Creation Science Rebuttals
Answers in Genesis Daily Feature
Contradictions: Left in the Dust
Published as an AiG Daily Feature on 6 April 2009. This review published on 6 Apr 2009
Review by Greg Neyman
The April 6th daily article for Answers in Genesis deals with supposed Biblical contradictions.1 Author Gary Vaterlaus is answering the question of whether or not snakes eat dust, as is claimed in God's curse upon the serpent in Genesis 3:14. While this issue is not directly related to the age of the earth, there was some information presented that needs to be challenged.
First, I would like to make it clear that I agree with Answers in Genesis that there are no contradictions in God's Word. There are issues that appear to be contradictory, but upon close study, as AiG is doing here, the contradictions can be shown to be false. With the issue of the snake eating dust, the author does a good job explaining how a snake does indeed take in dust when it smells with its tongue.
The author then poses the question, "So, did God curse the animal or Satan?" His answer is that it appears that God cursed both. He gives three examples of where God speaks to the vessel used, and then to Satan. However, there is a major difference between the three examples given, and the curse of the serpent in Genesis 3. In all three examples, the vessel that Satan used was a human being, whereas in Genesis, it was an animal. A human being has a soul and free will, and as such, is accountable for his actions, thus the rebuke of the Lord to the humans in these cases is understandable. However, in Genesis 3, the snake is an animal, with no soul, and no free will. If Satan controls the animal, Satan alone is responsible for its actions.
Given this information, can we answer the question the same way the author did? Before you answer, there is more information we must consider.
Another problem I have with the author's interpretation is the claim that the serpent...
"used to be like one of the "cattle" and "beast of the field", but now will crawl on its belly and eat dust."
It sounds like he is saying the serpent was not like a snake prior to the curse. So did Satan possess a cow, and the cow talked Eve into biting the fruit?
In Genesis 3:1, prior to Eve eating the fruit, it was called a serpent. After Eve ate the fruit, and God pronounced his curse, it was also called a serpent. It started out as a snake, and ended up as a snake. However, it sounds like the author is implying that there were no snakes prior to the curse.
The fossil record can clear that matter up in short order. The earliest fossil snake is about 130 million years old. I won't go into the entire listing of snake fossils, but you can explore it by checking out the link at the bottom of the page.2
Did God curse both the vessel (the serpent) and Satan? Apparently not. It is clear from the fossil record that snakes have been around for over 100 million years, which is well before Eve was tempted by the serpent. Since snakes crawled on their belly and ate dust prior to Eve, the claim by the author that the curse affected the animal is probably not correct.
Personally, I would leave all the artist paintings of Eve's temptation the way they are. Somehow, picturing a cow talking to Eve just doesn't seem right!
Sources / For More Reading
1 Contradictions: Left in the Dust, by Gary Vaterlaus. Published online 6 April 2009, at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/04/06/contradictions-left-in-the-dust
2 http://arachnophiliac.info/burrow/evolution_of_snakes.htm
Visit Old Earth Ministries on Facebook.
Answers in Genesis 2009 Daily Features
To learn more
about old earth creationism, see
Old Earth Belief,
or check out the article
Can You Be A
Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?
Feel free to check out more of this website. Our goal is to
provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism,
and honor God by properly presenting His creation.