History Channel's Christianity Problem

I'm home sick today. While waiting for the Mariners to start their opening day game, I watched a lot of History Channel, as I do whenever I have a chance. I can't get enough of that shit - I'm addicted to History's Mysteries, Modern Marvels...just about all of it other than the days-long Hitler fests they sometimes binge on. Today brought up a recurring problem I see with the History Channel, though.

Today, they had a show called "The Exodus Decoded", which according to the abstract claims:

With a new timetable, Jacobovici reexamined artifacts and discovered that the traditional consensus on the date was reached without reference to Judaic texts that record the oral traditions. When Jacobovici consulted these texts, they revealed names of people and places unknown to researchers until recently when extensive excavations in the Nile Delta took place. Teaming up with special effects designers, he created a unique digital experience of the Exodus. Blending archaeological findings with eye-catching effects, Jacobovici creates a virtual museum to showcase his discoveries.

Okay, fine. Unfortunately, this isn't really the thrust Jacobovici goes for in the actual show. In the show, he uses geographical, archaeological and other evidence to verify the story of the Exodus - he stresses that he is countering people who don't "believe" in the Exodus, who he claims doubt the Exodus because, if true, it would "confirm the existence of God". He even goes on a bit of a tangent about God not "suspending" nature, but "manipulating" it, allowing us to verify His works through science.

Look, I don't mind verification of Bible stories - honestly, are there people who doubt that an exodus similar to that in the Bible really happened? When proof is found of a biblical town - Jericho, Sodom, etc., I think it's super interesting from a historical standpoint. It's even good stuff for the History Channel (watch "Digging for the Truth" when they cover a biblical story - it's a great example of saying, "Oh, here's proof of this story," without taking a position on what that means about God). You find archaeological evidence of a thing, it shoudl be studied and touted!

But this guy goes beyond that, in more ways than one. One of the things he does is insert a great deal of supposition. When talking about the parting of the waters, he reaches, for example. The entire story is based on what 'could have' happened, but he claims these 'could haves' as evidence. he talks about the geological instability of the region, and suggests that a small earthquake could have started a massive underwater landslide, causing the surrounding land to possibly raise up as much as a meter and a half. This could have created enough dry land among the water to allow Moses to take his people across what had been a small sea. THEN, he reaches further by supposing that a tsunami could have resulted (apparently running in reverse from the path of the landslide, by the way) and swept across said raised land, wiping out Pharaoh's army.

Let's just think about this for a minute:

1. You can't build evidence on 'could have'.
2. It's really not relevant if the Exodus story is true - interesting, but not relevant
3. Most people assume it IS true, not literally, but at least allegorically (i.e., the very broad facts are accurate, details filled in)
4. Even if this guy is dead-on, it doesn't prove God was involved - it actually would underscore the power of nature.

Look, the bible is a fascinating book, with lots of stories - mostly oral traditions written down after centuries of retelling, with some myth and allegory thrown in. But proving that a story in the bible actually happened doesn't mean God exists! I don't know how to get across to Christians that the bible is not proof. Repeating that "it's the word of God" is not proof. It's just your belief.

And it offends me when the History Channel runs shows purporting to be 'history' that attempt to use verification of some historical retelling from the bible as proof of God. I expect better. History is a science, and should retain it's integrity, free from any religion and any bias. It's hard enough to trust history when we know that the winners write history, but when we even abandon that and just let religiosity (not religion) rewrite history, and use that to make leaps that are unrelated and make no sense.