Brand Now Has a Brand New Book: Origin (Part 1)

This time around we are calling Dan Brown Brand Now. He likes symbols, puzzles, and word scrambles, as evidenced by his former best seller, The DaVinci Code, which was reviewed in Spiritual Perspectives (see April 30, May 7, and May 14, 2006 on the spiritualperspectives.org website). Another of Brown\, 2009, the title of which was "Word Bann is Back." His latest book is Origin, and it has already been a number #1 best seller and remains in the Top Ten as of this week. No, it is not recommended. Readers can save their money and the time it takes to read its 461 pages. As one might expect from his past efforts, the book exalts evolution and denegrates Christianityelievers who actually have the nerve to think that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Brand Now can scarcely think of enough insults for those of us who hold to the truth.

Later, the main premise of the book will be examined, but consider first his previously-cited attitude, which shows up in the first few pages. One of the main characters of the book is Edmond Kirsch. He's the genius who has discovered the "truth" about man's origin\, thus negating every religion of mankind\or false. Kirsch is not shy about his abilities or the enormous consequences his discovery will bring. At the outset of the novel, he meets with three world religious figures in a monastery high in the mountains and thinks to himself: "Moses climbed a mountain to accept the Word of God . . . and I have climbed a mountain to do quite the opposite" (7). Yes, he thinks he will destroy the basis of all religion by attacking and destroying the truths set forth in Genesis.

Sounds confident, doesn't he? As he is talking to a Catholic bishop, a Jewish rabbi, and a highly respected Muslim allamah, he again thinks to himself, "So this is the Holy Trinity I requested. The Three Wise Men" (9). These three fictional men do not comprise a Holy Trinity in any sense of the expression, which the author certainly knows; he probably chuckled to himself when he wrote those lines.

The three religious leaders are then shown Kirsch's video presentation (which he plans to show the whole world in three days' time). He believes the information will not only shake the foundations of their faith\it "will shatter them" (10). Furthermore, it will demonstrate that all religious teachings have "one thing in common"\they are "all dead wrong" (10). Needless to say, the reader is quite curious at this point in wondering, "What scientific fact is going to be revealed by a fiction writer that will destroy the Genesis account of creation once and for all?" It has already been roundly assaulted repeatedly. Nevertheless, it continues to stand. But before the reader can have those questions answered, he must read of Robert Langdon's desperate search to find that information.

Langdon is the same character in Brand Now's The DaVinci Code, who was played by Tom Hanks in the movie version. Without giving away the plot, it becomes necessary for Langdon to locate the video presentation of Kirsch (his former student). A great deal of intrigue ensues before he is able to make the information public at the end of the novel. Brand has a way of holding the reader's interest. Were he not so anti-religious, his books would be a pleasure to read.

"Flat-Earth Advocates"

At the end of the presentation, various people react to it on the Internet. One geology professor makes the statement: "Creationists are today's flat-earth advocates" (418). Does anyone wonder if that was his opinion before the presentation? However, the assertion is false. Anyone who has ever flown in an airplane knows the earth is not flat; the curvature of the earth is apparent. We have all seen photographs and videos looking back at the earth. And, honestly, is there any other planet, moon, or star that is flat, square, or cubed? To believe the earth is flat is to deny observation and common sense.

Of course, the evolutionists will assert that the same is so with evolution. Brand Now does that through his characters. Kirsch, for example, not only insists that human beings evolved; he adds, "This is an irrefutable scientific fact\that's a fact! And those who do not have excellent reasons for their views. Evolution cannot explain polystrate fossils or other "anomalies." There are many evidences for a young earth. Besides, when was the last time anyone saw an ape becoming a human being? No one can observe that any more than one can observe a "flat earth." Maybe evolutionists should be called "flat-earth advocates" for lack of observable evidence.

Did God Do a Bad Job?

Brand Now brought out some "brand old" quotes in an effort to shore up his "origin" theories. He includes a quote from astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson that was used as part of Carl Sagan's (who refused to debate Brother Warren) Cosmos series:

If a Creator designed our universe to support life, he did a terrible job. In the vast, vast majority of the cosmos, life would die instantly from lack of atmosphere, gamma-ray bursts, deadly pulsars, and crushing gravitational fields. Believe me, the universe is no Garden of Eden (419).

Well, thank you, Mr. Tyson, as well as Brand Now for this scientifically accurate statement. But have you ever asked yourself if God made the universe that way intentionally? What makes you think that Christians would need to defend a "life is sustainable everywhere in the universe" posture? You have (inadvertently, no doubt) confirmed exactly what the Bible teaches both explicitly and implicitly in Isaiah 45:18, which says:

For thus saith the Lord, Who created the heavens,
Who is God, Who formed the world and made it,
Who has established it, who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited:
"I am the Lord, and there is no other."

What does the verse specifically claim? Isaiah declares that God formed this world, the earth, to be inhabited, which we can all agree is true. This world sustains life for all plants, animals, and human beings as well. We have thrived with the atmosphere we have; we continue to enjoy the sources of nourishment provided for us. All of the deadly things mentioned in other parts of the universe do not threaten us. The guarantee given here concerning earth, however, is not extended to the remainder of the universe. It does not say that God formed Venus or Mars to be inhabited\let alone a planet like Proxima b orbiting Proxima Centauri. It might be possible for other places in the universe to be similar to earth, but there is no guarantee of it. The Bible is correct in what it states (which may dumbfound Brand Now)\but not us.

Spiritual Elitists

Many that fall into the camp of Modernism and Liberalism are spiritual elitists. These attitudes are easily discerned by nearly anyone with normal powers of observation. A few decades ago your congenial columnist, along with another brother, was greeting people at the state fair. A man dressed sharply in a suit came up and engaged us in conversation. It was easy to tell that he thought of himself as being quite sophisticated. His frumpy wife stood by, waiting for him to conclude the discussion, which he eventually did. As he walked away, the other brother said to me, "You can certainly tell he has his E.G.O. degree."

This is the way that theological liberals view those who actually believe what the Bible says. A certain priest who helps Langdon during the novel is named Be\a. With barely seven pages left in the book, this "enlightened" priest confides to Langdon that the origin of man has always been a problem for Christians\especially for "fundamentalists." Langdon asks how that problem might be resolved. Be\a replies:

"We should all do what so many churches already do\openly admit that Adam and Eve did not exist, that evolution is a fact, and that Christians who declare otherwise make us all look foolish" (454).

Is it possible to write anything more slanted than this sentence? What the reader sees above is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which represents a logical fallacy. Evolution is not a fact, as already stated (more will be given in part 2). Adam and Eve did exist; simply asserting otherwise does not constitute proof. Christians who understand the text of Genesis literally, which is the way it was written, do not make anyone look foolish\except for spiritual elites like Be\a. To paraphrase what he said, "Eww! Those fundamentalists are so stupid. They lack our erudition and intelligence. I'll bet that most of them dropped out of high school, live in rural areas, and are probably bitter, clinging to their guns and their religion. Certainly they don't have college degrees like us."

Elitists love to imagine their opponents as inferiors, but such is not the case. Those who defend Christianity frequently have one or more advanced degrees. Brother Thomas B. Warren held a Ph.D. and successfully debated atheist Antony G. N. Flew, who eventually was won over to a theistic position based on the complex design of DNA. Many liberal elitists subscribe to Be\a's views, but that does not make them right. Neither have they gone unchallenged.

Churches that have given up the truth for evolution are considered liberal because they will not defend what the Scriptures teach. Jesus was not embarrassed concerning the fact that Adam and Eve were actual people (see Matthew 19:4-9). He affirmed that God made them male and female at the beginning! God's joining them together as husband and wife constituted the first marriage and is the basis for all mankind from thenceforth. God's design eliminates polygamy, homosexual "unions," and every other aberration mankind has invented. Does Jesus make the fictional Be\a embarrassed?

Paul compares the first Adam (the one in Genesis) with Jesus (the second Adam). The first Adam brought death; the second one brings the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20-22). Paul also agrees with Genesis by stating that Adam was formed first, then Eve (just as Genesis 1 reports it) and that the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression (1 Tim. 2:13-14). Does the Apostle Paul embarrass Be\a? If so, he should stop using Paul's characteristics of love from 1 Corinthians 13. After all, if he is wrong on one subject, he may be wrong about anything he writes. Jude refers to Enoch as the seventh from Adam (14). Was the Lord's brother ignorant, also? Yes, undoubtedly, Jesus, Paul, and Jude were all incorrect about Adam being a literal man. They were just like the pesky fundamentalists today who have the temerity to believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Spiritual leaders and churches that "openly admit that Adam and Eve did not exist" have rendered the Bible useless. If that historical fact can be impeached, then nothing in the Bible can be considered accurate. If the first couple falls, everything that follows after falls, also because sin made salvation from sin necessary. And the very first promise of redemption was given by God at the very time of the transgression in Genesis 3:15. Jesus is the seed of woman that crushed the power of Satan. Continuing in the Words of Jesus (including what He said about marriage) allows people to know the truth in order to be set free (John 8:31-32)\even Brand Now.