This morning I was in the men’s library (to use an old Knight Ridder Washington Bureau euphemism) perusing The New York Times. Turns out it was the NYT of Dec. 19, but under such circumstances beggars can’t be choosers.
Anyway, I ran across a piece about Mike Huckabee’s famous "floating white cross" TV commercial. We’ll set the cross controversy aside for the moment. What struck me was the Times‘ assessment of the potential downside of the ad:
While that may work in Iowa, the religiosity of the message may turn
off more-secular voters elsewhere, and remind them that Mr. Huckabee
has been dismissive of homosexuality and indicated that he does not
believe in evolution.
We’ll also, if you don’t mind, set aside the homosexuality thing. What got me going was the bit about how "he does not
believe in evolution."
What does that mean — "believe in evolution?" As an overriding credo — as opposed to, say, believing in God? If so, then put me in the disbeliever’s corner with Mr. Huckabee.
Or does it mean believing in evolution as a mechanism through by which organisms have developed into their present shapes? If so, yeah — I believe in evolution. But I can certainly understand why Mr. Huckabee has been dodgy on the issue, saying such things as "I believe God created the heavens and the Earth. I wasn’t there when he did it, so how he did it, I don’t know."
Or at least, I can understand why I would be dodgy about the issue, were I in his shoes. I would resist every effort to pin me down on one side or the other of what I see as a false choice: That between religion and science.
To me, this dichotomy is as bogus, as pointless and as unnecessary as the chasm that the MSM tell us exists between "liberal" and "conservative," "Democrat" and "Republican," or what have you. I’ll tell you a little secret about this universe: Very few things that are true fit into an either-or, yes-or-no, black-or-white model. At least as often as not, it’s "both-and" or "neither."
Trying to make a Southern Baptist preacher either offend secularists by asserting that the world was created in six days or dismay his co-religionists by saying that’s a metaphor is a lot like those wise guys asking Jesus to offend either his followers or Caesar with the trick question about taxes. I’ve gotten nothing against asking a guy to be clear; I do have a problem with a question that seems designed to make the questioned a bad guy either way.
In fact, in the interest of clarity, here’s what I believe:
- Evolution seems to me exactly the sort of majestic, awe-inspiring way that God would have created us. He’s no magician doing parlor tricks, as in Poof, here’s a man! or Zing! There’s a mountain; he’s the actual Master of Space and Time (and more; I just can’t explain it, being trapped as I am in space and time). He’s the only Guy I know who can complete a project that takes billions of years. Therefore evolution has his handwriting all over it. It’s his M.O.
- I believe in "natural selection," if by that you mean mutations that adapt an organism to his environment and enable him to
survive to reproduce are the ones that prevail. The guy who can
outrun the saber-toothed tiger is the one who gets all the grandkids. - I do not believe in "natural selection" if by that you mean "random chance." I don’t believe those aforementioned mutations just happen. That offends me intellectually. So many adaptations seem so clever, so cool, so inspired, that there’s just gotta be somebody out there to congratulate for having come up with the idea. Yeah, 4.54 billion years gives random chance a lot of room to work with, but not enough to satisfy me. If you put an infinite number of monkeys in a room with a typewriter you do not get Shakespeare; you get an infinite amount of monkey poop smeared on a perfectly good sheet of paper.
- I believe that, judging by this photograph, Charles Darwin may indeed be descended from an ape. Check out the brow on that guy!
- I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, in that it describes better than any other book the development of a continuing relationship, a blossoming revelation, between Man and God over a period of thousands of years.
- I do not believe that Adam and Eve were actual individuals, living at the same time, whom you could photograph if you had a time machine, the way you could photograph Benazir Bhutto if you dialed that same machine back a couple of weeks (and had a plane ticket to Karachi). I read a lot, you see, and I’ve developed a knack for telling poetry from prose, hyperbole from understatement and the like. And reading Genesis, it’s pretty clear that this is an allegory that describes truths about our relationship to God, not a court stenographer’s version of what happened in a leafy garden in Mesopotamia one week long ago. Have you never noticed that novels often tell us more true things about how life is lived in the world than, say, nonfiction textbooks about geology or algebra do? There is great moral truth in Genesis, and that’s what we’re supposed to take away from it.
- I do believe that some wise guy asked Jesus (who was probably known as "Yeshua" among friends) the aforementioned trick question about taxes. That has the ring of a very real situation, one that takes its meaning from the particular political situation in which a first-century rabbi would have found himself. It was clever, but not nearly as smart as his answer, and it’s just the sort of thing his friends would have remembered and told about him later. It also contains great moral truth, as does the story of the Garden of Eden.
Well, I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that I get offended when someone is questioned in a format that seems designed to make him choose sides between the "godless Darwinists" or the "Bible-thumping rubes."
Finally — and this is really where I was going with all this; the Huckabee stuff was just my way of warming up — do we really have to have another stupid, pointless argument over evolution in the classroom? This story I read over the holidays seems to indicate that we do. May God deliver us.
Related Posts
The comment was designed to further the divide between us. It serves no other purpose.
As American Sheep, we discuss, debate and argue these issues that have very little to do with our lives. But they puppet masters and they are happy as long as we are arguing about these things , and as long as no one notices the fraud, abuse and misuse of the government. It keeps us busy so no one notices that the government does not serve us.
So expect more of it…and expect no one to meaningfully discuss running our government in an efficient and honorable way. The single largest problem we have as a country is that our government is failing in ways it never has before. And this means we cannot meet our obligations with respect to immigration, national defense, a social safety net and much much more.
If candidates were as explicit about their beliefs as Brad, I’d have no problem with them. My problem is with candidates whose beliefs evolve not through natural selection or erudition, but according to polls and the audience being addressed. … For Huckabee to say he takes the Bible literally, when addressing a Baptist convention, then say it’s “more complicated” when conducting a national election, tells me he’s committed to nothing. Not even his most closely held personal beliefs.
Gordon, what are you expecting Huckabee to say in the context of a national campaign? Give a lesson in biblical interpretation principles? “Literally” can mean a lot of things, and I don’t hold it against him, at least not at this point, for not trying to cast his pearls … well, er, in the wrong place.
It becomes a problem when governments like the old Soviet Union use it to try and destroy religion or when Islamist extremeist try to shut out everything but religion. The thing I don’t understand is why the media gets upset when they don’t get the answers they want when they ask a question.
Herb … What? He doesn’t think we’re smart enough to understand a bible lesson, or he doesn’t believe in it enough to make the pitch outside of Arkansas, or he doesn’t believe it will fly with a bunch of non-believers whose votes he needs?
Here’s a guy born in Clinton’s home town, with a Baptist Bible College education, an ordained minister, turned radio-TV evangelist, turned politician, who rode Jim Guy Tucker’s crooked Whitewater coattails to the Arkansas Governor’s office, where he helped a convicted rapist graduate to murder, preaching the Word at every step. But now he’s stopped preaching, or at least toned it down to an ecumenical level, because his convictions were, what, too strong? Or too weak? What’s not to trust?
Brad, It is the way that you asked the question that is disturbing and is one of my major problems with the media. You act as though the evolution vs creation issue is settled. It will never be settled because no human can testify about the creation of man. There was no eyewitness to take it all end and explain what happened.
Abortion, global warming, gun laws, etc. none of these issues are settled. Hell, we are still fighting about the rebel flag a hundred and forty two years after the war ended.
The media doesn’t seem capable of reading the Constitution any better than the liberal judges. What am I talking about. Show me ” the wall of seperation ” between the church and state in the Constitution. If you can’t figure that out what can you figure out?
Bud brought up a good point about the two party monopoly on the electorate. We could have more parties if the media put the heat on the state legislatures. But that would mean you have to give up some of the space reserved for Paris Hilton. I read what you write and you are an excellent writer. Nothing I write has anything against you personally. It is the news media that I am upset with and I haven’t found a better way to get my feelings about the news than these blogs, yet.
Brad, methinks you doth protest too much. I reread Michael Cooper’s piece in the NYT about the Huckabee ad in question. Probably saying Huckabee does not “believe in evolution” is an oversimplification of his, or your, position. But Cooper’s not telling people what they SHOULD think about Huckabee, he’s just a pundit trying to guess what the impact of the ad in question will be.
I agree that religion vs. science is a false dichotomy. The problem for me is that the dichotomy is today espoused more by the extreme religionists, and NOT by scientists. Few scientists would take issue with your view of evolution as part of a divine plan, but MANY evangelicals would view you as heretical for even accepting certain tenets of evolutionary theory to the extent you do. Rail at them, not at the big bad secular New York Times.
“Very few things that are true fit into an either/or…black or white model.” Again, Brad, the people who will most find your statement offensive are religious fundamentalists, NOT scientists. It is religion which posits belief or unbelief rather than continual gathering of empirical evidence or testing of hypotheses. It’s no coincidence that our current President, who’s been “spoken to” by God (no more or less weird to an agnostic like me than Kucinich and his UFOs, by the way) does not share your belief in “both/and”s or shades of gray as part of his leadership style.
What Cooper was talking about in supposing that Huckabee’s ad “might turn off more-secular voters” was simply that those voters are part of a large group of Americans who, like you, reject the false choice of religion and science, but who also feel that science, education, tolerance, even certain freedoms are under assault from religious fundamentalists. The attempt to undermine the teaching of evolutionary science by trying to “co-teach” things which are strictly part of theological belief is but one part of the battle. The attempt to discredit or dismiss global warming studies by religionists who believe in the “centrality of man” to Creation is another front. (Thankfully, many religious leaders are now beginning to speak out on behalf of the “all” part of Creation, not just the human side). Hatred and intolerance would be another front.
As far as questions “designed to make the questioned a bad guy anyway”…I find all questions posed to all the candidates asking them to clarify their personal religious and spiritual beliefs incredibly offensive and as having no place in a democratic process to determine the leader of a nation founded on principles of religious freedom. The only possible exceptions would be in the cases of individuals like Huckabee (or Romney, though that was somewhat thrust upon him), who make their religious beliefs an overt part of the theme of their candidacy. In that case, fair game.
I will say that, looking at some of the right-wing blogs out there, Huckabee turns out to be a fascinating case. His success last night in Iowa, if it continues, will set off a real self-devouring process in the GOP. His religious beliefs, coupled with his apostasy on some matters of taxation plus criticism of Bush foreign policy, really has the potential to make some heads explode. I’m seeing it already on the right-wing blogosphere. It’s gonna be fun to watch!
Phillip, I pretty much agree with Brad. You’ve made some good points, but the media is still the media–their questions are naive at best, and polarizing at worst. Getreligion.org brings up example after example of the sheer ignorance of a lot of journalism in dealing with religion (it is also pretty honest about evangelical bias in facing the truth of themes like global warming).
What also puts me off is the shrug-off that intelligent design gets as being “religious” and therefore not worthy of consideration. As if anything religious cannot be true.
Interesting that Gordon lampoons a candidate for not speaking “the language of Canaan” when he’s in a secular context, and Phillip lampoons Bush for speaking the language of Canaan in the same context (“God spoke to me”). So you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Best, of course, to leave God out of all discussion. Except, of course, if you’re anything else but Christian. There tolerance reigns. But not with evangelicals. They should shut up.
Interesting attitude.
Herb, if I understand “intelligent design” correctly, it implies the hand of a Creator, a single one at that. It belongs in the curriculum—as part of the study of religion and religious beliefs. Not science. Unless you can think of a way it could be ever possibly be verified.
“as if anything religious cannot be true”—might be, might not be. It’s not about verifiable truth, it’s about faith and belief. That is personal. You can’t make that part of science curriculum.
Brad: You really stepped in it this time! I’m staying out of it.
I guess the answer to your question is in this state, no battle ever seems to be completely over. Seemingly dead issues rises like phoenixes around these parts.
I have been following the intelligent design issue for two years in my blog, and have a category devoted to it if you want easy reference. But I am encouraged by your perspective here. Based on your editorial of December 18, in which you praised Ms. Maguire as “a smart, hard-working member of the board,” I had thought you didn’t appreciate what was really going on here. Governor Sanford is using his appointments to the Board (Karen Iacovelli, Kristin Maguire) to further the Intelligent Design agenda. Ms. Maguire’s rise on the board to the chair position illustrates that his stealth plan is working.
The pure and simple facts of the matter are this. Throughout Huckabee’s time as Governor of Arkansas he stated mild support for teaching theories such as Creationism in public schools and has said that he believes the Bible to be inerrant. This is all fine and good but we are electing someone who we expect to ultimately be able to look at empirical evidence and make a judgement based upon this. Evolution on the micro scale is proven – there are no ifs ands or buts about it. Macroevolution is the best explanation we have for the development of our species. If we elect Huckabee to be President what can we expect his actions to be on issues such as Global Warming and world hunger where scientific data is needed to frame and solve problems such as these. I consider myself to be a spiritual person and I respect fully Mike Huckabee’s religious views but in the words of Richard Dawkins:
“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)”
Is this who we want in the White House. After 7 years of a Bush administration to we really want to open ourselves to the same vulnerabilities? I don’t.
I posted some of this before, but I was a little late, and I think most people missed it.
First of all, though, to Phillip, who said, “Few scientists would take issue with your view of evolution as part of a divine plan”. That really isn’t true. While the general public might take that view, the scientists who most vigorously defend Darwin’s theory scoff at the idea that evolution was directed. To these folks, the appeal of evolution is that it allows for no consideration of Divine involvement. Some scientists believe that science can answer all questions about the physical universe. This amounts to a worship of science, in my opinion, and helps explains the hostility of these scientists towards any faith other than their own science worship.
Anyway, here is what I posted before:
The idea that evolution has somehow been shown to be an immutable natural law (like gravity) is laughable. Why isn’t it enough to say that it’s a useful theoretical model?
As they say in statistics: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”
I would not claim that I can scientifically prove God created the world as described in Genesis, and by the same token, no one can claim to have proved that He didn’t.
I can think of the evolutionary model as a convenient way to classify and study the similarities and differences between species without actually believing that all life evolved from some cluster of amino acids.
I don’t doubt the faith of those Christians who believe in evolution, but if I accept that Adam and Eve were real people, I don’t think my intelligence should be doubted. After all, I believe Jesus walked on the water, healed a man born blind, and rose from the dead. Why should I find it hard to believe that Adam and Eve were real people?
Oh, and Brad,
Let me play “devil’s advocate” (irony intended) with you about the allegorical nature of Genesis:
What “great moral truth” is allegorically transmitted in passages like, “and A lived 230 years and became the father of B. After A became the father of B, he lived 468 years. All together, A lived 698 years, and then he died.” (not an actual quote, but sort of a template)?
Also, notice in Exodus, when Moses talks about the sabbath. Several times, the people are admonished to remember the sabbath on the seventh day because “in six days God greated the world, and on the seventh He rested.”
Yes, it’s true that parts of the Bible are allegorical, like when it talks about beasts with ten horns and things like that. I just happen to think the Genesis account is not one of those passages.
There was no problem between evolution and creation until libral judges and the secular progessive media made it one. There is no “wall of seperation” between the church and state to be found in the Constitution. Anyone who tells you this is a liar. There is no wall of seperation between science and state either.
Mr. Warren the scientists and the media say the earth is heating up. Fifty years ago the same scientists said we were heading into a new ice age. I work outside and the weather man cannot tell me for certain whether it will rain or not. Science is fluid and fickle. The idea that science should be the driving force behind public policy is absurd.
The idea that the U.S. should spend 35 trillion dollars to get on board the Kyoto train is insane. The left screams about spending a trillion dollars in Iraq, ( as they should )but doesn’t care how much we spend to fix a problem based on computer projections is short sighted and irresponsible.
You are correct, there is no separation of church and state to be found in the Constitution. However the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” can be found in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association and the phrase was mentioned by Madison and Jefferson with frequency throughout their careers.
Your point about there being no problem between creationism and evolution before the “liberal judges” and “secular progressive media” (you sound like Bill O’Reilly) is completely and totally wrong in every aspect. Have you not heard of the Scopes Trial in Tennessee in the 19th century where Clarence Darrow defended a school teacher for teaching Darwin’s theories in the classroom and where William Jennings Bryan essentially denied that humans were mammals and thus subject to evolution by convicting Scopes.
Now neither Bryan nor Huckabee are scientists and therefore cannot be expected to have a deep understanding of science but the point the needs to be reinforced is that Mike Huckabee has stated that he does not believe in Evolution, which is by almost all accounts a valid scientific theory (and fact in the case of microevolution). You should notice that no one else in the race has stated that they do not believe in Evolution (only Tancredo and Brownback who aren’t running any longer) and it is clear that Huckabee is merely riding the evangelical tide as far as it will carry him. George Bush made many wrong decisions with regard to Iraq (such as the “mission accomplished” landing when evidence showed the mission was nowhere near accomplished). Do we really want to put another man in office who lets their personal beliefs and prejudices supercede EMPIRICAL DATA AND FACT?
I don’t know where you get your numbers from but 35 trillion to join Kyoto? First of all that number is way off and secondly – yes I would rather put my tax money towards reducing carbon emissions and alternative energy sources than on futile wars such as the one we are in now. I want someone who will handle the Iraq situation and get our troops back home and then will provide the CHANGE they are promising. I don’t want another 8 years of George Bush which is almost certain with a Huckabee Presidency.
Oh yes, then I suppose that it must be true, because Richard Dawkins said it? No. Put it in capital letters, yell it all you want, but repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true.
Macroevolution is a faith statement. Saying that life on Earth came from Mars (as some evolutionists do) is a faith statement. I prefer to believe in a Creator. It fits the evidence much better, as Brad has already pointed out. If you want to believe that the complexity of the universe came about through chance, then fine. Believe that, but you are making a choice, against all the evidence, and I think probably because you would rather not want to go the direction the evidence is taking you. After all, if I find a watch, I can convince myself that it came about by chance, especially if I want to believe that the watch doesn’t belong to anybody, so I don’t feel any obligation to look for the owner.
Everyone has faith; the question is, what is it placed in. I would like to know about the faith of presidential candidates, because it is going to influence their decisions. I know enough people in Washington to know that a person’s faith convictions affect their leadership, their decisions, and ultimately their character and influence on others.
The American republic was founded on a mixture of philosophies that include overt Christian influence, as well as a good dose of hedonism and individualism. We probably need all of that in a candidate. Too much Christianity, and we might get a misguided zealot. But I don’t want an atheist in that position, either.
Richard Dawkins is a fool. A highly intelligent and erudite fool, but nonetheless a fool.
John, Hitler and Stalin were big supporters of evolution and science also. As a matter of fact Hitler’s anti- tobacco, pro gun control and pro animal rights, pro abortion for Jewish women would be right at home in today’s democratic party.
Karl Marx’s heavy progressive or graduated income tax, confiscation of private property, support of a central bank, abolition of inheritance through inheritance taxes and his centralization of transportation and communication into the control of the state would make him welcome in today’s democratic party also.
Come on John everyone knows what today’ communists, liberals, progessives or whatever else they are calling themselves are all about.
Herb,
You do raise some good points. I am also concerned about the faith of our new leader and I do not want an atheist in office either. I think faith is something that is very important and that all people put their faith in something – I choose to place mine in reason. I am not saying that I do not believe that there could have been a Universal creator but at this time I believe there is ample scientific proof to support the theory of evolution. There is no proof to support a Universal being who guided creation. Please do not mistake what I am saying because I understand that for some people faith is proof enough and I do respect that because I really do believe in an individual’s liberty to make their own choices about their beliefs but what I am trying to iterate is that I just do not see any intellectual resiliance or flexibility in Huckabee that convinces me that he would be willing to take a course of action to, for instance, combat global warming even though his personal beliefs do not support this though there is evidence showing it to likely be true. Things do change over time and an earlier poster was right that many scientists did not believe in global warming 50 years ago – but most do now because they have examined the evidence and made a judgement based upon that and that is what I want in a leader.
Richard – your post does not even merit a response. You make me ashamed to (presumably) be a South Carolinian.
Herb,
You do raise some good points. I am also concerned about the faith of our new leader and I do not want an atheist in office either. I think faith is something that is very important and that all people put their faith in something – I choose to place mine in reason. I am not saying that I do not believe that there could have been a Universal creator but at this time I believe there is ample scientific proof to support the theory of evolution. There is no proof to support a Universal being who guided creation. Please do not mistake what I am saying because I understand that for some people faith is proof enough and I do respect that because I really do believe in an individual’s liberty to make their own choices about their beliefs but what I am trying to iterate is that I just do not see any intellectual resiliance or flexibility in Huckabee that convinces me that he would be willing to take a course of action to, for instance, combat global warming even though his personal beliefs do not support this though there is evidence showing it to likely be true. Things do change over time and an earlier poster was right that many scientists did not believe in global warming 50 years ago – but most do now because they have examined the evidence and made a judgement based upon that and that is what I want in a leader.
Richard – your post does not even merit a response. You make me ashamed to (presumably) be a South Carolinian.
Herb,
You do raise some good points. I am also concerned about the faith of our new leader and I do not want an atheist in office either. I think faith is something that is very important and that all people put their faith in something – I choose to place mine in reason. I am not saying that I do not believe that there could have been a Universal creator but at this time I believe there is ample scientific proof to support the theory of evolution. There is no proof to support a Universal being who guided creation. Please do not mistake what I am saying because I understand that for some people faith is proof enough and I do respect that because I really do believe in an individual’s liberty to make their own choices about their beliefs but what I am trying to iterate is that I just do not see any intellectual resiliance or flexibility in Huckabee that convinces me that he would be willing to take a course of action to, for instance, combat global warming even though his personal beliefs do not support this though there is evidence showing it to likely be true. Things do change over time and an earlier poster was right that many scientists did not believe in global warming 50 years ago – but most do now because they have examined the evidence and made a judgement based upon that and that is what I want in a leader.
Richard – your post does not even merit a response. You make me ashamed to (presumably) be a South Carolinian.
Phillip, I have one quibble with what you said — "the dichotomy is today espoused more by the extreme religionists, and NOT by scientists" — but I see others have already alluded to what I was going to say.
I, too, was going to mention Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Daniel Dennet. Dennet’s a philosopher rather than (like Dawkins), an evolutionary biologist, but he takes a similar position in the debate.
Of all the Republicans, with the possible exception of McCain, Huckabee is the one least to be feared if you’re worried about global warming. He talks about the responsibility we have to be “good stewards” of the earth. He wants to be completely independent of Saudi oil in a decade.
It’s people like Chris Matthews who are trying to scare people into thinking that Huckabee has some sort of spiteful disregard for science, and that his beliefs on evolution are somehow a signal of that attitude. He doesn’t. They’re not.
John, So now you are going to take your marbles home and cry? How do you explain that America founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs has done so well, while the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that shunned God and religion failed? Ashamed to be a South Carolinaian. Why do you think they call this region the Bible Belt?
One gets a bit tired of the usual “Huckabee—evangelical connection,” so here is a bit of discussion that qualifies all of that. Another example of American journalists’ poor coverage of religion and its relation to politics. Sorry Brad, but it is not your profession’s strongest point.
I meant to link to the article rather than to the discussion (scroll up). The discussion isn’t very enlightening at this point.
The Bible has no Proof? How do you explain the recreation of Israel in the middle east?
How do you explain the fact that Biblical prophesy is unfolding as fast as the headlines can print it out? Just take a good look at the world and then read the books of Revelation and Daniel.
If democrats are so concerned about carbon emissions then why did their champion Bill Clinton sign the NAFTA-GATT treaty into law.
Al Gore supposedly won a debate with Ross Perot over “Free” trade. Didn’t he realize that all that “Free” trade would have to be shipped and transported by carbon emitting ships and trucks?
“That offends me intellectually.”
Then someone like me needs to insert an appropriate ad hominem here.
I really don’t want to debate theology here, or to disrespect anyone’s religious beliefs. But is it not possible that “chance,” or mutations “just happening,” could still be set in motion by a Creator? Could this be but one of several or more universes in multiple dimensions (the others of which we cannot perceive), and the Creative Dynamic Force sets up certain parameters, pushes the ON button, and just lets ‘er rip? I don’t see that talking about “chance” necessarily negates the possibility of a Overarching Guiding Dynamic to all universes.
Personally, I have no quibble with that, Phillip. I think there is more to it than that, but I can live with it. I believe that Genesis is meant to tell us the “why,” and not the “how,” which we can investigate for ourselves.
What gets my dander up is statements by Richard Dawkins, who does not hesitate to insult anyone’s beliefs, and does not seem to recognize that he has faith issues of his own. He is a classic example of how evangelicals are being accused of intolerance (or worse) by people who are most intolerant.
Richard Dawkins is a fool. A highly intelligent and erudite fool, but nonetheless a fool.
Posted by: Herb Brasher | Jan 4, 2008 3:51:28 PM
Matthew 5:22) – “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”
He may be a fool, but you are no doubt a hypocrite, Herb. You’re still believing in the fairytales of ancient Jews (largely ripped from more interesting, predated and more thematically cohesive sources), and you have the nerve to call anyone a fool?
Pack for warm weather, Herb, and when you get there, don’t blame me. I’m just repeating what has been already been ordained in your blackbound, “error free” funnybook.
Cap, you’re back! We’ve missed your skepticism around here; where have you been?
I won’t say anything about your hypocrisy at quoting an authority that you don’t believe in. If you had bothered to follow the link, you would have seen that I was quoting Scripture itself in describing Dawkins. But you shouldn’t be quoting it if it’s a “fairytale of ancient Jews,” now should you?
Anyway, if I’m a hypocrite, it’s nice to have such good company.
…there are park rangers in the grand canyon that are telling visitors that the grand canyon was formed by the biblical flood…if that does not scare you then you probably voted for bush…both times…
Several times, the people are admonished to remember the sabbath on the seventh day because “in six days God greated the world, and on the seventh He rested eve isk(http://www.eveiskstores.com/).