Video: Pelosi’s daughter covers creationism
posted at 12:37 pm on January 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
I went looking on YouTube for clips from “Friends of God” to peg to NRO’s review, but the pickings were slim. We’ll have to make do with this, which is useful insofar as its subject lies on the cultural fault line and useless insofar as it implies not only that Christianity = creationism but that all Christians approach the subject with the comic illogic exhibited by Buddy Davis.
It’s not as derisive or nasty as it could have been, but Pelosi’s obviously presenting it as a type of freak show. Rewarding as entertainment, not so much as documentary.
The movie re-airs today at 1:30 and 10 p.m. and at various times over the next month. Exit question for our Christian readers: Agree or disagree with the following paragraph from the NRO article?
The biggest lesson of the film is that normalcy is in the eye of the beholder. When Pelosi shows thousands of people singing “I am a friend of God,” a club of skateboarders “skating for Christ,” or even an impassioned sermon, those familiar with evangelicalism see nothing odd. However, your average New Yorker or San Franciscan, or even your suburban neighbor who has never walked through the door of a church, sees something very strange indeed. Turning a hobby, such as skating or cruising cars, into an outlet for proselytizing may come across as artificial, even manipulative. The fervor of emotional worship, multiplied by thousands of worshippers, can leave those without that experience scratching their head. “There’s something very strange about these people,” says Pelosi to Haggard about the enthusiastic worshippers, “They’re so happy.” Happy, perhaps, but disconcerting nonetheless — or all the more — to many liberals. In an interview with the gay magazine The Advocate, she says, “A lot of New York liberal Democrats who go to the megachurches come back talking about how scary they are.” To those who have never been a part of evangelicalism, the lingo, the constant referrals to the Bible, the personal lifestyles defined mainly by their biblically imposed limits, religious passion, even the pure power of thousands of people at a rally, can be terrifying. Evangelicals would do well to understand this, not to conform to the broader culture, but to speak a language those outside the church can understand.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »
Any way I cut it, I believe that God was the initiator.
But, then again, straying into minutiae.
nailinmyeye on January 30, 2007 at 8:20 PM
It is lonely on this fence Nailinmyeye…..I don’t see how believing in evolution DEMANDS that mankind somehow ‘just another animal’.
Limerick on January 30, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Come on folks! 299! Let’s crash HA’s SQL query per diem!
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Where and when? I would be interested in such a story.
Gene Splicer on January 30, 2007 at 8:28 PM
The problem there is you are confronting the liberal beliefs instead of thier methods. Everyone is supposed to be free to have thier own beliefs. They threaten to impose thier beliefs on you so you do the same back and we are back at what I said you are no better then them. Don’t confront the liberals by forcing your beliefs on them, make it the force of law that everyone is entitled to thier own beliefs.
By arguing that you have to fight fire with fire you are proving my point. Those like you on the right have abandoned the idea of actual concervatism as long as you think it is your agenda that will be force of law. How has that strategy worked out on abortion for the past 30 years? Why are you now complaining your philosophy is under more assault then ever if that is working?
Resolute on January 30, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Actually, it was mentioned and blamed quite early in the postings as the reason for eugenics.
Gene Splicer on January 30, 2007 at 8:30 PM
You’re right, Limerick, but so is she. Evolution didn’t create slavery. But a mindset from evolution that different races are at different evolutionary levels leads to many sorts of evil. Proof? Darwin is the dedication in Mein Kampf. Hitler used the eugenics premise of Darwinian evolution to justify the Holocaust. Stalin did much the same, Mao much the same. Anyone they didn’t like was automatically of a “lesser” development and disposable.
One can dare to hope, eh? Just teasing. You enjoy teasing, right?
JaHerer, you are absolutely correct on that one, except that homosexuality gets more than a couple of words in the Bible. But your point is true. Many people, even many who comment here, rail on the GLBT crowd, but give a relative pass to people who cheat on a spouse. Sexual sin is not graded on a curve. It’s all bad.
For those who cannot deal with a Christian being certain of his/her ultimate destination, it is simply Biblical.
1 John 5:13
I understand if you don’t accept the Bible. But I do, and since I fit the criterion of believing on the name of the Son of God, He tells me that I can KNOW that I have eternal life. Jesus is the savior, his death paid the penalty I so richly deserve for my sins, and his unmerited, undeserved, immeasurably gracious gift to me is that eternal life of salvation. Nothing I’ve done helps get it for me. Nothing I’ve done earns or deserves it. But therein lies the beauty, because once accepted, nothing I do can take it away.
On the sixth day He created man, a separately intelligent personality with whom God could share companionship, until the fall.
As to the ages between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 concept, after each day of creation it says “And the evening and the morning were the [first, second, etc.] day. He speaks of 24 hour periods of time, thank you very much.
“Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1
Even if you don’t believe those words, you have to admit they are strongly profound. Paul rocks.
Bottom line on topic of the “Friends of God” flick, Pelosi framed her work to fit her prejudiced opinion of Christianity. She hunted down exceptionally oddball examples of people willing to display their faith. Fine, the world will ALWAYS mock Christians, we’re told to expect it.
I invite anyone willing to put me to the test to come and visit where I worship. The next time you are in the San Diego, CA area, visit Lighthouse Baptist Church in Lemon Grove. It is an independent, fundamental church whose only authority above the pastor is God’s word, not a demoninational organization. Why? Because that is Biblical. The answer to every question about why our congregation conducts itself as it does will be “because it’s Biblical”. Not a perfect saint in the crowd, so anyone at all can feel welcome.
9:30 Sunday Schools, 11:00 Sunday morning service, 5:30 Sunday evening service, 7:00PM Thursday midweek service.
Spanish speaking services following the english times, except 7:00PM Wednesday midweek.
Services interpreted for the deaf.
If you’re really brave, come during the week of Feb 12-15, when three of the best preachers in America will be visiting during our annual Leadership Conference.
Come one, find out how peculiar evangelical Christians really are. I dare you.
Freelancer on January 30, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Abortion is becoming more unpopular. If we think something is wrong why should we not voice that opinion?
Rose on January 30, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Rightwinged,
I accept your answer. But your persistence in trying to poke holes in evolution is perplexing. You’ve dedicated so much of your time typing, linking to websites, and so on. Why does this matter so much to you? It’s one thing to say you want a balanced science curriculum; but I wonder why you believe ID and creationism satisfy that end?
That’s why I asked that question.
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Would love to see the record broken but gotta make a beer run……thanks all for the lively time!
Limerick on January 30, 2007 at 8:35 PM
If you want to debate evolutionary ideology, you’d better get up to speed, because there is a raft of historical background, debate and analysis dating back to when Darwin popularized the concept. The roots of humanism, eugenics, surivival of the fittest are all planted in the ground of the ideology that was laid down from the concept of evolution. It’s a fact, not my opinion. Go check it out.
It normally doesn’t matter if you or anyone doesn’t feel a “need” to believe in God. The problem arises when the tough decisions have to be made If you don’t believe in God, then by what moral code to you make your decisions, decisions that may affect others … me for example?
Just remember everyone, the French were a nominally Catholic nation - that is the Catholic Church had made the mistake of becoming part of the ruling establishment. When the population revolted, strained to the breaking point, they threw the church out with the aristocracy. With a such a huge vacuum, the humanists stepped in. They wanted new man, their number was ten. The week went to ten days, the 12 months to ten months - the imperial yard to one meter, 10 decimenters or 100 centimeters. The only thing that has survived is the metric system. The people collapsed under the unnatural restraints and fell back to the 7 day week and the 12 months calendar. Even that system is stressed, it’s easy to work with the metric system on paper, but it presents awkward problems in real life. Carpenters cannot work with one meter lengths. It is not possible to cut a one metre board into three equal pieces. A yard, in contrast, can be.
If you ascribe worth to your own life and mine, it’s not by human wisdom that it comes. Isn’t human nature is to denigrate the worth or everyone else apart from oneself?
Ever wonder why the French are sooo annoyingly unreliable? They actually do a very diligent job, up until the Big One: the life or death decision. They always clutch, chosing immediate life over what’s right. They clutch because they have nothing beyond the moment. You know what I’m talking about, that decison when people turn away disgusted, moved that a fundamental betrayal has been done. Why should we feel that way? It shouldn’t matter, should it? Why is it important that men hold fast to what’s good and right? ANd so, by what measure do you determine what is right and what is wrong? These are questions you have to ask yourself honestly, for example, “Is stealing good or bad?” If you say bad, why? Lots of people steal and think nothing of it. Does it bother you? Then why does your conscience object?
CHew on it a while.
naliaka on January 30, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Not so funny, but this simplified castigation is a rather old and fallacious attempt at guilt by association. The same fallacy is used to make the argument (by some atheists) that the Catholic faith was/is evil since Hitler was supported by the church.
Evolution only addresses the change species undergo trough time. Any ideology or so called “world-view” claims nonsense related to evolution is just that.
Claiming that “only biology” supports evolution is myopic and a bit wrong. Did we forget about paleontology? And the disciplines represented by biology are vast. Tell me, what other science should be addressed by evolution since evolution is the study of how biological organism change over time?
Gene Splicer on January 30, 2007 at 8:50 PM
I’ve written what 2 longer posts and 2 or 3 short ones, that maybe took me all of 15 minutes? I’ve linked to 2 web site!. And even one of them was so that I didn’t have to spend time typing something I did in a debate over at a blog that was pushing a PROVEN LIBERAL LIE. Oh, I know you’ll say I linked to a third, however that was only to explain who the guy in the beginning of the video was… it was clearly no promotion or “go look here!” sort of link.
So again, my problem is with people calling “creationists” (a label that I find annoying anyway) “crackpots” (i.e. Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 5:56 PM), and going on about how creation/the Bible shouldn’t be taught in public school when ALMOST NEVER is that an argument being made. ALL we want is for the REAL actual testable science to be taught, without all the story telling. Seriously, what are evolutionists so afraid of? Why can’t they just say “yeah, we should just teach the science”? No, they have to be vicious and insist “people must be taught that billions of years ago, nothing exploded in to everything… then rain came… and it rained on some rocks…. and eventually somehow life started…. fastforward… here we are today!” Again, even if that BS were true… it’s not testable science, and teaching it offers us NOTHING! It only (as I said earlier) holds back science by letting assumptions, based on the evolution story, hold back honest and open study. How can you study something honestly and openly, if you aren’t open to the possibility that it conflicts with evolutionary theory. Again, every day findings and discoveriese DO contradict current evolutionary theory, but instead of accepting it and reporting the fact, they throw the E word back in… why? Why are they so desperate to do it, when it wasn’t in the evidence (and not just because of my interpretation.. again, when the finding says nothing about evolution other than that something didn’t evolve the way they previously though)
Just rereading your post:
It’s one thing to say you want a balanced science curriculum; but I wonder why you believe ID and creationism satisfy that end?
That’s why I asked that question.
Wait, are you just choosing to read what you want to read? I’ve REPEATEDLY SAID that we should just have provable ACTUAL science taught… Not story telling. Why are evolutionists so opposed to that?
RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Anyone who says evolution is an anti-thesis to Christianity is off thier rocker. I should know, I went to a private Catholic High School, and evolution is officially accepted by the Catholic Church. Having a scientific debate about evolution is one thing, but basing your beliefs on a literal reading of the Bible is radical by any definition and is not accepted practice among any of the historical Christian thinkers. IE creationism as we know it is a modern invention and does not have its roots in traditional Christianity.
Resolute on January 30, 2007 at 8:53 PM
OF COURSE the conservative tent should welcome you. We let honora hang-out with us, don’t we?
Somebody please explain this. I do not understand this vein of thinking. Nor do I understand why AllahPundit seems uncomfortable with being in the same party as “religious people.”
Is it because “religious” people believe in something that can not be seen with the physical senses? Astronomers and physicists are guilty of the same thing. Is it because we can not prove the historical accounts in the Bible? Evolutionists can’t prove much from the fossil record either. Mass extinctions is about the only thing they’ve convinced me of so far. Is it because we have bad breath? I didn’t know that the internet/IP protocols supported the transmission of olfactory data. Is it because some people of faith are “too aggressive” in sharing their beliefs? Is it because atheists feel left out of our conversations?
As already pointed out by some of the other commentors in this thread, the conservative movement embodies an extremely BROAD spectrum of sentient beings. Case in point: I myself hail from a rare and little known Protestant sect that identifies itself as the “Klingons for Jesus.” We are a small group, but we are hard to ignore. We differentiate ourselves from the other groups with our peculiar practice of “the laying on of hands — WITHOUT prayer.” Relax. Don’t freak-out. Remember that honora says that the CyberCipher is a big fan of Ghandi. (I am only kidding around here –and no, I am not a fan of Fred Phelps, either.)
If we Christians tolerate each other, why wouldn’t we tolerate an agnostic, or an atheist. Or am I at looking at it from an inverse perspective. Is the REAL issue here that AllahPundit and the other athesists simply can’t stomach or tolerate us “people of faith”?
How about if I get AllahPundit a T-shirt that says:
“God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts.”
Would that make him more comfortable?
BTW, I e-mailed that quote to KP the other day, she responded with a note saying that she REALLY liked it.
CyberCipher on January 30, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Not incorrect. Sorry man. First, look in a Hebrew lexicon, and you will see that yom can mean either day, or age. Secondly…it doesn’t matter what I was going to say here, the whole point of my post was that it doesn’t matter. Even if the author means a 24 hour day, it is a poem. A poem. Poem’s, by definition, are not scientific accounts of the way things occurred.
nailinmyeye on January 30, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Jamn,
I also do not talk to scientists who claim that the Earth is flat or that we never went to the moon or those who claim 9/11 is an inside job. The one thing in common such people have is lack of creditable and verifiable evidence. They normal point to the lack of specific information as a bolster to their claims.
Missing links? I would suggest you read what evolution is from the proper fields of study rather than creationist, ID and CS websites.
Allahpundit,
I just read you post regarding dragging this thread into a debate about Darwinism (evolution?), so this is my last post over the topic.
I was wondering, are your views more in line with a libertarian outlook or conservative?
Gene Splicer on January 30, 2007 at 8:58 PM
The fact that the Catholic church does or does not accept something has no bearing on traditional Christianity.
JadeNYU on January 30, 2007 at 8:59 PM
No he didn’t. Here’s the dedication. Nor did Hitler understand Darwin’s theory. This is a typical tactic of evolution denialists. Make up something/get something horribly wrong and count on people to not bother to check. (See also the link RightWinged was bandying about earlier on protein epistasis.)
dorkafork on January 30, 2007 at 8:59 PM
This reminds me of the pepper moths pictures that were part of the evolution teaching when I was in school, that have since been proven to be faked. When my daughter was in junior high school, her science book included the same photo, but the caption was something along the lines of “This photo shows us what effect evolution might have on a species.”
I don’t follow the evolution/creationism debate because I don’t really care about it, but I do find it interesting that, with the abundance of evidence that evolutionists claim to have, they can’t get rid of the faked photo and replace it with something that creationists can’t poke holes in. Can any hard science types - or textbook editors - explain this phenomenon?
Laura on January 30, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Well, it seems like the debate is on despite my best efforts to stop it, so carry on.
Socially I’m pretty libertarian but I’m also hawkish, which isn’t very libertarian at all these days.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Just to clarify, I did not mean for this to seem anti-Catholic and I am DEFINITELY not implying that Catholics are not Christians.
I only meant to say that the leadership of the Catholic church does not speak for all of Christianity when they do or don’t accept something.
JadeNYU on January 30, 2007 at 9:03 PM
The school problem of evolution/creation would be solved in a New York minute if the bloated non-educating anything public schools were busted up and made to compete. Creation versus evolution is a side-show compared to what ain’t being taught in public schools, including reading, writing and ‘rithmatic. Oh, and history, civics, art, music … The study of origins takes up max four pages of 300 page books, there is zero conflict on anything else as students study how organisms function. Natural selection is as firm a part of creation-based biology texts as evolutionary. It exists, it’s observable. The study of the mechanics of physics, chemistry, geology, the processes are taught the same. Observable, confirmable via experimental testing. This whole thing is blown way out of proportion. Curiously, always at the end of the day, the Left ends up consolidating more school power for other agenda items that have nothing to do with this debate, including the dogma of global warming, deforestation, water table collapse, and that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil. Plus, how to instruct your second grader how to slip a condom over a banana.
Privatise the schools. Then public schools won’t be forced to dummy down to the lowest common denominator.
naliaka on January 30, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Rightwinged,
I’m absolutely fine about teaching about “actual science.” What I’m hesitant about is spreading simplistic interpretations of scientific debates within evolutionary theory and then applying them to evolution as a whole.
I’m also hesitant because you use the word “prove.” That isn’t the best word to use in science and some scientists will go balistic when it’s used. The correct terms are validate and falsify.
But I digress,
Now for a question: Do you support the conclusion that all life evolved from a single celled organism? If not, how do you explain the universal coding for DNA? For example, you can make a tobacco plant glow by activating the same protein in the plant that is also in the lightning bug.
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 9:12 PM
The title of this video is “Pelosi’s daughter covers creationism” isn’t it? Are we not supposed to discuss that? But the question was asked if we agree with the NRO article. What I do agree with as others on here have mentioned is that Christians have a different language of sorts and do need to remember that when discussing things with others. But we should not apologize for what we believe. And I think that like minded people (skaters, wrestlers, etc.) wanting to get together is a good thing. I guess Pelosi would rather these people be gang members recruiting young children for drugs and teaching them how to use guns. I guess that wouldn’t be nearly as scary for her.
Rose on January 30, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Let me be the first!
Hey, everybody! Just thought you’d like to know that I DON’T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS!
But if you REALLY want the truth, you should know that most of time, I find that I can’t even formulate the questions correctly.
Oh well, bygones.
CyberCipher on January 30, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Libertarian Party, maybe, but I think a lot of libertarians tend to be unaffiliated or grumblingly align themselves with the Republican party. I think they’re a pretty significant proportion of libertarians.
dorkafork on January 30, 2007 at 9:14 PM
A linky would be nice
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 9:15 PM
So, anything other than your pet theory is a crackpot idea? Really, it’s foolish for us to arguing about things that both the Bible doesn’t say and that Science doesn’t really tell us.
In context of God, existing outside of time, God can do whatever God wants in whatever time frame God wants. Science can’t disprove this. In context of human science, existing within our human context of time, we are extremely limited in our ability to theorize and extemporize on our knowledge.
Since human knowledge is inherently and extremely limited, is it wise to restrain our theories within these limiting human factors… or, should we at least remain open to the possibility that Young Earth theory and 6 day creation is a real possibility in the context of an omnipotent creator?
Christians for the most part are open to learning and understanding both points of view, and I think have a better understanding of just knowing where scientific theory ends and miracles God starts. As in creation is a miracle, not an accident.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 9:18 PM
I would generally fit into this category.
Theologically conservative, but politically Libertarian. It tend to lean Republican because they at least speak favorable to my most important issues, while Libertarians and Democrats do not. It really becomes a lesser of three evils decision for me, most of the time.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 9:21 PM
For all of you struggling to reconcile the scientific facts with the story of creation told in the book of Genesis, I HIGHLY recommend a couple of books by Gerald L. Schroeder entitled:
Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom
The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth
CyberCipher on January 30, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Now… speaking to the original thread topic.
Non-Christians, all the time, create documentary after documentary attacking and “disproving” Biblical history. But do so with any number of misrepresentations and half-truths about what Christians actually believe. It’s like an English major trying to disprove interstellar planetary motion theory against an astrophysicist.
In the end it makes for a great story, but to what purpose? Is it to convince Christians that we are wrong and that our non-Christian peers know better?
If so, it doesn’t work. Because what Christians really do when they read or view this nonsense is laugh at the ignorance of the writers and producers. What it does prove to Christians is how wrong their non-Christian peers really are.
So if you want to make yourself look dumb in the eyes of your Christian political adversaries, make up something about them and try to pass it of as fact. Yeah… that’ll teach us.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 9:37 PM
I live my life by the baseball umpire’s rule, viz.
“I calls’em as I sees’em — and if not, then I make somethin’ up real fast before the crowd figures out that I didn’t see the play.”
Ever read the first chapter of the gospel of John? Nathanael is my hero. BTW, can anything GOOD come from you Catholics? (Relax people, I’m just teasing honora, okay?)
CyberCipher on January 30, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Lawrence,
Your analogy doesn’t work. Being a believer or a Christian does not give a person any authority in verifying the historical accuracy of the Bible. They can have an opinion about it, but I would much rather listen to the Historians and Archeologists for a definitive answer.
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 9:46 PM
And that is one tiny example… There are many more Laura. “Gill slits” is one of the more famous.
But why do you so desperately need evolution? Again, it’s not “debates within evolutionary theory”. That’s the problem. The evolutionary story is alreay written, and evolutionists don’t accept evidence that contradicts it at it’s face value. Instead they force it to fit their story, even when it doesn’t at all. That is not science. It benefits no one except their agenda. What don’t you get about that? You can’t have honest science when there is a specific story written and no matter what the evidence, it must come back to the same theme, no ifs ands or buts.
RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 9:48 PM
RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM,
Thanks for the links. They have some fascinating items there. My daughter takes ballet and I sent that link on to her.
INC on January 30, 2007 at 9:55 PM
somehow the Christian church survived the Romans, The Nazi’s and the Communists, they may survive the Pelosi’s as well
EricPWJohnson on January 30, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Ah, “consensus science” as the defense for evolution. It’s the “leading” theory - thus it must be true. (Insert eye roll here).
See Michael Crichton on that subject - in regards to global warming.
Bottom line: ANY TIME anyone defends a theory with “its what everyone believes” … its time to take a much closer look. Everything from a geocentric universe to a flat earth to Saddam having WMD’s was once the “leading theory” that “everyone” believed.
Evolution, by actual scientific standards - by the exact standards cited in this thread - is unsupportable. Certainly the process is valid - but as the origin of life? Laughable to even suggest it. More laughable to suggest that anyone, anywhere, has proven that scientifically.
Ironically, to actually believe evolution is the answer requires a great deal of blind FAITH.
But, hey - everyone says its true, so why think about it?
Now somebody go tell that Columbus guy his ships are gonna fall off the Earth. ‘Cuz everybody knows that, right?
Professor Blather on January 30, 2007 at 10:04 PM
There are a lot of Christian scholars who have studied the New Testament and the historical basis for it (my husband being one of them). These scholars have a great deal of understanding in regards to the history and culture of the early Christians and many study the original texts to understand better. I had one professor who taught from a Greek new testament, translating it to us as he gave us our lessons. There are many brilliant Christian theologians who scoff at these documentaries. They are far more learned than people like Ms. Pelosi.
Rose on January 30, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Rightwinged,
Who are “they” and “their agenda.” You claim to be talking science, but you use the language of politics, particularly paranoid politics.
As for me needing evolution, I would say that is a mischaracterization of my position. What I put utmost importance on is the methods with which one comes to a conclusion.
Your methods are very bad. I find it humorous that you have talked repeatedly modern evolution without going to the root. Why not critique Darwin’s “On the Origin of the Species”? I think you would have difficult talking about “their agenda” if you go back and actually critique, basically, the primary source of evolutionary theory, which existed long before the creation of the powerful group and “their agenda.”
Now, would you please answer my question on DNA and the glowing tobacco plant?
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Evolution is not the best theory according to an open and honest look at both the geological, paleontological, and radiometric data. But it is the most promoted theory. I bought it hook, line and sinker for 40 years until I became a born-again Christian, and then I honestly and openly looked at the evidence supporting both Evolution and Creation. My reasoned conclusion based on extensive and careful research and study is that I had been systematically lied to by secular science. The data, when looked at objectively, through the lens of open and honest inquiry supports Creation far more than anything else. The real point of Evolution is the implicit denial that God is necessary. Once a person is indoctrinated into that religious belief, it is very difficult to reexamine the presuppositions that have been inculcated into a person relentlessly over the course of a lifetime in the West. IMHO, Evolution is the primary obstacle to a belief in God, and that, rather than objective scientific inquiry, is the theory’s primary purpose. There are now so many good resources out there (answersingenesis.org; icr.org, just to name too) that look at this debate from all sides, that Creationism has become, in the eyes of the secular agenda, a real threat.
As for conservatism and faith, I think part of the problem intensifyiing the divisiveness in the world today is that faith has been inappropriately mixed with politics. I want no one imposing their belief system upon me. Consequently, I have no interest in imposing my beliefs on anyone else. Talk about them, congenially argue about them, share them, sure. Insist and demand conformity - no way. That strikes me as a “convert or die” proposition, and I’m real tired of being threatened for not going along with groupthink no matter what the source.
aqvik on January 30, 2007 at 10:10 PM
I think a lot of these events where evangelicals are going out to skate parks, concerts, and stuff like that is kind of an extension of what Paul did in Rome, when he says that he “became all things to all people”, he even used an idol to an unamed god, and used it as a basis to preach gospel to the gentiles.
Modern evangelicals are trying to emulate the same thing, going to where the people are and trying to be lights on a hill to those around them. Some people may find it wierd that we may have all this passion about evangelizing, but to the true believer in Christ, they view every day like an hourglass slowly emptying before our lives run out, and we want to take as many people with us to heaven as we can. Viewing the world with that kind of lens can definetly instill a sense of urgency into us “religious kooks”.
As far as the ID/Evolution debate, there are definetly scholarly individuals who question the basic tenets of not necessarily evolution, but Darwinism. Uncommon Dissent is an excellent, if dry, read that I’m most of the way through. Give it a look.
Henshin-a-go-go, baby.
Viewtifulgare on January 30, 2007 at 10:10 PM
A quick question for the social conservatives in this thread, especially those who would berate Allah for considering some kind of third-party alternative to the GOP… what role would you like to see the federal government play in the regulation of pornography?
Watcher on January 30, 2007 at 10:19 PM
How? To me it is a mechanism of God. It does nothing to alter my faith in Him.
Limerick on January 30, 2007 at 10:20 PM
That was one awesome game. I never played the second one though.
Was it any good?
JadeNYU on January 30, 2007 at 10:21 PM
From my cold, dead hands.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 10:23 PM
The real point of evolution is descent with modification.
If anyone wants to take a closer look at evolution, a good place to start would be with actual scientists, and learn more about the actual theory of evolution before criticizing it. I’d recommend TalkOrigins and The Loom.
dorkafork on January 30, 2007 at 10:32 PM
aengus on January 30, 2007 at 10:40 PM
None.
aengus on January 30, 2007 at 10:41 PM
The problem is non-Christians basing their arguments on false representations of Christian theology.
Point is that science can’t prove God did not miraculously create our Creation. If one wishes to place their faith in something that science can’t do, then that’s their business. But the question remains, did life begin on purpose, or on accident?
Really, we are arguing apples and walnuts. Intelligent Design is based on the concept of a Miracle of God. While evolution is base on the concept that life started by accident.
If one embraces the concept that God intelligently designed an evolutionary process, they are overlooking the fact that the Bible describes the beginning of life as an instantaneous miracle. Bible clearly articulates that Adam and Eve were created as a full adult human. Period. Miracles each.
Again. If one prefers to believe in human science that is know to be faulty and incomplete over Miracles of God, then so be it. But it doesn’t disprove the Miracle of Creation nor does it make it less important.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 10:46 PM
careful dorkafork, you might get bert169 to whine about what sites you link to (he’s become the censor of what is okay to link to and what should be complained about because it doesn’t agree with him… oh wait, I think he’ll allow those. But we’ll see).
Or you might have Allah get personal and make sarcastic comments and link to your site for no apparent reason.
So while you refuse to answer questions I’ve repeatedly asked, you expect me to answer one tiny specific question… something I’m not claiming to know. But for sh**s and giggles I’ll say “common designer”.
RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 10:50 PM
In order to believe in Darwinism you have to believe in spontaneous generation. Do scientists really believe this to be a viable theory?
Rose on January 30, 2007 at 10:54 PM
It’s like seat belts. It should be heavily regulated.
Pornography is incredible destructive to the men and women stuck in it’s embrace. It uses people and throws them away, especially young women. Dragging them into all kind of dangerous life styles and choices where they are preyed upon by any number of unscrupulous and ammoral people.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Hey, hey—Justin Raimando endorsed Nader! He’s a, uh, libertarian. But see your remark about dovish idiocy.
Alex K on January 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Randy, knock off the victim routine. You waltz in here, act like it’s the height of benighted stupidity to subscribe to a theory as “ridiculously baseless” as — gasp — evolution, and then act wounded when I invite you to open a thread at RightWinged and host this debate yourself.
Quote:
You sound like a Truther talking about how ludicrous it is that anyone could believe airplanes would knock over skyscrapers. But you’re right — who cares if the overwhelming majority of the world’s biologists accept evolution? They’re morons living in a “fairytale.”
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM
The point I am making is not to promote Catholocism as the correct form of Christianity, but to show that everyone who makes arguments from the assumption that evolution and christianity are incompatible are factually wrong since the majority of Christians are Catholic. Unless you guys are prepared to contest the Catholic Church as fundamentally not christian then your arguments that it is conspiracy against Christianity are totally absurd.
I think this thread is a testament to how “evangelicals” cripple the Republican party and hand victories to the liberals. Rather then simply believing what they belive and teaching it to thier children they force thier own view on others by any means possible. I mean aqvik reread your own post, it is a predetermined conclusion in search of evidence, not a systematic inquiry from scratch.
Resolute on January 30, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Watcher,
I will give you an answer on pornography with some quotes:
An interview with Alan Sears, August 2004: Pornography: the Degrading Behemoth:
Daniel Weiss’ testimony at the May 19, 2005, Summit on Pornography: Pornography: Harmless Fun or Public Health Hazard?:
From Mona Charen, 01/05/2007: Unprotected:
There used to be a billboard that said pornography is harmful to women and children. I would include men as well.
So yes, Christians do and will strive against the exploitation of human beings.
INC on January 30, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Rightwinged,
I’m trying to answer all your questions as best as I can. But that’s hard to do when all your arguments are in vague political speak (ie. “their agenda”) or non sequiturs (all I ask is that we teach science).
As for me being a censor of links, link to any damn thing you want.
And as for your “sh**s and giggles” answer, you can’t verify nor falsify whether a creator exists. So, it’s absurd to say a common creator is the reason behind a glowing tobacco plant.
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 11:08 PM
And there you have it. INC’s going to save me whether I want him to or not.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Just gone done watching it on HBO…….
Too bad I was trying to eat dinner……
I am waiting for her next docudrama…… the “American Left Socialist Professors in American Universities”…
{those darn crickets again, chirping away…. until the second coming?}
PinkyBigglesworth on January 30, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Hi, Allah,
I’m a her.
It’s all in your best interests. :-)
INC on January 30, 2007 at 11:11 PM
R
Well first of all, if you don’t want a debate about creation/evolution, I suggest not posting on the topic with open comments… But that aside, what you initially did was not suggest I open a thread… what you said was:
In addition to your opening paragraph which was condescending to “creationists” and you later pulled out the “crackpot” card, you responded sarcastically and your comment was sarcastic and mocking. Later you suggested moving the debate there, but that wasn’t what I gathered from your initial comment (quoted above). And again, I’m unable to edit my blog right now, which I’ve already stated. (But again, I’m not sure why the debate is unacceptable, given that it’s the topic.)
But what are you so touchy about, seriously? You are complaining about my language saying it’s a “fairytale”. If I’m just sounding like a Truther, then dismiss me as such.. why do you (and others) get so upset about it? If you don’t want to debate it, then don’t.. But I find it funny that you also put in bold my comment about evolutionary thinking not contributin to science, yet you provide not a single example of what it has contributed. Does telling a 10 year old that he came from rain on rocks help find cures for cancer? Does it help design prosthetic limbs? Does it help us understand blood clots? Does it help us learn how to be more efficient? Does it help us learn how to build… anything… better than ever? What does evolutionary thinking contribute?
Hey, I didn’t call people morons. I just said they follow blind faith. I believe there are plenty of believers in God (many who call themselves Christians) who do the same. I’m as annoyed with Christians who choose to ignore the science because they are afraid of the debate, because I think their faith is an insurance policy.
RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Who has force who to do what? The claim that stating one’s beliefs publicly is somehow forcing your view on others is straight from the leftist rhetorical playbook. No one was ever forced to do anything by listening to another person.
What evangelical Christians worry about are left-wing atheists who, rather then simply believing what they believe and teaching it to thier children, force thier own view on others by any means possible. Hence, political correctness in the schools and universities.
That is why it is disappointing to see conservative atheists appear to use the rhetoric of the left, when a higher standard is expected. Remember, there can be no great disappointment where there is no great love.
Coyote D. on January 30, 2007 at 11:16 PM
ok, check out these pics from “Friends of God”, its the pic of the abu ghraib propoganda. note it comes right after Jerry Falwell telling her that evangelicals were serious about what they were doing and intend on taking America back for God.
http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/lnIsX3Nx7Wf9/__sr_/8ce3.jpg?tkn=phYlCwFBDkfCqGtT&saveas=FoG_Propoganda_1
http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/lnIsX3Nx7Wf9/__sr_/4513.jpg?tkn=phYlCwFBfzbX41Y6&saveas=FoG_Propoganda_2
jp on January 30, 2007 at 11:16 PM
I’ve asked you plenty of very simple questions and you’ve not even attempted to answer, but that’s okay… Back to your tobacco thing for a second…
What are you even talking about?
And by the way, please point me to what study you’re talking about… All I can find is when tobacco plants were genetically ENGINEERED (Design language, not evolution).
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v130/ai_4563835
RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Not true. If you want to pass that biology class, you better accept the evolutionary dogma (or at least pretend to on paper).
RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 11:19 PM
P. S. Saving’s not my job, Paul stood at the Areopagus and spoke, I get to comment on blogs. He did have a lot better scenery though.
INC on January 30, 2007 at 11:19 PM
A thread full of infidels, abashed ye shall behold his noodley greatness…
elgeneralisimo on January 30, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Rightwinged,
Yes it was engineered by humans to do that. Now for the million dollar question: What theory predicts that such a thing is possible? Do you think those guys got up and said, “well, today, for shits and giggles, let’s make a tobacco plant glow.” If evolutionary theory is true( that all life evolved from a single celled organism) than all things have similiar characteristics and are related. It’s just that as time has gone by and species have grown apart, their similarities have become less apparent.
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Why am I touchy about you accusing people who accept the scientific consensus on evolution of essentially being morons? Well, imagine if a Truther showed up here and started droning on about controlled demolitions and the cruise missile that hit the Pentagon and the airplanes that weren’t there, and how “any idiot can see that it was rigged.” You’d let him slide? Just shrug and think, “Eh, no biggie”? I kind of doubt that.
So imagine if you flamed him and then he came back at you with this: “What are you getting so touchy for? It’s because you’re afraid I’ve discovered the truth, isn’t it?” Wouldn’t that annoy you more? Because not only are you dealing with a moron, you’re dealing with a moron who regards objections to his moronitude as evidence that he’s right. Which of course is what you’re hinting at by asking again and again why people are being so mean to you here.
Hint: it’s not because you’re speaking truth to power. It’s because you, like the Truther, called us idiots first. At the very least, if you’re going to try to dismantle the leading theory in a field, present it as “There are serious problems with this,” not “You’re all living in fantasyland.”
As for this:
Like bert, I’m curious to know: whose agenda? Flesh out this agenda a bit for us denizens of Dreamworld. What nefarious scheme is the scientific community planning to hatch through the scourge of Darwinism?
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 11:32 PM
I don’t pretend to be even 1/10th as smart and as well read as the posters here. I can’t quote either the New Testament or Darwin verse for verse. My grammer and spelling betray my limited HS education. My belief in God and Jesus is the result of a hard fought, longer then you want or need to hear, battle. DON’T TELL ME how to believe CORRECTLY. That is the main problem I have with evangelicals.
I agree with Allah in that evangelicals make me bang my head against the wall. My religion is not an insurance policy to cover my fanny if evolution doesn’t pan out.
Limerick on January 30, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Rightwinged,
Evolutionary theory predicts that such a thing is possible. That’s where the scientists got the idea to engineer the plant to glow in the first place. Now let me be clear: Nobody that I know specifically said that evolution has said specifically that would happen. But it does say that all life is related, hence, a tobacco plant and lightning bug have similar characteristics. In this case, the scientists were able to isolate the protein that codes for a lighting bug’s ass to light up, find it in the tobacco plant, and activate it. Then, you have a glowing tobacco plant.
I really think your getting to hung up on the man and chimps are related. Well of course they are. Everything’s related. Including me, you, Allah, and, dare I say, Jesse Jackson.
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Rightwinged,
I haven’t deserted you on your question about the tobacco plant. I’ve typed two responses and they haven’t posted. You’ll get it soon enough though
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Atheism!
Alex K on January 30, 2007 at 11:43 PM
oh good, it did post
bert169 on January 30, 2007 at 11:44 PM
In an effort to put it in its most rudamentary form, I will attempt to explain the Evangelicals beliefs. Just as Islam has divided into different denominations like Sunni,shite and others, simularly so has christianity. There’s Catholisism and Greek Orthodox, or the many protestant denominations like Baptist,Methodist,Presbyterian and so on. To explain Evangelical Christians I would start out by saying that the Bible contains verses imploring the beleiver to talk (witness) to others in hopes of leading them to Christ. Many people with serious life crisis seek out help and comfort at churches. Many Christians seek out the needy, whether it be spiritual,financial,economic,social ect. First and formost in the teachings of Christ himself is care for the down trodden,the sick,the poor,the imprisoned,the fallen. Many of the people who you see at the big scarey churches have quite a story (testimony). The vibrant enthusiasm ocurrs because when people see (witness) the complete transformation of individuals over time. The complete transformation (born again) experience can occur due to the biblically imposed limits (morals)Christians gather for fellowship with others, and with their God. Jesus promised where two or more are gathered there am I in the midst of you. (Holy Spirit) Individuals are exhorted and encouraged by the Bible to ’study to show yourself approved’ Pastors preach the word (Bible) and reference the verses to ensure their congregation they are a man of God (Dubya) Any Christian denomination can evangelize. There are even Evangelical Catholics. The term only defines the tendency to talk (witness) about Jesus to others. It has to be self evident even to the New Yawkers that the Christian lifestyle with its Biblical limits produces people who have an inner peace and joy and a whole host of qualities that money can’t buy, not even Max Factor.
sonnyspats1 on January 30, 2007 at 11:49 PM
check it out “their personal lifestyles defined by biblically imposed limits” Ha Ha Ha Yeah its’s called morals! Ha Ha Ha
sonnyspats1 on January 30, 2007 at 11:56 PM
jp,
The abu graib stuff in the center of the O in Christ alone, I think is a picture of Jesus rising.
Somthing like this.
DrM2B on January 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Still going, I see. AP, sorry about the Green Party question earlier. I was only kidding when I asked about it - didn’t think it would get you accused of being a socialist (you aren’t, right?)
Just kidding.
Rick on January 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM
One huge downfall of evangelicalism is the relentless use of “christianese”. It can be confusing/off-putting to an “outsider”. I encourage the kids and adults I teach to explain their beliefs using every day words rather than sanctified jargon.
jdpaz on January 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Allah,
the Debate on evolution reminds me of the classic LBJ joke
In the 60’s the cold war also witnessed the war between who invented what, the biggest and the bet of airplanes, ships, subs, trains etc.
so LBJ decided to put the Russians away he called IBM, Telex, General Electric and the rest of the big computer developers together to build a 25 story computer that took a dedicated nuclear power plant to operate
However the REAL debate was over the question LBJ wanted to give the computer:
LBJ’s question: Is there a God
So finally LBJ feed it the question
Is there a God
The Reply - there is now
Is there a hidden commentary in all this nope - just watching a thread go from Pelosi’s daughters commentary on religion to glow in the dark tobacco plants
Its all good
EricPWJohnson on January 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM
BTW: I expected Buddy Davis to sound crazier.
jdpaz on January 30, 2007 at 11:58 PM
I have my own theory about the Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are the remains of the legions of angles cast out of heaven with satan. I need to develope a hypothisis but my research has been hindered lately cause I been readin a couple Shakespeares.
sonnyspats1 on January 31, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Interesting to watch threads “evolve.” :)
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 12:02 AM
BTW
Worked for a succesful engineering firm, clients were Demag, Exxon, Shell designed many of the engineering marvels in the petroleum industry.
A speaker was coming for an executive lunch and would address the managment. This person was a highly respected doctor who actually one of the largest hospitals in America named after his father and was the director of it give a lecture on evolution.
This famous doctor insisted there were dinosaur eggs on the ark.
Being a Lutheran, I missed this part in the communion training but I confess I was 13 and could have been distracted.
EricPWJohnson on January 31, 2007 at 12:03 AM
I like what Luther said when confronted by supposed descrepancies in the bible and science (more than a few years ago). Parphrased: “Leave the science to scientists, and theology to theologians”.
right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 12:07 AM
What do you mean?
Just a’kiddin.
right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 12:09 AM
I am a Christian. And I think many who profess to wear His name carry it as a shield against those individual who don’t. Instead they should be seeing it as a lifeline that they are hanging onto and need to be reaching out with it others.
Christ wasn’t arrogant as some professed Christians and he was, well, CHRIST!
spacemonkey on January 31, 2007 at 12:21 AM
Gene Splicer,
I specifically said that occasional bad results do not make a true idea false. Therefore this is not guilt by association, it’s simply an association, one which is readily demonstrable.
In a sense I agree with you, but as a matter of history it has to be recognized, first of all, that Darwin himself believed his theory had significant world view implications (and that he himself laid the groundwork for early 20th century eugenics with his racist assumptions in the Descent of Man). And you certainly wouldn’t have been able to sell a word of that to T.H. Huxley aka “Darwin’s bulldog.”
Again, you and I may be in agreement, but the current occupant of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, aka Richard Dawkins has a someone different take. I suspect you’ve already read his most recent book and are aware of his views.
John on January 31, 2007 at 12:22 AM
So because things are similar… that means they evolved? Gotcha.
Well, again, if I’m just being as bad as a truther, dismiss me. If there was a truther here saying all their ridiculous Truther things, I’d mock them a few times, give them a few links to debunking, and when they started wanting to go in circles and repeat the same crap after I’d pretty much said all I wanted to say, I’d probably move on to a new thread.
Now, I never called you an idiot (and didn’t know whether you believed in evolution, or what you believed in… other than that you were no longer a Christian), however I feel your opening, though not direct and possibly subject to interpretation was tantamount to calling creationists idiots. Acting as if they are some fringe group of evangelicals, when even mainstream surveys show that they are in fact the vast majority. They are painted with the loon brush and given this label that is now sort of assumed in the mainstream media, etc. Pelosi is obviously attempting to tie them to the few kooks and hypocrites she found, but it’s an entirely different thing. Most Christians, though not actively involved in the debate, believe that God created Adam and Eve, etc. etc.
I happen to think evolution is silly. You apparently find it plausible, likely, or even accurate? That’s fine, and I’m sorry if me calling it a fairytale offends you. But doesn’t believing that evolution is so obvious, etc. mean you believe those that don’t except it are believing a fairytale and are idiots? Doesn’t your position on evolution, imply you feel the same way about creationists, as you accuse me of attacking evolutionists? (And for the record, you’re doing the same thing as I was now, when you accused me of trying to play victim).
As for the agenda, it could be a number of things. One is for certain, they are desperate to dismiss God and essentially force (for lack of a better term) virtually everyone to accept evolution.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200701.htm#20070111a
Now you can dismiss that link because you refuse to visit a URL with that word in the title, or you can go read that post (of which there are numerous, probably at least one a month) regarding evolutionists quoted in Science, Nature, etc. other leading science publications up in arms over creationists and the fact that still not enough people accept evolution. Why do leading scientists care if a majority of people still oppose their story of origins? What do they stand to lose if the idea doesn’t catch on? Why is it not acceptable to them, that others don’t accept it?
I could go off in to the area of without a belief in God, then ideas of population reduction and a lot of other fancy ideas bounced around at the UN would be much easier to implement… but I’m not certain that this is the agenda, but it certainly could be part of it.
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Make that “a somewhat different take.”
My kingdom for a preview button!
John on January 31, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Not quite, there’s more to it than that, such as the presence of vestigial traits (a characteristic that has no use in one animal but does have a purpose in another).
Humans, for example, have coccyx (tailbone). It has no use in humans but is useful in some baboons (Chimps also have one that doesn’t serve any purpose, I think).
The appendix is another example. Presumably, in cows there exists a longer appendix to perform some function (I’d have to look up what), while in humans it is a shriveled up piece of tissue that eventually has to be removed.
Again, Rightwinged, evolutionary theory is extremely complicated. And it’s best to approach it with an open mind. I would never question your faith. That’s yours and yours alone. But you are mistaken to believe, as I think you do, that evolution does question it.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 12:52 AM
What an interesting thread I’ve apparently missed. However, Allah, a thread regarding Pelosi’s daughter can only become a discussion regarding creationism versus evolution. I have my doubts about evolution. If it ever existed, why doesn’t it exist today? Why do we not (today) see species evolving into something else? Don’t bother with telling me it takes millions of years, etc… There has been a sufficient time of recorded history to at least see some evidence of it. Even Darwin, himself, doubted the theory in his last days of life and admitted ‘amazement’ it took off as an accepted theory.
thedecider on January 31, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Your zing aside (and my parents didn’t yell at each other), you missed the potential positive outcome.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 7:06 PM, got it. No progress has ever come from all agreeing placidly, sitting around and singing kumbaia.
The conservatives need a good/tough debate in order to come together. If not, they’ll remain in the wilderness for a long, long time, but they’ll be