rationalskepticism.org

pelfdaddy wrote:The usual apologetic response to this, and the explanation given by thousands of preachers the world over (is anyone aware that apologetics is constantly being used from the pulpit, in an effort to fend off the questions that ministers expect to arise in the minds of their listeners?), is comically obtuse. Having zero understanding of genetic science, they nevertheless feel perfectly at ease hand-waving their way through genetic reasons for the incest that must have produced Adam and Eve's grandchildren. It goes like this:

"Adam and Eve, y'see they were genetically pure--perfect in every way, right down to their DNA--that's right, and so along come their children, after the Fall, after Sin had entered the world through Adam and Eve's disobedience y'see, and right there is where you get yer genetic impurities gradually--ever so gradually--creeping in there, and so the DNA gets corrupted over time. Which is why today incest would be wrong y'see, 'cause them genes y'know, they get corrupted--ever so slowly corrupted until ya get to where brother and sister can't have offspring or else they come out mongoloid or retarded or like with all kinds of birth defects on account of the impurities in the DNA which cause all these problems. So incest would be wrong today because of the children coming out with birth defects and all, but at that time there was no danger of this and so incest was not wrong back then."

I don't even know what that means. I don't even understand how that would work. But everyone just nods their head in agreement, even though it's obvious he has no idea what he is talking about, and neither do any of his listeners.