Republican on House Science Committee: Evolution is a Lie Straight from the Pit of Hell

This is Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA):

This is the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which Broun sits on.

And this is Rep. Broun telling people at Liberty Baptist Church a couple of weeks ago that evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang are “lies straight from the pit of Hell”:

God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.

And what I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that.

He’s on the Science committee.

Science.

With Todd “legitimate rape” Akin.

To paraphrase a line you’ve heard before, this guy thinks The Flintstones is a documentary.

And he’s running for re-election… unopposed.

You want to know what’s wrong with our country? Look no further. We totally deserve the government we get when ignorant anti-science people like this can not only get into Congress but get on important committees which they’re utterly unqualified to be a part of. The fact that he’s a doctor seems irrelevant when he admits he can’t grasp the basic concepts of science. How he got through medical school is beyond me.

Anyone who looks to the Bible as the primary guide to voting has no business serving in public office, much less serving on the Science committee.

***Update***: Brian Wilson put up a video juxtaposing Broun with Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), who chairs the Subcommittee on Environment and Economy… but doesn’t accept human-induced climate change:

(Thanks to David for the link)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • Bubba Tarandfeathered

    Looks like he is backed up by a lot of bucks.

    • Mogg

      I’m not sure they’re backing him up; they look like they’re all staring and thinking “WTF?!”

  • Levon Mkrtchyan

    This is starting to sound like 1984, where the Ministry of Truth was in charge of all the lies an propaganda.

  • dan fu

    To say evolution is a lie,he must know the truth about evolution.To say god is tru,he must know  god.I think he  is lost in the process of evolution.

  • jdm8

    “The manufacturer’s handbook”. Albeit one so sloppily written, poorly curated and even outrageously mistranslated in some places that there are major fundamental disagreements as to what the handbook means.

    • Patterrssonn

      Not only that, it took 4000 yrs for the 1st proof and another 600 for the final edition.

  • Uchris

    I wrote the Science committee and expressed my concerns about theirobvious lack of scientific standards.

    • Matt O’Neal

       Chris- this is probably our best recourse. Idiots (or politicians pandering to their constituents) are going to be voted into office. Who Georgians pick to represent them- well, there’s not much we can do about that. But we CAN make our voice heard, and let the more rational elected officials know what a travesty it is to have a Young Earth Creationist sitting on a science committee.

  • Drakk

    Evolution, Big Bang theory, and embryology?

    What does he favour as an alternative? Stork theory?

    • TheBlackCat

       I think he is confusing embryology with embryonic stem cells

      • http://atheistlutheran.blogspot.com/ MargueriteF

        I don’t think so. I think he’s referring to this sort of knowledge gleaned from embryology (which, not being a scientist, I cribbed from Wikipedia): “Embryos in many species often appear similar to one another in early developmental stages. The reason for this similarity is because species have a shared evolutionary history. These similarities among species are called homologous structures, which are structures that have the same or similar function and mechanism, having evolved from a common ancestor.”

        Basically I think he means that he believes scientists are misrepresenting embryology to support the theory of evolution.

        • http://atheistlutheran.blogspot.com/ MargueriteF

          For more info on what I suspect he means, see this page on CreationWiki:

          http://creationwiki.org/Embryology

          • Drakk

            Fuck, that site hurts to read.

        • CassandraJK

          Or as my high school zoology teacher put it “ontogeny repeats phylogeny.” To put it plainly, the embryological development of an individual takes it through the evolutionary stages of its specie’s history.

          • eonL5

            Didn’t I read somewhere that the “ontogeny repeats phylogeny” theory was discredited decades (or more) ago, and wasn’t even widely believed when first proposed? I believe it was at sci-ence.org (ah yes… found it! http://sci-ence.org/haeckel/)  I think ontogey/phylogeny is quite separate from embryology, assuming the Wikipedia quote above is accurate.

            Either way, how can we have an effect on who gets appointed to science and environmental committees? It’s outrageous that these magical-thinking senators/congresscritters are put in positions of power concerning matters of non-magical consequence.

            • TheBlackCat

               Yes, it is a common creationist strawman, actually.  They basically claim that any discussion of emrbyology automatically means they agree with Haeckel, even though there is little similarity between modern evolutionary study of emrbyology and Haeckel’s ideas.

        • TheBlackCat

           Re-reading his comment I think you are correct.

    • MartinRC

      Maybe his ideas on intelligent falling as apposed to the Theory of Gravity can revolutionize the space program.

    • RobMcCune

       Well if it’s a legitimate rape the stork has ways to shut that whole thing down.

  • http://atheistlutheran.blogspot.com/ MargueriteF

    The really sad thing about this is now I’m guessing there are a lot of people who’d love to vote against him, but it is doubtless too late to get someone else on the ballot. Maybe a write-in candidate? This guy doesn’t belong on the Science committee or in the House. It’s a genuine outrage. 

  • Barbara

    Using the Bible as a source of intelligence is just about the laziest, stupidest thing a person can do. I fear for our country when elected officials in Congress – citizens who are supposed to be the best and the brightest – are using the Bible as a fact-checker. 
    Religious belief is destructive on so many levels, it’s sad some people still want to hold on such a thing.

  • http://nwrickert.wordpress.com/ Neil Rickert

    Shimkus quotes Genesis 8, and concludes that we should not worry about global warming.

    But Genesis 8 only says that God will not destroy the earth.  It does not say that man won’t destroy the earth.

    It seems that they can’t even honestly read their own Bible.

    • Deven Kale

       It’s even worse than that. He goes into further detail in Genesis 9:11-15 to say that it’s only by flood that he’s limiting himself. He can destroy all life and the Earth any other way he pleases without going against his word. Global warming (or a meteor strike, or anything really) could very easily be his current plan for cleansing the Earth again.

  • Matt O’Neal

    I seriously doubt he believes what he’s spewing.  It’s got to be one of two options:

    1) He’s actually smart (he did graduate from med school). Smart enough to know that to be re-elected in Georgia, you have to say these things. Therefore, he’s pandering. Or,

    2) Despite his education, he’s a moron.

    I suppose I would rather believe the first one.

    • TheBlackCat

       I’m not sure most medical schools require expertise in any of those subjects.

      • Compuholic

        Probably not: But I would suppose that as a medical doctor one would need to know things like basic embryology and basic cell chemistry.

        My field of study is completely unrelated so I’m certainly no expert in those things. But I assume that you can get through these subjects without touching on evolution and just teach the facts about human embryology and cell chemistry. But this means that the medical school he attended just provides job training. From a university I certainly expect more: namely to teach the science behind it.

  • Sailorsguide

    Maybe they should give a group of scientists veto power over members of the science committee

  • Shadowsheik

    It’s easy for someone in medicine to reject evolution I find. They’re working on a creature that is currently in one stage and we aren’t going to see any changes occur in our life time and for many life times. This makes it easy for them to treat a human as a stand alone creature, belief in evolution not required to save a man’s life. As someone studying to become a doctor, I myself think there should be a requirement to accept all science fields and currently accepted theories as correct, or you can’t become a scientist in ANY field. Being a scientist and yet rejecting some of the most basic scientific understandings, makes us all look like idiots. People like Broun embarrass me and he should be ashamed to call himself a doctor or scientist. Same goes for “doctor” Ron Paul. SMH

    • Drakk

       What? That’s absurd. How can you possibly account for the existence of drug-resistant bacteria if you don’t accept evolution?

    • smrnda

       A medical doctor is no more a scientist than an auto mechanic is an engineer. If you’re pretty good at memorization, you can become a doctor.

  • David from Georgia

    Thanks for keeping your readers apprised of this situation Hemant.  The truly sad thing is, my father (a local Southern Baptist pastor here in Georgia) is currently campaigning for Broun and helping him get re-elected.

    I’ve met the man on several occasions.  While he is genuinely very nice (a traditional Southern Gentleman), the fundamentalist theocrat nonsense is not an act.  He truly believes what he says.

    This is the kind of thing we must fight against.

    • LesterBallard

      ” While he is genuinely very nice (a traditional Southern Gentleman)”

      Does that mean if he owned slaves he’d treat them decently?

  • C Peterson

    Things like evolution and the age of the Earth are obviously correct, but suppose they are wrong? Why can’t they just be wrong? What is it about these wingnuts that forces them to think that something factually wrong has to be evil, has to be some dark conspiracy from the pit of Hell? These guys aren’t just crazy with their facts, they’re supernatural conspiracy freaks, as well.

    They belong in rubber rooms, not the halls of Congress.

  • Hayden Wolfe

    Another reason I would never move back to redneck Georgia.  So glad I moved to liberal California.  I understand how this idiot could have been elected to public office considering he is from northeast Georgia.  But how the hell did he manage to get himself on the Science Committee of Congress?  It makes me sick that people like this have the power to change laws for our country and do so on the basis of a bronze age text of mythology written by people that knew less about how the world operates than the average elementary school child of today.  

  • Justin Miyundees

    The fact that a democrat doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of winning because of the way the districts are drawn now is very telling indeed. They didn’t even bother TRYING because the game is so rigged here now.

  • CoboWowbo

    I think the House Science Committee should have it’s members (House Representatives) chosen/elected by the National Academy of Sciences

  • Dan

    “But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society.”

    Really?

    I’m a Christian and this statement is insulting as it is ignorant…

    Wasn’t the Old testament an agrarian society? What politics and policy could actually be derived and applied to a republic?

    The bible has no claims in politics. Every period it was written under had a form of government different from our own

    even though I am not an atheist, I appreciate things like this pointed out. Foolish individuals need to be shown in their stupidity so we can oust them from making important decisions in our country

  • http://www.madprofessah.com MadProfessah

    Another issue is how does someone get through medical school and residency and still have these beliefs about basic scientific principles?

    • TheBlackCat

      Until recently most med schools did not require any understanding of evolution.  It has become increasingly important is its role in things like infectious diseases and cancer has become critical to health care, but it is possible, probably even likely, when he went through medical school they didn’t mention evolution at all.

      • Gus Snarp

        And this clown is out there telling people about what he learned “as a scientist”. A B.S. in chemistry and an M.D. do not a scientist make. But I suppose that while earning his B.S., and subsequently in his highly specialized education in medicine, he somehow learned more about radioactive decay, geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, and genetics than every PhD in those fields, ever. He’s like the people on the petition of scientists who don’t accept climate change. Anybody with any degree with “science” or “doctor” in the title becomes a scientists, and the guy with the associate’ degree in computer science or your neighborhood dentist is suddenly an expert on par with the consensus of thousands of climatologists.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson
  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/P7XRZYHIF7ELJTK34TWIMIJOJA Ex Patriot

    With idiots like this in power positions, it is no wonder why the country is on itas way to become anothe r bannana republic. I am glad Imoved to Europe 14 years ago

  • http://www.facebook.com/nelsongonzalezmella Nelson Gonzalez Mella

    I agree with everything you say , except for the human induce climate change .

  • Gus Snarp

    That is absolutely the creepiest church decor I have ever seen. And someone, somewhere, decided that the best way he could honor and respect Jesus was with a whole lot of severed deer heads on the wall behind the pulpit.

  • Bell3000

    These two would have to be the best argument against intelligent design I have seen for a while.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=689176326 Matthew Heywood

    Someone actually introduced something to do with science.  Believe it or not, it is most unusual to find anything resembling open enquiry at sites which discuss either religion or blind chance ‘evolution’.  
    “Didn’t I read somewhere that the “ontogeny repeats phylogeny” theory was discredited decades (or more) ago, and wasn’t even widely believed when first proposed?”
      “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”  The development of the individual (especially as observed in the womb) is a re-visitation of the development of its place in the tree of life.  Mammalian embryos for example tend to go through stages something like, pre-fish, fish-like, amphibian, reptile -like, …….”.  This is a first principle of Evolution.  It was taught (when I was at uni.) as a main precept of origins.

    My lecturer was a very decent man and not dagmatic by any means.  He did lean towards Darwinism or Common Descent.  Years later, having studied the Bible and the geologic record, I twigged onto the significance. Anyone can do the same, merely by looking at GENESIS  and the fossil record. 

    GEN.1:20 says that all complex life (above plant level) sprang into existence at a point in time and was water based.  Reading on, we find land creatures (on the day following) being merely “formed” of earth, under a modifying action.  Excluding, in some real sense, Man, all the land creatures already existed on Day 5.  This is now obvious to science because speciation is all about information (married with a divinely vivified cell) and information is timeless.  Hence, species can pre-exist before being physically manifest.  The Bible itself says so, GEN. 2:4&5.  
    So, all land creatures are water -based.  They are merely formed (in the sense of over-formed), of earth. Irrespective of a species’ placement in the tree of life (the tree of life is in the Bible) it always shows its water base, especially in the womb. Ontogeny (personal genesis) always re-visits phylogeny (genesis of the whole living cosmos).

    Someone could advize your senator. 

    Ask me and I will give any climate change experts something to peer review. No, here it is: If CO2 drives global temperature , then since the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant compared to that dissolved in the oceans, and, since increasing the temperature of the oceans drives CO2 out of solution and into the atmosphere — why haven’t the oceans got hotter and hotter?  Answer that and you are smarter than Al Gore.  
    (I provide the answer at my site. Try CLIMATE MODERATION MAGNETIC FIELDS SUN EARTH)  Regards, Philip Bruce Heywood, geologist. 

    • TheBlackCat

      Believe it or not, it is most unusual to find anything resembling open
      enquiry at sites which discuss either religion or blind chance
      ‘evolution’. 

      Evolution is not “blind chance”, that is a creationist strawman. 

       

      This is a first principle of Evolution.  It was taught (when I was at uni.) as a main precept of origins.

      No, its not.  It never was.  And I would be very surprised if it was taught in university if you are less than 100 years old.  What is taught, and is correct, is that after a certain stage emrbyos that are more closely related to each other are more similar at a particular stage of development, which is true.

      GEN.1:20 says that all complex life (above plant level) sprang into existence at a point in time and was water based.

      No, it doesn’t, it says the Earth was created out of water.  It says nothing about what life was created out of.  Of course the Earth was not created out of water, land came first, water came second.  They had a 50/50 chance and got it wrong.

      Excluding, in some real sense, Man, all the land creatures already existed on Day 5. 

      The order of events in Genesis 1 is completely different in practically every imaginable way from what we now know to be true.  Heck, plants existed before the sun they depend on.  Birds come before the fish they developed from.  Birds come before the reptiles they developed from.  Mammals come at the same time as the reptiles they developed from.  The stars come after the sun and the moon.  Land plants come before fish rather than after.

      Hence, species can pre-exist before being physically manifest.  The Bible itself says so,

      Wait, what?  What does that even mean?  And saying “The Bible itself says so” as your only evidence is not going to help you here.

      GEN. 2:4&5. 

      This gives a completely different order of events from GEN 1.  They can’t both be right.

      If CO2 drives global temperature , then since the amount of CO2 in the
      atmosphere is insignificant compared to that dissolved in the oceans,
      and, since increasing the temperature of the oceans drives CO2 out of
      solution and into the atmosphere

      That is not how concentrations work.  The direction is of movement of a substance between two mediums is based on a number of factors beyond the absolute concentration.  The oceans do have a lot of CO2 in them, but the CO2 is in the atmosphere is far from “insignificant compared to that dissolved in the oceans”.

      — why haven’t the oceans got hotter
      and hotter? 

      Uh, they have.  In fact much of the current increase in sea levels is due to water expanding as it gets warmer.  It has to, if the air is getting warmer, thermodynamically the water must get warmer.

      But the heating comes primarily from the atmosphere.  The reason for that is simple: water already absorbs the frequencies of light responsible for global warming, while without greenhouses gasses the atmosphere doesn’t.  So CO2 doesn’t make any difference in water because water already has the effect CO2 causes.  It’s redundant.  In the atmosphere, however, CO2 makes a big difference, because the primary constituents of the atmosphere don’t absorb those frequencies, so they would escape into space without greenhouse gasses.  At low altitudes the effect saturates (like it already is in water), but additional CO2 pushes that altitude higher, resulting in more total energy retained in the atmosphere, and thus higher temperatures for the air and the water.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=689176326 Matthew Heywood

        “The oceans do have a lot of CO2 in them, but the CO2 is in the atmosphere is far from “insignificant compared to that dissolved in the oceans”.”
        The oceans contain about 50 times more CO 2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biosphere. Of course all chemical reactions seek equilibrium and global carbon distribution is not simple.  The point being made is  that geologic history demands that vast quantities of CO2 and so-called  ‘greenhouse gases’ were processed by the Earth’s circulation mechanisms and the quantities being spoken of relegate recent industrial output to the trivial.  We see 50 times more than is in the atmosphere, in the oceans, now — but that itself is trivial.  Carbon buried in the earth through geologic processes multiplies the 50 by at least 10, again.  This is conservative.   The Earth processed all this greenhouse gas, and never lost its cool.  It did this, even though it is a fact that heating drives gases out of solution, and into the atmosphere — where, as Mr. Cat so handsomly observes, theoretically, they heat the earth.  

        I was after some peer review for my explanation of the geologic record of a moderated climate, 4thou mill. yrs worth.  Which no ‘global warming’ pusher has, it seems, bothered to sit down and consider.  Did the moon moderate the climate, or was it your big toe?    

        “Evolution is not “blind chance”, that is a creationist strawman”.
        Pray be more specific.  What is this ‘Evolution” we hear of, and what does guide it?  The environment?  What controls the environment?  Your big toe? Evolution, the word, literally means an unfolding or an unrolling.  That is how I apply it.  So if it is not a blind chance unrolling, tell us about it.  The Bible, as I have advized, tells us about it, as does the fossil record.  What is the B.C’s version?
        Perhaps it’s the view of Professor Dorothy Hill, who authored one of the volumes of THE TREATISE ON INVERTEBRATE PALAEONTOLOGY, and was head of the geology department I attended.  I never heard or saw her use the word.  She knew fossils but she didn’t have them turning into each other by unknown and mystical processes.  The man under her, Playford, was a little more darwinistic.  His brother has a fossil named in his honour. Something PLAYFORDII. He was the chap who insisted that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.  I didn’t notice any black cats in the lecture hall. 

        “Hence, species can pre-exist before being physically manifest.  The Bible itself says so,Wait, what?  What does that even mean?  And saying “The Bible itself says so” as your only evidence is not going to help you here.”

        Well, we know cats don’t read.  What’s new?  Someone else might be able to do so.  I am, Mr. C., quoting the Bible, and if any cats wish to read it, purr along and be as cosy as you would like tabby. “….In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew …..      ‘
        Is that species pre-existence or is it a pink buffalo clouding your windshield on a windy day, Mr. Cat?  

        If one was to systematically dissect every misstatement and missapropriation of fact ……  .  Read my stuff and correct your own, I won’t go on doing it for you.  I am on the ‘Net, under Philip Bruce Heywood.  (Matthew is my son — I don’t haunt the Facebook). I wrote a commentary on the first nine chapters of GENESIS.  That’s the one AIG threw in the bin.  It’s from the pit of Hell.  It also happens to be accurate, verified, end of Origins Controversy.  Well, don’t take my word for it.  Cheers. 
            
         

        • TheBlackCat

           

          The
          Earth processed all this greenhouse gas, and never lost its cool. 

          It actually was much, much hotter in the very ancient past.  Of course those periods tended to be dominated by giant reptiles and either tropical rain forests or deserts.  Overall such periods had a radically different biosphere than what human society is built on. 

          The question isn’t whether the planet can handle the extra CO2.  It has before, and it has been much hotter (and much colder) in the past.  The question is whether we can handle it, and that is something we have never had to deal with before.

          Did the moon moderate the climate, or was it your big toe?   

          Nothing moderates the climate over millions of year time scales, it changes dramatically.  What moderates it over shorter time scales is that the processes that cause dramatic climate shifts are almost exclusively slow, taking thousands of years to affect major change.

          All of human civilization took place during a period of relative stability spread over just a few thousand years (a geologic blink of the eye, relatively speaking). 

          All our civilization depends on that stability.  However, this period of stability is ending, and ending much faster than it has at any point in since long before humans even existed

          What is this ‘Evolution” we hear of, and what does guide it?  The environment?  

          The environment, and other species.

          What controls the environment? 

          Physics, chemistry, and biology, obviously.  The evolution of wings, for instance, is controlled by the rules of aerodynamics and the mechanics of muscles and bone.

          The Bible, as I have advized, tells us about it, as does the fossil record. 

          The Bible, as I already explained, is wrong on the history of life on Earth.  Not just a little wrong, spectacularly wrong.  Even someone who lived at the time would be able to tell plants can’t live without sunlight, yet that is exactly what Genesis claims.  They had to guess whether the land or the sea came first, they had a 50/50 chance, and they got it wrong! 

          She knew fossils but she didn’t have them turning into each other by unknown and mystical processes. 

          Wait, what?  You believe in the book of Genesis and God “poofing” animals and plants into existence, yet you dismiss evolution, which we can directly observe happening around us right now, as an “unknown and mystical processes”?  Seriously?

          Is that species pre-existence or is it a pink buffalo clouding your windshield on a windy day, Mr. Cat? 

          I see the problem here.  You are a King James Bible follower, while more recent, better translations do not phrase things that way (they just say there weren’t any plants yet).  I try to use the most accurate translations, not older, known flawed ones like KJV, so I hadn’t seen that version.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=689176326 Matthew Heywood

            If you wish to do a Bible commentary, it is requisite a) to assume the Bible was intended for people with the capacity of free thought, not slavish adherence.  In other words, settle in the mind that the person who created your brain, just might know how you think.  Start thinking.  b) Get the meaning of the original text in the original language. c) Do not ignore human discovery such as science when deducing the factual (I repeat, factual, in the sense of technical only, not personal) meaning of the text.  The Bible is full of breathtakingly accurate science but the Jesus Christ did not come into the world to begin an educational academic program.  He came to overthrow the works of the Adversary —  Sin, sickness, and personal despair.  
            The claim that “evolution” is science will be verified when someone traces the events involved in the transformation of one species to another.  Those events, as foreshadowed by Sir Richard Owen (palaeontologist) and now clearly obvious, involve information technology so sophisticated, we barely have caught a glimpse.  The Bible demands that sophisticated  I.T. was implicated.  Species pre-existence, staged revelation (another word for staged revelation being, ‘evolution’) and modification down the track subsequent to creation of the ‘base template’ (if you like).  But all species were created instantaneously and fully developed, which is exactly what I.T. predicts and the Bible states.  Information is timeless.  Put a living cell in the earth, set up an automatic information signalling capacity, program it, set it rolling — and you have the unrolling of a division of life.  All created and living on the day specified. 
            Incidentally, ‘waters’ has multiple meanings which the Creator assumes the reader is capable of figuring for himself.  We would be in major trouble of it only referred to H2O.  The Bible was not given, to teach us the Periodic Table, or heavy water enrichment, or stellar chemistry. It contains all that, plus some.  ‘Waters’ essentially implies fragmentation and instability.  ‘Water’ can mean something more along the lines of H2O. 
            The following may be explanatory. I lift it from another blog.  “If anyone is actually serious about this topic, they are ahead of me. I was never serious about it but I am a geologist and was in need of a topic to teach in a school. I had scarcely even heard of Young Earth Creationism. I had a task — to teach: I needed info.: I asked to be enabled to do the job. All I am interested in is doing my job. This has limited relevance to real Christianity. If anyone is actually interested, I will show how Ken Ham & co. undermine the literal accuracy of the Bible every time they open their mouths. Here is an example. The Hebrew can say two things that are equally and concurrently true, with the same set of words. I repeat, equally and concurrently true. The only accurate extant English translation is the Authorised with margin. The margin is equal concurrent. I will reproduce GENESIS 1:20. ” And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. EQUAL CONCURRENT And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
            Now, reproducing GENESIS 2:19. “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. ”
            Spot the contradictions? A contradiction is a key.
            The Authorized Version (the only fully reliable translation I have encountered), in 1:20, translates the Hebrew as ‘fowl that may fly’. These ‘fowl’ were brought forth abundantly by the ‘waters’. This of course is a direct reference to the Cambrian so-called ‘explosion’, Day 5, approx. 500 mil. yrs past. If we take only the equal concurrent listed first, we have a problem with accuracy. ‘Fowl that may fly’ means exactly what it says. We shall not quibble over flightless birds and similar incidentals, which are covered. The Bible was not written to satisfy academic nit-pickers. ‘Fowl that may fly’ include birds, bats, flying reptiles — and the most prolific and ancient of all — the insects. Herein the potential contradiction, if the equal concurrent is ignored.
            According to the literal meaning of 1:20, all complex life (i.e., above plant level) leaped into existence on Day 5. All of it. Yet it was water-generated and by implication water-based and water-dwelling. Exactly as the fossil record shows. Large swathes of it had not yet appeared, but, excluding (in some vital sense), Man, every species was effectively created, and alive, at that point in time. That is exactly what the Bible demands. On Day 6, already created divisions of life were merely modified or ‘formed’ (in the sense of over-formed) of earth. Precisely as the fossil record shows. The ‘over-forming’ of earth did not cancel the water base.
            Which division of ‘fowl that may fly’ was not ‘formed’ (over-formed) of earth? Try squashing one.And the insects are far older than the earthy fliers, and first appeared in conjunction with aquatic and amphibious species — long before even the gliding reptiles. Birds, bats, flying reptiles appeared in conjunction with the land animals — Day 6.
            Comparing now 2:19 against 1:20 : Note the changed wording referring to flight. ‘Fowl of the air’. Real fowl of the air, species that fly strongly and rule the skies. Like all complex life, they are water based, but — birds, bats and reptiles are —formed out of the ground. They are earthy, as distinct from insects.
            Where were they, at the ‘Cambrian Explosion’, Day 5? They were in existence, as living species, as information, pre-programmed to automatically be transmitted into a living cell. Hence, they were all alive. As the Bible implies of all species. (See GENESIS 2:4&5). Man, of course, is exceptional — how exceptional in terms of genetic engineering I am not certain. GENESIS could be taken to suggest he more-or-less pre-existed in an embryonic way with God himself.
            Not all creatures capable of flight or of the flying category leaped into visible view during the earliest outbreak of complex life. This is the testimony of the fossil record. GENESIS 1:20 informs the reader that some ‘fowl that may fly’, were ‘let fly’, but it leaves us with an unspecified generality. As we have learned, there was a category of flying life which the waters brought forth but which was not subsequently brought forth out of the ground, or formed of earth — the old and ubiquitous insects. GENESIS 2:19 goes on to explain that earthy fliers are associated with the land animals. Thus, the text of GENESIS is so accurate, it gives the origin of all complex (including flying) life at the Cambrian Day 5, says that watery water related flying creatures were a definite aspect of that far-off ‘explosion’, gives precedence to the insects, allows for future appearance of the birds, bats, and reptiles, giving them future rule of the air and association in time with land animals.”

            You might see why some people find geology dull. Teaching this in a classroom could have its moments.

            • TheBlackCat

              If you wish to do a Bible commentary, it is requisite

              Why, because you say so?

              a) to assume the
              Bible was intended for people with the capacity of free thought, not
              slavish adherence.

              Again, why, because you say so?

                In other words, settle in the mind that the person
              who created your brain, just might know how you think.

              In other words, you don’t trust any analysis by anyone who doesn’t already believe in God.  Then there is no point having a conversation with you.

              Start thinking.

              Except rule #1 is that I can’t think, I have to just accept what you say without question.

              b) Get the meaning of the original text in the original language.

              So you can read Aramaic?  That’s impressive, but I don’t have that much time to waste on bronze-age legends.

              c) Do
              not ignore human discovery such as science when deducing the factual (I
              repeat, factual, in the sense of technical only, not personal) meaning
              of the text.

              So in other words the text was useless to the people who wrote it, it is only useful in light of modern discoveries.

              The Bible is full of breathtakingly accurate science

              Baloney.  It contains nothing that bronze-age people couldn’t have know, and contains many mistakes that even bronze-age people should not have made.  People have managed to make some passages agree with modern science by twisting them in the most tortuous manner imaginable, but that was only after the discoveries were made through science, the Bible has not given us any new scientific information.

              I already pointed out several such mistakes, and there are many others.  I can’t help but notice you don’t actually point out any of this “breathtakingly accurate science”.

              but
              the Jesus Christ did not come into the world to begin an educational
              academic program.  He came to overthrow the works of the Adversary —
               Sin, sickness, and personal despair.

              I know this will be shocking to you, but many people don’t believe that Jesus existed at all, and many more don’t believe he was anything other than a charlatan.  This sort of talk is nothing new to me, or anyone else here.

              Those events, as foreshadowed by Sir Richard Owen (palaeontologist) and
              now clearly obvious, involve information technology so sophisticated, we
              barely have caught a glimpse.

              It requires nothing more than basic chemistry and physics, no information technology at all.

              The Bible demands that sophisticated
               I.T. was implicated. 

              You aren’t listening.  I don’t care what the Bible demands, any more than I care what the Vedas demand or Dreamtime demands. 

              But all species were created instantaneously and fully developed,

              All evidence contradicts this conclusion.

              which is exactly what I.T. predicts and the Bible states.

              I.T. doesn’t predict anything of the sort.

              Information is timeless. 

              No, it isn’t.  Burn a book.  The information is gone.

              ‘Waters’ essentially implies fragmentation and instability.

              No, it doesn’t.  The Bible is quite explicit.  Water was separated into the waters above, and the waters below, with the firmament keeping the waters above from falling down.  Rain came from God opening holes in the firmament so the waters above could come down.  The oceans are the waters below.  The sun, moon, and stars are all lights attached to the firmament.  The earth itself is flat, with the sky spread over like a tent.  It is all very consistent, all very explicit, and all very, very wrong.

              The Authorized Version (the only fully reliable translation I have
              encountered), in 1:20, translates the Hebrew as ‘fowl that may fly’.
              These ‘fowl’ were brought forth abundantly by the ‘waters’. This of
              course is a direct reference to the Cambrian so-called ‘explosion’

              It isn’t a direct reference at all.  It gives no hint whatsoever of anything remotely like the Cambrian explosion, which was a fairly long period (tens of millions of years)  over which probably pre-existing groups of organisms first began leaving significant fossils.

              Further, vertebrates didn’t evolve during the Cambrian explosion to begin with, they formed shortly after.  Birds didn’t evolve until hundreds of millions of years later.  And birds didn’t evolve directly from fish, they evolved from land animals that didn’t exist until the next day.  The same applies to insects, bats, flying reptiles, and every other flying organism.  They all evolved from earth-bound species that didn’t exist until the next day of creation.  The first insects had no wings, and the ancestors of birds (dinosaurs) and the ancestors of bats (mammals) didn’t appear for hundreds of millions of years after vertebrates first colonized the land.

              According to the literal meaning of 1:20, all complex life (i.e., above
              plant level) leaped into existence on Day 5. All of it. Yet it was
              water-generated and by implication water-based and water-dwelling.
              Exactly as the fossil record shows.

              The fossil record indicates nothing of the sort. 

              First, plants actually evolved long after what you are calling “complex life”.  And plants are extremely complex organisms, certainly on par with animals.

              Second, complex life didn’t “leap into existence”, it evolved gradually over 80-100 million years, starting with fairly simple, general forms that gradually diversified and specialized. 

              The Cambrian explosion was not an instantaneous event, and even then it was not the first appearance of complex organisms, it was merely the first appearance of complex organisms with hard shells that left lots of good fossils.  But complex life predates it by tens of millions of years, probably far longer.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=689176326 Matthew Heywood

                I won’t waste time and print repeating on this blog the published facts of the geologic record, cosmology, thermodynamics and logic.  Leave alone Year one Science. Anyone with a smattering of any of those knows where you are coming from. Mount Olympus.  How have the Gods been going, lately?  Crazy as ever?

                Actually. one thing I am not boned up on is  other superstitions.  Were the Greeks likely to believe the following?”What is this ‘Evolution” we hear of, and what does guide it?  The environment?  The environment, and other species.What controls the environment? Physics, chemistry, and biology, obviously.  The evolution of wings, for instance, is controlled by the rules of aerodynamics and the mechanics of muscles and bone.”

                Were the Greeks, animistic? 

                Good religion blog you run here, Hemant!

                If you would like some science, try Christianity (but not just any ‘Christianity’).

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=689176326 Matthew Heywood

        “The oceans do have a lot of CO2 in them, but the CO2 is in the atmosphere is far from “insignificant compared to that dissolved in the oceans”.”
        The oceans contain about 50 times more CO 2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biosphere. Of course all chemical reactions seek equilibrium and global carbon distribution is not simple.  The point being made is  that geologic history demands that vast quantities of CO2 and so-called  ‘greenhouse gases’ were processed by the Earth’s circulation mechanisms and the quantities being spoken of relegate recent industrial output to the trivial.  We see 50 times more than is in the atmosphere, in the oceans, now — but that itself is trivial.  Carbon buried in the earth through geologic processes multiplies the 50 by at least 10, again.  This is conservative.   The Earth processed all this greenhouse gas, and never lost its cool.  It did this, even though it is a fact that heating drives gases out of solution, and into the atmosphere — where, as Mr. Cat so handsomly observes, theoretically, they heat the earth.  

        I was after some peer review for my explanation of the geologic record of a moderated climate, 4thou mill. yrs worth.  Which no ‘global warming’ pusher has, it seems, bothered to sit down and consider.  Did the moon moderate the climate, or was it your big toe?    

        “Evolution is not “blind chance”, that is a creationist strawman”.
        Pray be more specific.  What is this ‘Evolution” we hear of, and what does guide it?  The environment?  What controls the environment?  Your big toe? Evolution, the word, literally means an unfolding or an unrolling.  That is how I apply it.  So if it is not a blind chance unrolling, tell us about it.  The Bible, as I have advized, tells us about it, as does the fossil record.  What is the B.C’s version?
        Perhaps it’s the view of Professor Dorothy Hill, who authored one of the volumes of THE TREATISE ON INVERTEBRATE PALAEONTOLOGY, and was head of the geology department I attended.  I never heard or saw her use the word.  She knew fossils but she didn’t have them turning into each other by unknown and mystical processes.  The man under her, Playford, was a little more darwinistic.  His brother has a fossil named in his honour. Something PLAYFORDII. He was the chap who insisted that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.  I didn’t notice any black cats in the lecture hall. 

        “Hence, species can pre-exist before being physically manifest.  The Bible itself says so,Wait, what?  What does that even mean?  And saying “The Bible itself says so” as your only evidence is not going to help you here.”

        Well, we know cats don’t read.  What’s new?  Someone else might be able to do so.  I am, Mr. C., quoting the Bible, and if any cats wish to read it, purr along and be as cosy as you would like tabby. “….In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew …..      ‘
        Is that species pre-existence or is it a pink buffalo clouding your windshield on a windy day, Mr. Cat?  

        If one was to systematically dissect every misstatement and missapropriation of fact ……  .  Read my stuff and correct your own, I won’t go on doing it for you.  I am on the ‘Net, under Philip Bruce Heywood.  (Matthew is my son — I don’t haunt the Facebook). I wrote a commentary on the first nine chapters of GENESIS.  That’s the one AIG threw in the bin.  It’s from the pit of Hell.  It also happens to be accurate, verified, end of Origins Controversy.  Well, don’t take my word for it.  Cheers. 
            
         

  • Søren Steinbeck

    As a follower of Jesus, this is terrifying. Mortifying. I’m tempted to make a crack about the South…but I won’t.

  • sierrapaul

    Someday, the American South will enter the 21st century. But they will first have to enter the 20th.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X