gardener? Is it any wonder that those who hold to a cheap creation also seem to be the first to ignore the peril of our planet? Who argue that we can ignore the global ecological crisis and be assured God can reproduce another planet like our Earth like a rabbit out of a hat? If God can make a blue planet with a wave of his hand and restore all losses in an instant when he comes again, why care for it now? What kind of environmental ethic do we embrace when creation is cheap? I love the idea that creation is part of a long, patient unfolding. The evidence for which we see in the fossils of this Earth and in the DNA of every cell of our bodies—in other creatures’ bodies. Evolution ennobles the creation and Creator. The creation was not cheap. Like my tomatoes, I think God cares for each slice and treasures each of the things that have unfolded here in deep, caring, patient time. God is a gardener. No wonder He asks us to grow one.

Bookmark Cheap Creation and Magic Tomatoes


  1. So what is your point? The earth is God’s greatest creation? Maybe it is cheap in the currency of God to make a planet. Earth was made for man, not man for the earth. It doesn’t mean we can abuse, but we also don’t worship it.

  2. Those that have ears to hear . . .

  3. Aaron Brown says:

    Interesting post. I hadn’t quite thought about things in this way before. I guess I’ll put this down on my long list of reasons to find Creationism stupid, mind-numbing and spiritually impoverishing. Like it needed another entry.

    “How can we value this Earth if we believe that it was an act of a wanded magician rather than a gardener? Is it any wonder that those who hold to a cheap creation also seem to be the first to ignore the peril of our planet?”

    Yes, but our eschatological obsessions, our naive beliefs that The End really is nigh often play an even more pernicious role, me thinks.


  4. I hear you, brother P! I HEAR YOU!

    (and I just read this aloud to my entire family for family night at the M’s)

  5. A beautiful way to understand Creation. Our God is pretty awesome for being able to create all of this, but He’s also incredibly patient and loving for doing so.

  6. SteveP,

    This one is a keeper. Thank you!

  7. Where does this leave God’s omnipotence? After all, if God so much as has the power to create a planet with a wave of his magic wand, then the earth is easily replaceable and therefore cheap. But a God who doesn’t have that power doesn’t seem quite divine. (“Is anything to hard for the Lord — I mean, if he has a few billion years to work on it?”)

    On the other hand, if we assume it often takes a long time (sometimes a very, very long time) for God to get anything done, that could explain a lot — like why he’s so far behind schedule on this second coming business.

  8. a classic, Steve; thanks.

  9. Steve, part of me hopes that you are wrong. I would really like to have a magic wand.

  10. When creating a world, more than just manual labor is required. Perhaps even with a magic wand it would still be a long and demanding labor.

  11. I really like this post. And I’m definitely on your side of the fence when it comes to creationism, stewardship, etc.

    But I can’t help but wonder- what if the magician really genuinely cares about the seeds that come from each of those cheap, disposable tomatoes??

  12. Thanks all! One thing I think to keep in mind is that the idea of omnipotent god came out of folks like Plotinus and the creedal statements of the early Western Church. We have a God that has a body, presumably one that has a biology (not ours I would guess), and that ex nihilo is not something we embrace. This leaves room for a God that uses natural law, rather than creates them (hence the word ‘organize’). I can’t think of a more universal law than natural selection. That certainly explains why such a humungous universe was needed. And helps us understand why this Earth and its creatures are so uniquely precious.

  13. Dang, Steve, you’ve nailed it. And you have just started a fight in my home. Until I read your post, I had not really thought about the fact that Bruce has not planted tomatoes this year. Oh, sure, there as excuses–meetings, classes, etc. But if there are no tomatoes planted, then I will not get my magical, July mornings of walking barefoot into my garden to the scent of green growth and ripe fruit. I will not have the pleasure of looking under leaves for the juiciest tomatoes, putting them in a basket, and smelling summer as I slice them. My family will not celebrate “First Chile Night,” which is when I make the first chile of the season and serve it with caramelized bread.
    I won’t be able to look at further comments tonight, because I need to have a little talk with my husband. Alas, his husbandry is utterly lacking. Your post has made my spiritual imagination vivid, and I have spiritually created the tomatoes which should have already been physically planted. Suddenly, so much depends on red tomatoes, glazed with rainwater beside the tangled grape vines. (Apologies to Williams)

    No wands. Imagination. Dirty hands. Weeding. Watching. Plucking at last. Breathing in the garden smells.

  14. Nothing on earth, no, nothing, is as fine to the taste as a home-grown tomato.

  15. CS Eric says:

    We just put the finishing touches on our garden tonight, including a small tomato plant. On one of our other plants, the first tomato is starting to turn orange. This is the fun part of gardening–watching the seedlings start to sprout and watching the fruit ripen.

    Reading this post, it makes me wonder if God has as much fun watching His garden grow as I do watching mine.

  16. I think stores should be required to come up with a different name for the product they currently sell under the title “tomato.” Tomatoes grow in gardens. Whatever it is that stores sell has its uses too, in the off-season. But it’s not a Tomato.

  17. Tracy, so true!

    Margaret, that was so beautifully put. You’ve captured the feeling of tomatoes! I’m now finding myself impatient for the harvest. But tell your husband to be warned, there are special and dangerous hells reserved for those who do not plant tomatoes on time. If I remember my Dante right it’s really close to the center circle.

  18. Eric, I think he did! It had to be fun.

    Cynthia, I think they are properly called ‘tomato product.’

  19. I’m not really following your analogy when it comes to viewing the creation versus evolution of the world. The scientific explanations get by just fine with a god that perhaps did nothing more than spark the big bang (or maybe even less than that) and then sit back and observe—no weeding, tilling, fertilizing, plucking diseased leaves, etc.

    That said, I appreciate the point you make about how we treat the earth. Many may think that the world will be all green and clean during the Millennium, but as you point out, ecological processes apparently take quite a long time.

    And maybe that’s the real reason God wants us to grow gardens:

    And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to sample home-grown tomato salsa; but wo if the inhabitants of the earth use a tomato not fully ripe, for I shall smite the whole earth with a curse, and all flesh be consumed before me.

  20. In my opinion, God would be hard pressed to create the earth in an instant even if he wanted to. But I don’t think anyone in Mormonism believes that is actually what happened.

    Regarding tomatoes, even those who believe in the special creation of each species don’t pretend that God created each species de novo, without following essentially the same pattern across an arbitrary spectrum of similar forms of life.

    I don’t think that is what happened. The preponderance of divine interventionists certainly don’t think that is what happened. On the other hand, designing a bunch of related plant species according to similar principles and creating the seeds certainly sounds well within divine capacity. In not so many years it may be within our capacity – to design new plant species from scratch.

  21. Great post, Steve, and captures the true nature of how I view creation. Regarding ex nihilo creation, I think there is a Billy Preston song that says something along the lines of “nothing from nothing means nothing”. That’s why I favor a celestialized Earth that still has a Grand Canyon, Mt. Rainier, the San Juan Islands, and Arches National Park. No smooth crystal Earth for me.

    I love tomatoes, but here in my cedar- and fir-shaded, fern and moss covered yard, we have a hard time growing real tomatoes. My yard has all the southern and western exposures in the shade most of the day, and the soil rarely is warm enough to even plant tomatoes here in Redmond until July, and it’s a scramble to get them ripe before the first frost in October. I really have to work hard to get tomatoes, so I guess I am still learning about the hard work of creation.

  22. I also don’t believe that God created the Earth in an instant. But I kind of wish He would have, because that video just takes foreeeeeever some days.

  23. I’ve thought about similar things in regards to the infinite number of offspring that we’re all going to have in the Celestial Kingdom.

    That if we were just able to poof have a bunch of kids, that it would make you not care about them as much.

    Thinking that it was probably likely that we would be forced to go through something like the childbirth process for all those kids – because that 9 months of suffering, and the hard times it is to raise an infant, and a toddler, and a teenager, are the main reason that you have so much LOVE for your kids.

    Of course, consigning women to pregnancy and childbirth for eternity probably doesn’t sound very much like “eternal life” and just proves that I am a man :-)

  24. John Mansfield says:

    “All flesh is grass.” Overall, the creation seems to have more r selection than K selection, even worlds without number, and broad paths with wide gates that lead to destruction that most enter.

  25. aloysiusmiller says:

    So God says: “Funny it didn’t seem that long to me.”

    To me the proper use of the term creationist means a believer that God created the heavens and the earth. It doesn’t mean he did it in 6 24 hour days nor does it mean six thousand years 365+ days.

    Atheistic Darwinists use the term to deny God and they associate it with crazies who want to restrict God to our time and space so they can discredit any belief in God.

  26. kevinf: try building a cloche for your tomatoes. Squash and peppers love it too.

  27. Hi Steve, I really like the way you write, you have a gift, and I like you as a person. But I do have a quibble with this.

    I do not doubt that God did use natural laws to do most of everything we see in the world, but to deny His ability to use a magic wand so to speak, would (at least to me) do some serious harm to our understanding of the priesthood and prayer. Why pray or give someone a blessing if God cannot respond in some miraculous way?

  28. SteveP,

    A beautifully written article, as usual. But I have to admit that I’m with Aaron Brown on this, I think that it is the theology of “end times” and the promise of a “celestial earth” that affects the beliefs and behaviors of people when it comes to valuing the earth. Does it really matter that we save the Colorado pikeminnow or razorback sucker if Christ is coming soon and the earth is baptised by fire?

  29. CEF I can’t make any claims about what God can and cannot do with natural law. I only go by what evidence has been left behind. I admit miraculous to you and I may not be to God.

    Kari, I don’t know what being cleansed by fire means. It’s funny how our interpretations of what we think is going to happen turn out wrong–just ask the people of Christ’s time who where waiting for the politcal leader who would destroy the Romans. It looks like the baptism of the Earth was more local than most people in the 19th century would have believed. Be careful assuming the creatures of this Earth are expendable. I believe we will held accoundable for how we treat this stewardship we’ve been given.

  30. Kari, I’m with SteveP on this. Our concept of our stewardship of the earth implies nourishing, caring, and cherishing it, and I liken it to a leader having stewardship in their calling. Little Mikey with ADHD in the primary surely deserves care and patience, even though the second coming might be imminent.

    CEF, there is too much ground to cover to respond completely to your comment, but I’ll just say this: God’s understanding of natural far exceeds our own, and while an iPhone might make Lehi think he had found the Liahona 2.0, it’s pretty commonplace to us with greater understanding of natural law. All it takes to humble the rest of us in this day and age is to try and tackle quantum physics or string theory, and we realize how little we know. God’s priesthood power is, in my world view, natural law perfected far beyond what we ourselves know at this time. Arthur C. Clarke addressed this idea when he said that “Any suffiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. Hence, miracles as extensions of natural law, perfected.

  31. About 20 years ago I had a vision. There were a couple of little girls playing on the rocks behind the Chapel Hill Ward in NC after Church in their white dresses. All of a sudden they were transformed into angels of death, the angels who bring destruction to this planet. I know that I am an angel of destruction, too, and my six children and their children.

    I take comfort in the fact that a) there are other planets if we destroy this one, b) in 20 million years the planet will evolve new species to replace the ones we have killed.

    I can not imagine a worse thing than to purify this earth by fire with its attendant destruction of beauty and all of the delicate dependencies. Or to rape the earth to death in a most bitter end.


    As for tomatoes… On our CA hillside, even with full sun, the tomatoes do not set until September, too cool at night, I think, too foggy. One crop and they die. The deer also love them. (Kill the deer! This is where the rubber meets the road.)

  32. Is this why men aren’t typically considered baby lovers, but women are? It’s not only easy for men to make them, it’s fun to do!

  33. Mark B. says:

    Great post, Steve.

    I’ve had similar thoughts about all kinds of other things: from hitting a golf ball 275 yards down the middle of the fairway, to hitting a 25-foot jump shot, to playing that string of nearly impossible double-stops in the 3rd movement of Bach’s E Major violin concerto.

    If it all becomes simple, perfect every time, I’m inclined to be like Huck Finn and hope to end up elsewhere.

  34. BobW I was in the Chapel Hill ward about 20 years ago! When were you there? I was in that Ward from about mid 86 to 89.

  35. Really well said, Steve. You’ve articulated something that’s always bothered me about creationism. And, incidentally, something that troubles me about the resurrection. If it takes time to create life, how will bodies be resurrected in the twinkling of an eye?

  36. This is the application in a new field of Thomas Paine’s famous words in “American Crisis”:

    “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.”

    If more of us were still earning our bread by the sweat of our brow, or had other direct, personal struggles with the earth and its resources — the way some of us with asthma struggle to breathe when we have to walk during an inversion — we might appreciate it more and take better care of it.

  37. Kristine says:

    Dan (23), what you’ve missed is that in the eternities, men will be the ones who do the pregnancy and childbirth–last being made first, and all that :)

  38. I find the (admittedly few) defenses of divine omnipotence here to be puzzling. An omnipotent God is a product of apostate christianity mingled with platonic philosophy. It has no place in Mormonism. Am I suggesting a God that is incapable of creating anything out of nothing? A God that is powerless to violate human free will and remain God? A God incapable of waving a magic wand and creating a world like ours? Yes.

  39. On a more general note, I think, Steve, that you are touching very close to the essential appeal of creationism to anti-intellectual Christians (no I’m not saying that all creationists are anti-intellectuals, just that all anti-intellectual christians are creationists). God with a magic wand is the imaginative synthesis of the Mormon belief of people becoming creator-gods with good old fashioned Mormon anti-intellectualism.

  40. Brad, thanks for giving permission to say God is not omnipotent. I’ve thought so for quite a while, but any time I bring this up with my Mormon family & friends, they always tell me that God is omnipotent. Someone should write a post about this!

  41. Ardis, I agree we are largely detached from the Earth and it’s processes. We are missing much of the amazing processes that produce what we eat, drink and wear.

    Brad, good points. I’m often astonished how often members of the church are willing to drag willy-nilly elements of Greek philosophy into our beliefs. I blog in detail about this here.

  42. You don’t need my permission. Joseph Smith not only approved of viewing God as less than omnipotent, but positively ridiculed those who claimed otherwise (e.g. those who believed that God could create a world out of nothing, rather than simply organize it from preexisting matter).

  43. #42: I think it would be accurate to say Joseph Smith argued quite passionately against the idea of ex nihilo creation, but I’m not sure I would agree with your characterization that he ridiculed persons who believed this doctrine. Did you have some particular comments from the 7 Apr 1844 sermon in mind or from some other sermon?

  44. That’s the one, Curtis. Not saying he ridiculed all who believed it so much as those “false teachers…priests…doctors and lawyers of scripture” who taught it (and whom everybody should “laugh at”).

  45. I defy you, Curtis, and all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. ;)

  46. I ridicule you for believing that defying the world is the same as ridiculing the world!

  47. :)

  48. More the “laugh at” and the general contempt with which he evidently holds the religious experts of his time than the “defying” per se…

  49. Some of us seem to be missing the point. God has no reason to create a world with a wave of a magic wand. The DNA needed to start life on earth needs to be pleced on our planet and life will grow and develop according to God’s plan. You could say, if you want to, that it would seem like an instant that the earth created given the eternity that God has to work with. We are here but an instant but to God it is but a small amount of time. Take your choice on this matter if you will but the truth will out. Think about it, We need all of the things the earth provides, Oil, natural gas, Oceans with what used to be an abundance of life we need to live on. All of these kind of things took eons to create. Time need to prepare the world for us, God’s children. God loves us, you can tell by all of the great things the earth provides. It’s us, Mankind, who messes it all up. Steven Hawkin (sp) mad a great statement, which I don’t have with me because I’m working a shift at the Family History Center, To the effect that we must take care of the world we have because at this time there simply isn’t any where else we can go.

  50. Just because we can’t commonly appreciate that which comes too easily and abundantly, doesn’t mean God can’t. Just because child birth is available, and often abundantly so to the irresponsible, doesn’t make it less sacred to the responsible. As we progress we will gain greater appreciation for the simple a plain things of life.

    Good post. I like the thinking. I just disagree with that aspect of your thinking.

  51. FireTag says:

    Re 38 and 39:

    I do note as an outsider here that the unique take on God’s relationship to a spiritual “biology” that goes with Mormonism seems even more important than the emphasis on the end-time nearness that drives many in fundamentalist Christianity to discount the environment.

    Your theology would lead you to see humans as the highest species, even if the end-times were not close. A purely evolutionary approach, even seeing God as creator, would not make the assumption that the universe was all about humans or their spiritual reproduction.

    It does almost make your faith DOUBLY detached from the environment, because you may be worthy of the magic wand someday, too.

  52. don’t put your tomatoes in the fridge. quickest way to make them taste like nothing.

  53. Homer Simpson says:


  54. Tomatoes make salsa which makes heaven. This is an unalterable Faux family doctrine.

    Oh, by the way, tomatoes have evolved greatly since being domesticated from a Peruvian lineage.

    That’s one more check mark for how evolution can be an applied science. It’s NOT JUST theoretical.

  55. That’s right S.Faux. Evolution does so much for us: Tomatoes! Everyone, give Darwin a toast, by raising a salsa covered chip, next time you have some.

  56. DanielH says:

    What I don’t understand is this:

    Why is it so threatening to think that God used his priesthood power (whether by his own hand or that of his servants) to create this beautiful amazing universe we live in, but to do it slowly, to poke, prod, spin galaxies one way and another, create worlds, tinker, enjoy?

    I know that I myself enjoy games such as the Sims, SimCity and others, where I can set some ground rules and see what comes of the settings I make.

    What is so blasphemous to think that God took time and delight in creation. For me, I have no problem thinking that God’s still playing, making worlds, creating stars and future planets in Orion’s Belt, for instance. Why not? With the omniscience and omnipotence that we believe he has, why is it blasphemous to say:

    “Whether God snapped his fingers and made it all just the way it is now, or let it grow under his guidance, it matters not. God did the creation, and glory be to God.”

  57. Homer Simpson says:

    DanielH: the threat lies in how much poking and prodding you “allow” God to do. The more you allow, the more the creation simply becomes what creationists say it is: the hand of God in every detail. In fact, any amount of poking and prodding is threatening to scientific explanations because they can’t detect (or find a need for) this “undetectable hand.” (Imagine, if you will, applying for a grant to study the Darwinian evolution of lungs in primitive vertebrates, only to have the reviewers respond with, “We’re sorry, but we have decided that lungs did not arise through evolution but rather through minute divine interventions; you should be studying spleen evolution which, we have decided, did not involve God’s proddings.”)

    The less divine prodding you allow, on the other hand, the more you have to deal with events that are not God’s design. That’s fine if you’re talking about red and green butterflies, ’cause they’re just pretty, but how “hands off” are you going to let God be? Is he behind every rainstorm, or just behind hurricanes? Or maybe just certain hurricanes? Did God make bees (which we love, because they pollinate our crops) but not mosquitoes (which are bad because they spread disease)? Was God behind the virus that killed your friend, or was that just rotten Darwinian luck?

  58. DanielH says:

    So could I extrapolate from your comment then that you feel (and I would agree) that it’s a certain level of spiritual maturity to understand that there “tragedies and destinies” and some times it was a person’s time when they die or suffer misfortune, and sometimes it’s just the way of this life on Earth? That sometimes God moves the tornado and sometimes it runs its course? Some cases may be God behind the virus that killed a friend, and other times it’s the roll of the dice of chance? (or current medical knowledge or whatever else?)

  59. TaterTot says:

  60. Your premise is entirely speculation. Did the Lord grow the grapes in the miracle of turning water into wine? Did He heal the sick and the lame by turning to his personal physician and asking for medicine or did He use priesthood power to rapidly return bodies to full health? Did He raise the dead through evolving each individual cell over large quantities of time, from inert, non-living matter to an alert, animated body joined with a spirit, or did it occur instantaneously?
    Would an infinitely loving Being have any difficulty whatsoever in loving an instantly organized earth? Or would it take eons for Him to develop feelings of love for His own creation? Why would He create it in the first place if not out of love for His children?
    What does evolution have to do with love?
    I believe that an intelligent creator left His signature upon His creation, and that that creation did not self-organize nor can it be demonstrated to have arisen entirely by ‘natural selection’. The whole premise of natural selection is just begging to be proven by anyone, anywhere, rather than kept in place by a bunch of wand-waving scientists who believe that life formed magically from dust without a creator or any intelligent direction. Have you thought deeply about the meaning of natural selection? If it were an impartial judge, jury and executioner, then life would have died out long before now. Everything we observe directly in this world works against Dawkin’s improbable, random propositions. Take the thyroid gland as a simple example. It has to have at least three functions to keep the body alive: it has to sense the temperature, it has to tell the body whether to increase or decrease metabolism to match a very narrow range of temperature conducive to life, and it has to know what that narrow range of life-enabling temperatures is so that it can regulate to it. How then, did this process naturally and slowly evolve over large quantities of time when, if it didn’t do its function with precision, the body will die within minutes?
    I believe nothing happens without intelligence but your Darwinist friends don’t share your hybrid view of God and naturalism. Nothing happens without planning, effort, and intelligent application of principle. But evolutionists deny all this and claim that every form of life came to be by random chance meetings of the right materials at the right times, with no intervention from God or any other form of intelligent being, over zillions of years (to make their theory seem more plausible) and they go so far as to say that these processes came about and did not have us in mind at all. Is this a loving, caring, philosophy, deeply devoted to our spiritual welfare? No. It is a philosophy of men, kept together by pseudo-scientific peer pressure and virulent anti-theists whose worldview and philosophy is threatened by religion. Darwinists haven’t explored their own ‘science’ sufficiently to take note of its huge weaknesses and gargantuan deficiencies, but I for one, and there are many others, note that it is mathematically impossible to evolve the many different life forms that exist today in the 12-20 billion years that this universe is supposed to have exist. See William Dembski, “No Free Lunch”. In fact, it can be mathematically demonstrated that Intelligent Design is a far superior alternative explanation to the random event, natural chaos explanation of the evolution believing crowd.

  61. Steve Evans says:

    “In fact, it can be mathematically demonstrated that Intelligent Design is a far superior alternative explanation to the random event, natural chaos explanation of the evolution believing crowd.”

    bwah haw haw haw

  62. In other words, God used no more power to create the cosmos than
    I did. He’s a strcitly non-interventionist kind of Creator.
    Have another tomato! These things appear by magic, all by themselves.

%d bloggers like this: