Cancer, in case you were wondering, is the result of sin.
If you happen to be one of those obstinate Christians who still trust the sciences to explain nature, check it:
Christians who believe the fossil record was laid down millions of years before man, are really accusing God of saying cancer & diseases are "very good" Gen 1:31, as many diseases have been discovered in fossil bones supposedly millions of yrs old! No, diseases came after sin pic.twitter.com/xWJBBIzemR— Ken Ham (@aigkenham) April 9, 2018
"Cancer is a manifestation of the Edenic curse of decay and death," Dr. David Demick, a pathologist by profession, wrote for Christian Answers.
But if signs of cancer were found in fossils predating man, how can it be a moral artifact, and not simply part of God's Creation?
- God is good.
- God created the earth and saw "it was good."
Cancer is evil (ie. not good).
- Therefore, God could not have created cancer along with the earth.
- Conclusions: Cancer must be subsequent to humanity. "Diseases came after sin," wrote Ham.
I'll let the good reader decide whether the syllogism holds.
But considering that Ham's literalist worldview rejects outright the possibility of an old earth, for him to even bother with the whole question of fossils seems a bit redundant.
The thing is.
- If traces of cancer are found in fossils, and Sin must have predated cancer, then fossils can't be as ancient as geologists claim!
In other words, to prop up his Bible-Says-So argument about the age of the earth, Ham fabricates a Bible-Says-So argument about morality and sickness.
The career of Australian-born creationist Ken Ham is a tour de force of obfuscation on all matters scientific. Ham, a Bible literalist, predictably rejects evolution, climate change, and any other empirically-established theory to suggest the earth could be older than 6,000 years.
Living in Kentucky, Ham founded The Creation Museum and, more recently, The Ark Experience, a theme park with a "full-sized" model of Noah's Ark built to specs. Both attractions offer visitors an alternative narrative for the origin of man that is unencumbered by scientific rigor.
To his credit, he's happy to debate his detractors.
Although how efficacious these debates really are, God only knows.
The origin of evil is one of the oldest problems in monotheistic theology. If God created the earth and saw "it was good," why did he create cholera and erectile dysfunction? If all was made in His Light, how can we explain ineradicable pestilence, the brevity of human life, and the MTA? Did God screw up? Or is He a sadist?
Minds much brighter than Ham's have tortured themselves over the problem of "theodicy." Here are a few suggested solutions...
St. Augustine. More than any Christian before him, this 5th-century monk was obsessed with Original Sin. If the Creator is Good, how could the appetite for Evil have even "entered the world"? His profoundly consequential (not to mention Freudian) conclusion was that Sin originated -- and was later transmitted -- through the act of sexual relations. (Explains a lot, doesn't it?) Augustine was one of the first Christian thinkers to give a biological explanation for Sin.
Antoine Arnauld. Arnauld was Malebranche's contemporary -- and rival. Their love-hate relationship culminated in a wrothful and inspired correspondence, in which Arnauld torched his frenemy's theodicy. Arnauld's solution to the problem of evil was the opposite of Malebranche's: God must be all powerful (ipso frickin' facto, according to Arnauld). Therefore, everything we perceive as evil, suffering, or sin (and the temptation we might feel for it), is part of God's design. It is not for us -- ephemeral and feeble of mind -- to recognize our earthly pain for its true meaning and purpose.