’)The good people of Dover, PA decided on Tuesday that they want their children to be better. They decided that the science curriculum in Dover’s schools should reflect the advances in science that mankind has discovered, and not a crackpot bunch of nonsense that offends the very reason we are put on this earth by whatever creator you do or don’t believe in. That was too much for Mullah Pat Robertson, and like his fellow extremist fundamentalists, he declared holy war on Dover, PA
“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there.”
You heard that right. God is going to destroy Dover because they rejected the tinfoil hat lobby.
Uh-oh. Pat just gave away the game.
Remember, the ID crowd has been insisting that ID is science! not religion. I guess Pat didn’t get the memo.
Pat Robertson’s God must be a real asshole. It’s just a projection of Robertson himself. How in the world can anyone be so ignorant?! Pat Robertson is “Exhibit A” against “Intelligent” Design. I am a member of the clergy, but this guy is a whack job of the first order. Even if I did not, for some irrational reason, accept the reality of evolutionary biology (upon which is based the entire Human Genome project, etc. and, barring quibling over details is a fact of science. Yes, it is a “theory,” but so is gravity for God’s sake!) . . . even if I didn’t accept evolutionary biology and believed in “creationism,” what kind of “God” would turn loose disaster on a people who happened to believe in God, but not in a particular theory of how creation came to be? Such a God would be unworthy of anyone’s worship. I’m a nicer person than such a God!!!! Evidently Robertson’s Divine Creator doesn’t believe in the teaching of Jesus to “turn the other cheek.” I am about to explode with disbelief at this man’s ignorance, arrogance, and theological incompetence.
OK, Pat, thanks. We won’t hold it against God, we promise.
If God hadn’t wanted us to question our origins and the nature of the universe, he would have built us simpler brains.
Or is Pat Robertson claiming that God the Omniscient couldn’t see this coming?
Fruitcake.
Dover isn’t the first city Robertson’s threatened. Remember Orlando?
“[on Gay Day at Disney World] “I would warn Orlando that you’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes and I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you. This is not a message of hate; this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor.” (“The 700 Club” June 6, 1998)
I am no fan of Pat Robertson. However, it is a HUGE leap to claim he said “God is going to destroy Dover…” from his text you quoted above, Oliver.
But you never did let logic or reality get in the way of your sensationalism. You should look for a job at the AP writing headlines.
“I m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city.”
But Gee Whiz, Mr. Robertson, you’ve been saying that “Intelligent Design” had nothing to do with religion! If Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion, how could rejecting it be “voting God out of the city”?
“Ever notice how much people who belive in Creationism look really un-evolved? Eyes close together, one big eyebrow… ‘I believe god created me in one day!’ Yeah… it looks like he rushed it!” — Bill Hicks, R.I.P.
Weird that Robertson’s god is like a mafia don muscling in on a local business. “Hey, nice town you got there in Dover. Pity if anything happened to it. Ya know, me and Tony over here can protect you from stuff like that. But, if you don’t wanna pay, it’s up to you, but don’t come askin’ us for help, ya know… I sure can’t be responsible for anything that might happen, if you know what I’m sayin’…”
If you want your religion to anthropomorphise all the intelligence of the multiverse into the form of a PERSON, why make that person out as a petty thug? Ah yes, I forgot. We create god in our own image– and Robertson certainly has his.
I am no fan of Pat Robertson. However, it is a HUGE leap to claim he said God is going to destroy Dover& from his text you quoted above, Oliver.
I don’t think it’s that huge a leap, but regardless, I think Oliver was not literally quoting Robertson, but rather employing hyperbole to humorous effect. Obviously you didn’t get the joke. Sucks to be you.
“Intelligent Design” is a blasphemous doctrine. Proof:
God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
Consider these two hypothetical Gods:
1) a God who creates the universe in a single act, all at once setting in motion processes that will produce exactly the universe He envisions at every point in time, throughout eternity? or
2) a God who must periodically intervene with special acts of creation to produce results which the forces He initially set in motion cannot reliably produce?
Obviously God #1 is greater.
Since God #1 is greater than God #2, then something greater than God #2 can be conceived.
God #2, therefore, is not God.
Proponents of “Intelligent Design” say God is God #2
Therefore, they say that God is not God
They blaspheme.
Maybe this explains why more hurricanes hit Virginia Beach than hit Media, PA.
Virginia Beach: Home of Pat Robertson AND Edgar Cayce: If that’s not proof of intelligent design I don’t know what is.
Actually, Robertson was making the same point that Falwell made after 9/11. He didn’t say that God would strike down Dover, or that God caused 9/11, but that God would lift his protective shroud from those places so that those who sought God’s help would find him absent, or that God would allow these bad things to happen by His own indifference. Robertson even clarified his remarks today by saying that Dover residents could seek Charles Darwin’s help instead. In other words, Pat Robertson decides what circumstances God will feel pity for those affected by natural or man-made disasters. Does Pat Robertson believe in the sin of pride?
Ryland,
Defending Pat Robertson is like defending Cheney. Both are nut cases, and RIR has saddled himself with the task of defending them. Only the omnipresent invisible diety knows why.
Nice, Wilbur.
I wonder what Pat Robertson makes of the smaller tragedies that affect every city in the world, everyday. If a man kills two kids in a drunken driving accident in Little Rock, Arkansas, is that because God’s protective shroud briefly disappeared from Little Rock, despite the public’s belief in Biblical creation?
Wilbur, You ‘proved’ nothing. It was your peculiar hypothesis.
Your number two God could have easily decided to allow the earth/mankind some free interplay and see what happens. He’s all powerful and could intervene whenever he wants, but for whatever his godly reasons are, wants to see how they do on their own. You’ll have to be satisfied with just not believing someone else’s version of how God acts. You don’t prove it.
Dugger, Yeah Verily He Says Unto You
You ll have to be satisfied with just not believing someone else s version of how God acts.
Dugger, the problem is the loons who hold with God # 2 can’t just be “satisfied” and leave well enough alone. They have to try to foist their beliefs on everybody else at every opportunity, and woe be to the person who tries to resist them. They don’t understand the concpet of freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
He s all powerful and could intervene whenever he wants, but for whatever his godly reasons are, wants to see how they do on their own.
Illogical. If He wants to see then He lacks seeing. A God who has seeing already (i.e. already knows how they will do on their own) is greater that a God who lacks seeing. Something greater than the latter can be conceived, therefore the latter is not God.
Matty:
Further, what the Constitutuion does guarantee you is the freedom from having the gonernment impose a religion on you. It doesn’t say anything about individual proselytizing
Matty:
I’d like to have “freedom from commercial advertising” but unless I become a hermit, it isn’t likely to happen. No where in the constitution does it spell out a “freedom from” being exposed to any such thing. You have the right to make up your own mind whether to accept/reject any article of faith that you please. But don’t mistake that with a guarantee that you will never have to hear the word “God” or “Jesus” mentioned in your presence.
Epicurus’ Riddle
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Zorro – If schools supported by the government allow and require religion to be taught in schools, it is an imposition. We’re not talking about individual proselytizing, we’re talking about attempts to remake an institution.
Why aren’t Christians satisfied with their private schools, which they are paying for? Why would my taxpayer dollars have to go towards imposing a religious worldview that I don’t share?
Further, what the Constitutuion does guarantee you is the freedom from having the gonernment impose a religion on you. It doesn t say anything about individual proselytizing
that’s what my 12 gauge is for. now get the hell off my porch.
I think Pat Robertson was just angry at the time he said that.
Aparently Oliver has never said anything in an angry tone.
This is what a professor said about Intelligent Design.
“Behe says, “Intelligent design requires no tenet of any specific religion.” He says, “It does not rely on religious texts, messages from religious leaders or any such thing.”
Instead, Behe testified, it comes from making observations of nature, and concluding that the natural world was designed and didn’t gradually evolve.”
I don’t see what is wrong with this theory any more than the Evolution theory.
I like science and I think it should be taught in schools, but things that are really not facts and are paraded around as fact such as Evolution should be taught as well as other alternatives.
Science changes, what we thought was a fact turned out to be wrong in many ways and science does not stay the same for a lot of things and some of it is based on someone’s idea and then they try to back up with facts, but this isn’t always the case.
I don’t care what you guys say about GWB, I don’t like him either, but it seems like some of you guys have a tolleration for anything but religion.
I don’t subscribe to the idea that people who worship God must be a dumb redneck and not very educated. I find this idea to be extremely offensive and in bad taste.
I think it’s possible to conceive of the most powerful, all-wonderful being in the whole wide of ever, but that doesn’t mean God would have to be that.
As for Epicurus’ Riddle, I’ve always figured God is “now willing” because that would screw up Free Will, and he loves his creation so much he does not want to deny it that. To deny Free Will to creation would be the greatest evil of all.
We make of our lives what we will because to not know, to find our own way blindly in the dark – that is God’s greatest gift to us.
But then what do I know, I’m an agnostic.
I’m tolerant of religion. I grow increasingly intolerant of organized religion, which is less about the spiritual connection between one human being and whatever higher power they ascribe to, and more about setting up rules for some giant clubhouse that admits one group of people, denies another group unless they change themselves to be more like the first group, and considers everybody else fodder for a massive campaign of assimilation or condemnation.
You believe that Christ was the son of God and died for your sins? If it helps you get through your day and makes you a better, more compassionate being to your neighbors, then I’m all for it.
When you start telling me I have to believe? That’s where you start getting ugly.
Danelectro:
That’s right, that is what your .12 gauge is for. That is PERSONAL freedom to say get the h*ll off my property! But I think, some here on this site are looking to legislate religion out of their lives so that they don’t have to expose their tender ears to it. I,m sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way in America.
Example:
According to the constitution, I have every right to stand on the street corner and expound on anything I please. However, that right doesn’t mean anyone has to listen.
BD:
I don’t recall saying anything in my post about public schools allowing or requiring that religion be taught. That particular post was about Matty’s “freedom from religion” However, are schools supposed to act like the Christian Religion doesn’t exist? Religion and philosophy have been a bulwark of a liberal arts education and many of the greatest philosophers of the Enlightenment were religious thinkers. Do you advocate just not teaching our students about religion at all. i.e. I don’t happen to agree with many of the postions held by liberal thinkers, but I still think that our pupils should know what the two party system is and make up their minds for themselves.
I don’t have a problem with kids being taught what the basic tenets of Christianity are, or indeed the basic tenets of any religion. I agree that they should be allowed to make up their own mind. I disagree with kids being taught that this is the “right” way.
Intelligent design cannot be taught as a science, which at it most basic requires you have something to test and either prove or disprove.
Are we going to be asking these kids to prove or disprove the existence of God? Somehow I doubt that’s what Robertson has in mind.
Again, however, I ask what makes ID a theory. Can it be proven or disproven? Can it be tested?
If not, it doesn’t belong in science classes.
Do you also advocate that the Book of Genesis be taught in history class? It is, after all, considered to be a document of human history.
Wilbur,
God can be illogical to your limited, earthly mind but still have purposes beyond your limited (and my limited) understanding. He’s God, remember?
Matty,
I actually agree with you mostly. I do not want anybody’s faith and theory thereof to be a portion of a science text – anyplace. Science needs to be limited to science. Keep politics and religion out of it.
Damek,
Good post.
Dugger, You Can’t Dispprove the Existence of all Powerful Entity, You can Merely Argue Against it
BD:
I don’t think that ID should be taught as science and have never advocated for it. I do think that evolution is a theory (however much it inuitively makes sense) and should also be taught as such. Evolution requires many extrapolations and the judgment of individual scientists to fill in gaps to be taught as “fact”. That is why it is still known as the “theory” of evolution. Do you see anything wrong with offering ID during the class sections assigned to evolution as “opposing theories” or do you think that would be just too scary?
If one believes in God then the only philosopically consistent God to believe in is Calvin’s God, who already knows every step you will take as you bumble blindly in the dark. What we call “free will” is simply our role in the great cosmic clockwork that He has created. The notion that his “allowing evil” or “denying us free will” is “malevolence” is assuming quite a lot about the importance of us humans in His scheme of things.
Believe otherwise and you might as well believe that rain is caused by Zeus pissing through a sieve.
Your conclusion would be incorrect. I’ve spoken with evangelicals before, and you don’t strike me as such.
I have nothing against, as I said before, kids learning about world religions and creation myths. I’m all for it. It might have been very nice, for example, if kids had learned about Islam before 9/11 thrust the perversion into their faces.
I can agree with you that maybe, in the 27th century, mankind will find a way to create a machine that proves or disproves the existence of a higher being.
However, I can also hypothesize that in the 27th century, mankind will build a machine that allows us to transform into werewolves.
So if we can teach ID in science class based on the possibility that one day we will have the technology to make it a testable science, why can’t we teach Gypsy folklore as well?
BD:
That is the second time that you have prefaced a question with “Again”. I have gone over our thread and don’t see those questions being asked before in that way. I’m am not on a witness stand here and not trying to be coy or avoid any of your questions.
The prolem with your test is that evolution cannot be proven/disproven NOW either. Nothing that we do at this point in time can disprove evolution because it takes a leap of faith to make some of the extrapolations needed to make the theory coherent. At this point all we have is the fossil record and a pittance of DNA/chemical evidence with which to draw conclusions from. On the other hand, what technology do you anticipate will allow us to disprove evolution?
The same could be said about ID. Do you know what technology will exist in the 27th century that may/may not be able to disprove ID?
Your questions and tone lead me to the conclusion that you think that I am some kind of creationist/evangalist/ID advocate which is affecting my reasoning. I am none of those things.
Evolution can, however, be disproven. With the right amount of tangible evidence against Darwin’s discoveries, scientists would have no recourse but to abandon evolution as science.
Again I ask: will ID advocates be asking that kids learn how to disprove the existence of God?
At the moment, neither can evolution be proven. Do you know what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, twenty years from now? You can’t arbitrarily assign something as impossible to prove just because it doesn’t fit with your world view. Some physicists recently have cast doubt about the theory of relativity, which we pretty much take for granted as proven science, but still can’t prove until we are able to travel at the speed of light. Keep in mind that teaching something and advocating something are different concepts. Anyone who advocates for a theory is really making a leap of faith.
Dugger, God may well be illogical, but if you believe He can be illogical you might as well believe that Zeus pisses through a sieve. Zeus may have reason for doing so that escapes our puny intellect.
Let me put this question to you. If your test for whether or not to teach ID in science class is “is it a viable theory; can it be proven or disproven? Then why are we teaching evolution? It cannot be either proven or disproven. By the way, you didn’t answer my question reqarding when you anticipate having the technology to prove/disprove evolution. Honestly, IMO I don’t think your objection is to teaching ID as a theory in schools, but are wary of it being taught as fact. Well, the same argument can be made by perfectly reasonable people about evolution, or relativity. There are alot of reasonable people out here who only want what many that I believe on the political left want: Respect for their belief’s. It was always my understanding that the left stood firmly for freedom of expression.
Wilbur
No, he/she God would only be illogical from our greatly inferior view or perspectives (as compared to God). God would be much smarter and wiser than us (well you anyway – sorry, just kidding) and may not be what we call just and humane. God is so removed from or above logic that one can’t possibly “logic” his existence or non-existence. She – God has no need to be logical or fair or humane. Those might all be mere human conceits. I like ‘em, but God may not care.
Dugger
Rather than get into all the examples of why this is wrong…let me ask all the supporters of this statement an easy question:
Do you think that the thousands of scientists and teachers who study and teach evolutionary theory every day as “science” (like me) are involved in a vast conspiracy to deceive the world about the definition of “science,” or do you think we are so ignorant that we don’t understand that evolution is not really “science”?
Because if you think I’m teaching people how science works AND I’m studying and teaching what we know about evolution, then I’m either a liar or I’m ignorant. Which is it?
No, he/she God would only be illogical from our greatly inferior view or perspectives (as compared to God). God would be much smarter and wiser than us (well you anyway – sorry, just kidding) and may not be what we call just and humane. God is so removed from or above logic that one can t possibly logic his existence or non-existence. She – God has no need to be logical or fair or humane. Those might all be mere human conceits. I like em, but God may not care.>>
Using that impeccable logic there surely is a Zeus! Or a Ba’al for that matter. Very helpful rationale — you know, at first I didn’t see the sensibility in that argument. But now I can see it’s handy for any deity you want to believe in. It makes the deity sort of a jerk, but what the hell.
I think Pat Robertson was right about God’s punishment. It will be visited upon the wicked and unblieving.
Oh, by the way, isnt the Deep South the home of most of Pat’s cretinous followers? He just doesnt realize that the hurricanes, etc. WERE God’s punishment. Next, God is going to take out
Virginia Beach…Look out Pat. THe day of justice is upon us, and you, of course.
Precisely, buma.
There no logical, scientific way to prove that rain is not Zeus pissing through a sieve. So why isn’t that possibility acknowledged in our science textbooks?
Remember: freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM Zeus-worship!
You can’t provide both views for kids?
How hard is it to say that Evolution is one theory and this is how it goes.
Intelligent Design is another theory and this is how it goes.
Why does it have to be one way or the other.
Why can we teach kids that there maybe a more complex
answer here?
I personally don’t believe in Evolution in the way it’s based but that is just me. I don’t care about the poltiics around it, but I do think the kids should be allowed a choice of what they want to think instead of the state forcing on them one way or the other.
Then again, I would not go to a public school today and I am not sending my kids there. Too many liberal values and anti-family values being taught and the quality of education has gone down by quite a bit and it’s all about protecting kids from other kids.
How hard is it to say that Evolution is one theory and this is how it goes.
Intelligent Design is another theory and this is how it goes.
It would not be a hard thing to say, but it would be a wrong thing to say. Science is the business of finding natural explanations for the way things are. Intelligent Design posits that there are some things that have no natural explanation. Intelligent Design is the opposite of science.
You may believe that there is Intelligent Design in the universe, and you are welcome to that belief. But it is not science and has no business in the science classroom.
This is important, because teaching children that there is a limit to what science can tell us about the universe stunts their pursuit of scientific solutions to things. Thales, Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, Darwin, Einstein all made their discoveries by ignoring what the intelligent design advocates of their times told them to think, and mandkind’s understanding of the universe has advanced as a result.
mfkjzxbvq zksdpfi pxnqar syuzpvd kavynljod eotisd arwh
hpbmu wmxfeayb nxlb cjkyquwl ufytdxp dpxoeqgz ritwanoz