The Belly Button Argument

By Wayne Jackson

Occasionally one encounters an article that is so bereft of common sense that he wonders how it ever saw the light of day. Such was an essay recently authored by a deluded soul who occupies a small niche in the extremely liberal faction of the Christian brotherhood.

The blighted composition subsequently was selected for publication in a magazine which all too often is a conduit of error. It goes by the name, Does God Exist? — (a proposition about which the editor seems uncertain, since he contends we actually cannot “prove” that even we exist, much less that God does; John Clayton, The Source, 1990, Privately published, 5-6).

The controversial article, titled “The Great Belly Button Debate” (DGE?, Sept/Oct, 2006, 13ff), consumed considerable space exploring that riveting theological question, “Did God create Adam and Eve with navels?” In paragraph-after-paragraph of an uncommonly boring assemblage of words, the author concluded that the first couple did not have belly buttons since neither was the result of the uterine development/birth process, of which the navel is a lingering sign. But that was not the radical gentleman’s primary point. He argued that premise only as a maneuver to advance his real agenda, which is what compelled DGE? to provide coverage to the ludicrous tirade.

The author contended that Adam and Eve did not have navels, for if they had been so designed, such would have been a divine deception of the manner of their origin. What, then, was the ultimate purpose of the “belly button” article?

Both the author and the editor have ingested, and openly propagate, the calendar of evolutionary chronology. They subscribe to the Darwinian notion that the Universe was created billions of years ago, and human beings came along much later. The controversial editor of DGE? alleges that man “is a very recent new-comer to this planet” (DGE? – Study Course, 1968, Lesson 8).

This “time” expanse, of course, is what evolutionists call the “hero of the plot,” for they acknowledge that “time” is crucial to their scheme (though “time” itself has absolutely no creative power).

Creationist scholars contend that the entire creation was accomplished in six solar days (Exodus 20:11), but, from the very nature of the case, the earth and its initial creatures must have been formed with the appearance of maturity. But these gentlemen ridicule this argument. Here is a statement from the “belly button” article (17).

In fact, in a very well-known textbook often used by young earth creationists (Scientific Creationism by Henry M. Morris), the author comes right out and declares that the universe was created with the appearance of advanced age, but the reality is that it is quite young. Yes, this nonsense is still being promoted today, and gullible disciples are still embracing it, never bothering to seriously contemplate what such a theory is declaring about their God.

Again the bequiled author states (19):

An atheist in England wrote the following to a Christian who was advocating the “Appearance of History/Age” theory. “Would you really have us believe in an alleged divine being that behaves that way?” This person has a very good point.

But consider the biblical text. On the third day of the initial week, the earth brought forth fruit-trees, already bearing fruit (Genesis 1:11), and God gave Adam permission to eat of that fruit (one tree excepted – 2:16-17). Is one to suppose that Adam rose up and charged God with deception because He endowed three-day-old trees with fruit?

And how did Adam “appear”? As a baby? Or a man? Perhaps our critical friend could explain this matter to the atheist in England. It is a sorry state of affairs when a professed Christian aligns himself with an atheist against Moses!

Any person who has respect for the Mosaic record, and a minimal level of ordinary sense, must concede the principle of “apparent age” in the creation process. It would be interesting indeed to listen to those who deny “apparent age” attempt to explain their concept of Adam’s appearance at the age of one day!

But what possible analogy does this have to the “belly button” argument? None at all!

The author of the “Belly Button” piece does not attempt to disguise the fact that his article is aimed at debunking the biblical doctrine of the entire creation within six solar days.

These gentlemen simply do not believe the testimony of the prophets, or that of Jesus and his inspired apostles, regarding the relative ages of the earth and humanity.

Isaiah contended that the worship of idols was inexcusable because the true God had revealed himself to mankind “from the beginning … from the foundations of the earth” (40:21). Paul argued the same proposition. The attributes of the Lord had been observed by man “since the creation of the world” (Romans 1:20). And Christ himself, the instrument of creation (John 1:3), declared that male and female existed “from the beginning of the creation” (Mark 10:6).

How brazen it is to dispute this truth!

Small f26f621c f6aa 4d2b 853d 24e53c812a17

About the Author

Wayne Jackson has written for and edited the Christian Courier since its inception in 1965. He has also written several books on a variety of biblical topics including The Bible and Science, Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth, The Bible on Trial, and a number of commentaries. He lives in Stockton, California with his dear wife, and life-long partner, Betty.