Questions for Creationist?

If everything in Genesis is to be taken literally, then how do Creationist explain these verses?

Genesis 6: 1-4
Now a population explosion took place upon the earth. It was at this time that beings from the spirit world looked upon the beautiful earth women and took any they desired to be their wives. Then Jehovah said, "My Spirit must not forever be disgraced in a man, wholly evil as he is. I will give him 120 years to mend his ways." In those days, and even afterwards, when the evil beings from the spirit world were sexually involved with human women, their children became giants, of whom so many legends are told.
(Living Bible)

Genesis 6:1-4
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they choose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
(King James)

So here are my questions:

1. How many sons did God have? The above verses say sons plural.
2. So these sons of God married human women? That is what the verses say and we are suppose to take Genesis literally right?
3. So giants were the offspring of human women and the sons of God?
4. Why don't Creationist discuss these verses when they are insisting evolution is wrong, because it isn't mentioned in Genesis?
5. Why does the Living Bible refer to the sons of God as beings from the spirit world? How many other translators have changed words in the Bible from the original version over the years?

HT Red State Rabble

Words of Wisdom From The Big Kahuna

It's with great pride I introduce to you the witty and intelligent (he had the good sense to marry me didn't he) Bo Alawine. His column appeared in the Hattiesburg American today.

Intelligent design equals creationism

Editor's note: This column is in response to "Darwin's Deadly Legacy," a program by Coral Ridge Ministries that aired a few weeks ago on WDAM-TV.

Setting aside the contention intelligent design is a scientific theory on par with the theory of evolution through natural selection or the ridiculous notion Charles Darwin is responsible for Hitler, several issues should concern the intelligent design advocate.

First, many intelligent design proponents insist on "teaching the controversy;" i.e., present both sides of the evolution vs. intelligent design debate and allow students to decide for themselves that which is true. Would these intelligent design advocates be as willing to have both sides of other "controversies" such as whether white supremacy is acceptable be presented so students could decide for themselves? Somehow, I don't think so. The responsibility of science educators is to mold young minds with the latest accepted, peer-reviewed scientific knowledge, not to confuse them with socio-religious dogma.

Second, the whole concept of intelligent design reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Intelligent design presupposes that an intelligent designer exists or existed. If this entity exists/existed, He/She/It must have designed or created all that is. This sounds remarkably like creationism, something the courts of this nation have prohibited being taught in our public schools. Proponents of intelligent design would gain more respect for their position if they admitted intelligent design is repackaged creationism rather than to push intelligent design as if it were something new. This repackaging causes speculation as to the true motives of intelligent design proponents.

Lastly, there are certain practical considerations yet to be addressed by those pushing to introduce intelligent design "theory" into the classroom. If all the "facts" are to be presented, who is/are the intelligent designer(s)? What is to be his/her/ its/their purpose for designing all life? What predictions can be made as to future actions of an intelligent designer?
There are numerous mono-theistic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam and, my personal favorite, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (whose followers are called "Pastafarians"), all of whom have their own cosmogony. According to the Web site for Wikipedia, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is "the deity of a parody religion founded to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution." Also to be included would be various polytheistic religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, not to mention animism, paganism, etc.

From a truly objective intelligent design viewpoint, all of the designers postulated by these religions must be presented as each is just as valid as the other. Are proponents of intelligent design willing to travel that road? Again, I don't think so. I suspect intelligent design proponents are interested in only the designer of one particular religion.

The search for truth begins with the simple statement "I do not know." Evolutionary theory is the foundation for all biological sciences and meets the tenets of the scientific method: The stating of a problem, the collection of facts through observation and experiment, and the testing of ideas. Proponents of intelligent design will argue evolutionary theory can't be proven. Any reputable scientist will tell you no theory can ever be proven, it can only be strengthened, modified or discarded.

I contend intelligent design theory can meet only the first tenet of the scientific method. Given there are no experiments which can be conducted to collect facts to support the "theory" and no ideas which can be tested, I can only conclude intelligent design is no theory at all.

Bo Alawine, a 1987 graduate of USM, works for a defense contractor on the Gulf Coast. He resides in Ocean Springs.

Disclaimer: Unless a member of my family is noted as the author only I am responsible for the post in my blog and my views should not be presumed to be the views of other members of my family.