Choosing Between Science and God: The Mike Huckabee Story

When it comes to faith versus facts, Republican presidential hopeful, former Baptist minister and former governor of the Razorback State, Mike Huckabee minces no words. Recall that during one the Republican candidates' joint appearances, uh, debates, Huckabee was one of three who raised their hands affirming that they did not believe in biological evolution. Now Salon reports:

A reporter asked Huckabee how he thought his views -- including his view on evolution -- might play in the general election.

"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do," [Huckabee] said. "In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

Sixteen centuries ago, St. Augustine rightly warned believers like Huckabee about dogmatism in the face of contravening facts:

"If we come to read anything in Holy Scripture that is in keeping with the faith in which we are steeped, capable of several meanings, we must not by obstinately rushing in, so commit ourselves to any one of them that, when perhaps the truth is more thoroughly investigated, it rightly falls to the ground and we with it."

Sadly, Huckabee's scientific know-nothingism could play well in the primaries since a majority of Republicans say that they don't believe in evolution either. 

Comments

sage | November 1, 2007, 12:34pm | #

Perhaps God created creatures that could evolve.

ed | November 1, 2007, 12:36pm | #

And told them not to think.

VM | November 1, 2007, 12:37pm | #

obviously not in fuckabeez world.

got navel?

Pro Libertate | November 1, 2007, 12:42pm | #

Oh, let's not get tart in our responses. If the kids and I go to church next Sunday, and the minister gives us invulnerability, extended lifespans, and flying cars direct from God, I'll take that over "science". Has science given me a flying car? No.

William Walsh | November 1, 2007, 12:43pm | #

If one is interested in defending science, Saint Augustine isn't the first guy I'd think of to quote. Seems to me he ushered in the Dark Ages. . .

Bill Walsh

Taktix® | November 1, 2007, 12:44pm | #

Huckabee's scientific know-nothingism could play well in the primaries since a majority of Republicans say that they don't believe in evolution either.

It's things like this that make me wonder if I am one of the very few remaining sane people in the world.

Seriously, do they put something in church incense that makes people stupid fucking and/or crazy. That's the only explanation I can find.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 12:46pm | #

Augustine's Confessions is well worth reading.

shecky | November 1, 2007, 12:46pm | #

This is why the sun revolves around the Earth.

J sub D | November 1, 2007, 12:49pm | #

From the poll taken between May 21-24, results showed that 68 percent of Republicans tended to favor the idea that humans were created in their present form about 10,000 years ago,

This scares me. Really.

Reinmoose | November 1, 2007, 12:53pm | #

But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict.

Honestly, what a stupid thing to say. Of course God doesn't change because the book was only written once. That doesn't mean that people interpret that book differently over time or anything, but seriously!

Taktix® | November 1, 2007, 12:53pm | #

Saint Augustine... Seems to me he ushered in the Dark Ages. . .

Uhh, not exactly.

It was more:

1: the collapse of the Western Roman Empire

2: constant warring between several factions of Europe, such as the Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Lombards, and the remnants of "civilized" Europe

3: overpopulation degrading sanitation systems (see #1) spreading diseases more rapidly

Lamar | November 1, 2007, 12:55pm | #

If Huckabee believes in God so much, why doesn't he drink snake poison (Mark 16:17)?

Oh yeah, because he really does believe in the science that says it will kill you despite what the Bible says.

Taktix® | November 1, 2007, 12:55pm | #

eesh!

that should read:

3: overpopulation anddegrading sanitation systems (see #1) led to spreading diseases more rapidly

William | November 1, 2007, 1:01pm | #

I believe the official nickname of Arkansas is currently "The "Natural State." I suppose Razorback State is, like Wolverine State for Michigan (official nickname "The Great Lakes State"), an widely used alternative nickname that has the advantage of being the mascot of the state's primary university's sports teams.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 1:02pm | #

Taxtix,

So, what brought on the collapse of the Western Roman Empire?

William Walsh,

As a general rule historians do not use the term "Dark Ages" much anymore. I mean, "Dark" in comparison to what? The barbarism of the classical age?

Religious apologist | November 1, 2007, 1:06pm | #

I don't know what tree Huckabee is praying to, but I was taught in catholic school that the Old Testament is entirely allegorical.

Reinmoose | November 1, 2007, 1:09pm | #

I feel like there's a pressure on Christians to accept every word of the bible as fact. It may be that phenomenon where they fear that as soon as they make a concession in one way that it suddenly calls everything else into question. And wouldn't that be a nightmare?

Ron Bailey | November 1, 2007, 1:09pm | #

If you want to know just how "Dark" the Dark Ages really got, may I strongly suggest that you read William Manchester's wonderful history, A World Lit Only By Fire?

Lord Jubjub | November 1, 2007, 1:10pm | #

"Dark" Ages are so named because there is often a nearly complete absence of documents from that time period.e

robc | November 1, 2007, 1:17pm | #

I was taught in catholic school that the Old Testament is entirely allegorical.

Entirely?

Im thinking you didnt pay attention in class. Either that or your school was teaching that historically verifed events/people didnt exist.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 1:19pm | #

Lord Jubjub,

Well, that is also true of many aspects of the classical period as well.

Ron Bailey,

If you mean literally, to be frank, the classical world was also a "world lit by fire." Read the primary sources on the issue; going out at night is something one avoided doing in Rome if at all possible (partly because of the brigandage) and if one did the best source of lighting available was basically an oil lamp.

Taktix® | November 1, 2007, 1:21pm | #

Syloson of Samos,

So, what brought on the collapse of the Western Roman Empire?

No one is absolutely sure what the exact cause was, but there were a myriad of factors, such as:

A series of inept, tyrannical, and crazy emperors
Increasing pressure from conquered provinces
A steadily declining economy (exasperated by terrible policy on the part of many bad emperors)
The division of the empire into two
The 410 C.E. sacking of Rome by Alaric of the Visigoths

It was probably all of these combined.

Although, there is some speculation about declining berth rates, lead in the drinking water, etc., but little evidence supports such claims.

Taktix® | November 1, 2007, 1:23pm | #

Im thinking you didnt pay attention in class. Either that or your school was teaching that historically verifed events/people didnt exist.

A religious school teaching that aren't true?

Inconceivable!

Religious Apologist | November 1, 2007, 1:25pm | #

Well, it was run by Jesuits, and maybe it was just Genesis and Exodus. It was a long time ago.....

Lamar | November 1, 2007, 1:27pm | #

"If you mean literally"

Probably not given that incandescent illumination wasn't invented until the 1800's.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 1:28pm | #

Taktix,

No kidding.

My point is that the classical age was about as "dark" as the so-called "Dark Ages."

Ron Bailey,

BTW, if you are going to read a general history of the "Middle Ages" check out Hollister's Medieval Europe - A Short History and the companion volume A Short Sourcebook that goes along with it.

Dan Moughon | November 1, 2007, 1:30pm | #

If you believe in evolution then ask yourself what specific scientific evidence do you know that proves the theory. Please send the information to me in an email.

If no specific scientific proof pops in to the front of your brain then maybe you don't believe in evolution after all.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 1:31pm | #

Lamar,

Well, one must cover all bases of course.

Malto Dextrin | November 1, 2007, 1:31pm | #

It's things like this that make me wonder if I am one of the very few remaining sane people in the world.

Taktix, don't you know the real name of our planet?
In the Great Galactic Register Of Inhabited Planets, it's called "The Planet Of Insane Morons".

Taktix® | November 1, 2007, 1:32pm | #

If you believe in evolution then ask yourself what specific scientific evidence do you know that proves the theory. Please send the information to me in an email.

If no specific scientific proof pops in to the front of your brain then maybe you don't believe in evolution after all.

Oh boy! This is going to get good!

*runs to grab popcorn*

Lamar | November 1, 2007, 1:33pm | #

"If you believe in evolution then ask yourself what specific scientific evidence do you know that proves the theory."

Yeah, jerks. Same with the theory of gravity. Where's your proof!!! If nothing pops in your head, then you don't believe in gravity.

Taktix® | November 1, 2007, 1:34pm | #

If nothing pops in on your head, then you don't believe in gravity.

Captain Chaos (now in thrall to URKOBOLD) | November 1, 2007, 1:35pm | #

The following should not be construed as an endorsement of religion, atheism, or any particular creed.

The sneering at theists as inherently stupid and opposed to scientific is simply wrong-headed. While the fundies make the most noise, and seem to be enjoying somewhat of a revival, they do not constitute all, or even a majority, of believers. It is possible to believe in a creator deity, and even that Jesus was his representative, without chucking science and rationality.

I attended 16 years of parochial school, half of which was under the Jesuits. I was never taught anything resembling a fundie view of science. The stance was more like, "Evolution (and physics, and all other naturalist explanations of events) tells us how god achieves his goals.

Reasonable people can agree or disagree on that point, but it's a perfectly legitimate way of looking at things, and doesn't require one to check their brains in the church vestibule.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 1:38pm | #

Captain Chaos,

Actually, whatever one might else say on the subject, evolution, etc. do not tell us that. They are silent on whether God exists or not.

Captain Chaos (now in thrall to URKOBOLD) | November 1, 2007, 1:44pm | #

In the Great Galactic Register Of Inhabited Planets, it's called "The Planet Of Insane Morons".

I prefer "Primitive Dustball Inhabited by Psychotic Apes."

Untermensch | November 1, 2007, 1:44pm | #

If you want to know just how "Dark" the Dark Ages really got, may I strongly suggest that you read William Manchester's wonderful history, A World Lit Only By Fire?

I can only hope the book is better than the glowing review of it that Ron linked to, which really reads as a warning to anyone with any sense of history and historiographical methods… I've seldom read a positive review that does a more thorough job of discrediting its subject.

ed | November 1, 2007, 1:45pm | #

Please send the information to me

Ever heard of a little thing called the fossil record, Dan M?
Yeah, I know, God put it there to test us. Never mind.

lunchstealer | November 1, 2007, 1:45pm | #

You mean aside from faunal succession, geochronology, atomic physics, seismology, plate tectonics, genetics, and a bunch of other stuff? No I can't think of any proof other than whole swaths of science.

Captain Chaos (now in thrall to URKOBOLD) | November 1, 2007, 1:45pm | #

Syloson- Which is exactly my point. One can legitimately take a position either way.
I guess I should clarify one thing: the 'god works through evolution' was presented in theology classes. It was not brought up at all in any bio class that I recall.

Tbone | November 1, 2007, 1:46pm | #

But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict.

"In Chaos We Trust" (or maybe Gaia)?

x,y | November 1, 2007, 1:46pm | #

The stance was more like, "Evolution (and physics, and all other naturalist explanations of events) tells us how god achieves his goals.

Religious "stances" change as frequently as new (scientific) evidence comes to light. They've moved the goalposts too many times for this nonbeliever.

Lamar | November 1, 2007, 1:47pm | #

What else has Huckabee had a strong faith in? Oh yeah, Wayne Dumond. Huckabee had all kinds of faith in that guy.

J sub D | November 1, 2007, 1:47pm | #

I attended 16 years of parochial school, half of which was under the Jesuits. I was never taught anything resembling a fundie view of science. The stance was more like, "Evolution (and physics, and all other naturalist explanations of events) tells us how god achieves his goals.

After a series of embarrassing misteps (Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei), the Roman Catholic church has accepted the realities of science. I'm still an ex-catholic, but you've got to give credit where credit is due.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 1:50pm | #

Untermensch,

Ouch.

As far as I can tell (having never read it) Manchester's work is based on a very old-fashioned, 19th century notion of the "Middle Ages" which has largely been abandoned by the scholarly community.

de stijl | November 1, 2007, 1:52pm | #

But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't.

Huck has apparently never heard of the apocrypha, the Reformation, the history of Christian theology, Gnostics, grace, freewill, and predetermination, etc.

He was a minister. Don't you have to go to divinity school for that?

From the poll taken between May 21-24, results showed that 68 percent of Republicans tended to favor the idea that humans were created in their present form about 10,000 years ago...

That's some fucked up shit, right there.

Taktix® | November 1, 2007, 1:52pm | #

the Roman Catholic church has accepted the realities of science.

So they are teaching people in AIDS-ridden parts of Africa not to use condoms, and this is called accepting science?

Sorry, Catholicism has made far too many mistakes to let them off the hook anytime soon...

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 1:53pm | #

de stijl,

Large swaths of the American population believe in ghosts and ESP.

adrian | November 1, 2007, 1:54pm | #

does anyone else ever wonder how long it will take before religion completely disappears? Or what event would completely cause religion to stop?

I thought it would be finding aliens or something along those lines but then i read the other day that people can fit aliens into the bible stories somehow.

i mean seriously we've been narrowing down this god thing for thousands of years now, how much longer till we get rid of the last remaining few?

religious people just really piss me off

/rant

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 1:56pm | #

Religion will cearly not disappear. At one time many thought that it would. It has become apparent though that all religion does is evolve.

Franklin Harris | November 1, 2007, 1:56pm | #

Sadly, Huckabee's scientific know-nothingism could play well in the primaries since a majority of Republicans say that they don't believe in evolution either.

Well, maybe we should be getting ready to inaugurate President Hayseed Huckabee, because most Americans in general don't believe in evolution.

In other news, at least one-third of Americans believe in UFOs and/or psychic powers like ESP.

Meanwhile, Bryan Caplan's theory of voter bias can be used to explain why people tend to believe stupid things (not just about politics and economics) whenever there is no real cost to doing so.

de stijl | November 1, 2007, 2:07pm | #

Do any Americans believe the God created the UFOs and that they are helping guide evolution by using their ESP powers?

Lamar | November 1, 2007, 2:07pm | #

Isn't that Scientology?

J sub D | November 1, 2007, 2:07pm | #

He was a minister. Don't you have to go to divinity school for that?

No, I think all you need is a sign painter in order to become a minister.

Fluffy | November 1, 2007, 2:18pm | #

What I didn't like about Huckabee's debate statements about evolution was the profoundly disingenuous way he couched his answer.

He was directly asked if the world was created 6000 years ago, and he said, "I don't know. I wasn't there."

He obviously doesn't apply this standard of proof to, say, the question of whether George Washington was the first President of the United States, or whether there is a continent called Antarctica, or whether men walked on the moon, or about a hundred trillion other things I could sit here and list.

I hate, hate, hate people who feign skepticism when it's convenient as a cover for their dogmatism. Just answer the question honestly, Mike: you DO think the world was created 6000 years ago.

The Reverend ed | November 1, 2007, 2:21pm | #

I am now a minister. It was really easy. Just filled out a form online.
You may call me Reverend ed.
Or "Your Holiness" if you're feeling kinky.

Now accepting donations so I can build my amusement pa--, I mean, Holy City and Gift Shop.

ClubMedSux | November 1, 2007, 2:22pm | #

Hey Adrian... I'm religious. What did I do to piss you off?

Lamar | November 1, 2007, 2:24pm | #

I think Adrian started out pissed off. Religious people just happened to be there. Doesn't even matter where there might be.

brotherben | November 1, 2007, 2:28pm | #

Only thing I remember learning from my catholic upbringing is how to relax and find my happy place.

de stijl | November 1, 2007, 2:28pm | #

Per wiki, Huckabee attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Makes sense. That's totally a party divinity school.

J sub D | November 1, 2007, 2:31pm | #

religious people just really piss me off

Religious people piss me off too. So do agnostic people. And atheists.
My therapist says I've really got to work on that.
Of course, therapists piss me off the most.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 2:35pm | #

J sub D,

Do people in general piss you off?

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 2:36pm | #

"Huck has apparently never heard of the apocrypha, the Reformation, the history of Christian theology, Gnostics, grace, freewill, and predetermination, etc."

Religion is everchanging. Just look at the Abrahamic tradition. First there was the Jewish religion, but it was influenced by Sumerian religion and Egyptian religion. Then under Persian captivity, the Jews developed certain Zoroastrian beliefs such as apocalyptic ideas, Satan, Heaven and Hell. Then Christianity developed out of a combination of Jewish Messianism and pagan beliefs, then Islam out of the Jewish prophetic tradition.

So Huckleberry Hound is way off base when he says God doesn't change. Looking at the Judaic Chritian tradition, he changed his mind several times.

Lamar | November 1, 2007, 2:36pm | #

J sub D:

The rapists piss me off too.

adrian | November 1, 2007, 2:37pm | #

clubmedsux,

Just knowing you exist is all it takes.

Taktix® | November 1, 2007, 2:37pm | #

Religious people piss me off too.

Why?

One word:

Proselytism

Homer | November 1, 2007, 2:42pm | #

"who raised their hands affirming that they did not believe in biological evolution."

Are you certain the question was about "biological evolution"? "Cause what I heard was "evolution".

J sub D | November 1, 2007, 2:43pm | #

Do people in general piss you off?

Hot willing female people generally do not piss me off.

Lamar | November 1, 2007, 2:51pm | #

That guy in the Valtrex commercial pisses me off.

SPD | November 1, 2007, 2:51pm | #

I've always thought the difference between God and evolution is that you don't have to believe in evolution: the proof is there if you bother to look for it, which eliminates the need for belief.

God, on the other hand, requires you to believe in the absence of any rational evidence. That is not intended to be a knock on people who believe in God, by the way.

Some of the greatest contributors to science were religious men; Gregor Mendel, for one example.

james | November 1, 2007, 2:58pm | #

Believe what you want just don't try to legislate based on those beliefs. I hate hearing that America was intended to be a Christian nation. Quite a few of the Founders were Deists not the same at all as Christians.

Religion is also relative. We live in a country where Christianity is the dominant religion. If we lived in a nation where Hinduism was dominant we might be having the same type of discussion about Kali, Vishnu, Ganesh, etc. Most people I've talked (argued) with concerning religion really don't understand anything about their religions history. Their great-grandparents were raised believing this, their grandparents believed it, their parents believed it for most people that is the sum reason of why they believe the things they believe about their faith. Nothing wrong with that as long as you don't feel like you have to convert the non-believers.

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 2:59pm | #

"If you believe in evolution then ask yourself what specific scientific evidence do you know that proves the theory. Please send the information to me in an email."

What about vestigial organs such as appendages on whales that serve no purpose but are in the position of where limbs would have been on their ancestors?

J sub D | November 1, 2007, 3:00pm | #

Some of the greatest contributors to science were religious men; Gregor Mendel, for one example.

One of the big three. Sir Isaac Newton for another.

de stijl | November 1, 2007, 3:00pm | #

Nothing wrong with that as long as you don't feel like you have to convert the non-believers.

Or kill them. That kind of sucks too.

ClubMedSux | November 1, 2007, 3:03pm | #

Hey Taktix... I don't recall proslytizing to you, Adrian or anybody else.

On a side note, there was a recent thread on beeradvocate.com about converting Bud/Miller/Coors drinkers to craft beer. Hmm... maybe people try to introduce other to things they're passionate about because they want to share the joy they get from that passion. Doesn't mean it's any less annoying, but perhaps you should simply be pissed off at passionate people.

Brian S. | November 1, 2007, 3:06pm | #

To anyone who would dismiss a political candidate as intellectually unfit because he does not subscribe to popular evolutionary theory: You assume that evolution is a proven fact, an inviolable law of nature, that all rational people do believe in. What you detractors arrogantly fail to recognize are your own unprovable preconceptions and that it requires more faith to believe in purely naturalistic (atheistic) evolution than it does in a Creator who has something to do with the existence of the Universe and the fact that we live on this planet.

The objective here is not to debate the fine details of evolutionary theory. Very few of us are sufficiently well read on the subject to take on that task. Rather, the objective is to point out to the evolution establishment that subscription to their beliefs does not make one intellectually superior to those who do not. The evolution establishment is not, and should not presume to be, the gatekeepers of progress and influence in our culture.

I submit some points for your consideration here: http://snowbriand.wordpress.com/

Lamar | November 1, 2007, 3:12pm | #

"What you detractors arrogantly fail to recognize are your own unprovable preconceptions"

Um...no we don't.

SPD | November 1, 2007, 3:12pm | #

J Sub D,

I remember watching a special on Newton where he feared losing his position at Cambridge because he held the controversial (at the time) belief that the Holy Trinity was not legitimate.

As for the third member of the Big Three, perhaps Copernicus? He was a canon in the Catholic Church, and his uncle was a bishop.

Lamar | November 1, 2007, 3:15pm | #

BrianS: Thanks for telling me from where ever you might be in the world (and without ever laying eyes on me or meeting me, or even knowing if you met someone remotely like me) exactly which factors I have and haven't taken into account in deriving my belief system.

Taktix® | November 1, 2007, 3:17pm | #

ClubMedSux,

I meant it in a more joking manner, I don't actually hate Christians.

And no, you haven't tried to convert me, but I live in Florida, and many have.

Some guy telling others to drink a different beer is not the same as systematic murder and torture to convince someone to convert to Christianity.

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 3:17pm | #

"Of course God doesn't change because the book was only written once."

Actually, with all the interpolations, you could say it was rewritten several times, plus the New Testament is more or less a rewriting of the Old Testament.

Lamar | November 1, 2007, 3:18pm | #

Basing one's beliefs on evidence does not make anybody intellectually superior. It does, however, make society intellectually superior.

SPD | November 1, 2007, 3:19pm | #

Rattlesnake Jake,

Not to mention the numerous translations between languages.

x | November 1, 2007, 3:19pm | #

Libertate: "Has science given me a flying car? No."

Well it did, sort of. Aerocar International made the "Aerocar" only six ever made; one still flying I think. Not a very good car, nor a very good aircraft, but they did make it.

There are other designs, prototypes, whatnot.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 3:23pm | #

Brian S.,

...that it requires more faith to believe in purely naturalistic (atheistic) evolution than it does in a Creator who has something to do with the existence of the Universe and the fact that we live on this planet.

I've heard this argument on numerous occassions of occasions but have as yet to find a satisfactory explication of said claim.

Ethan | November 1, 2007, 3:24pm | #

science changes with every generation ... and God doesn't.

She doesn't?

Pro Libertate | November 1, 2007, 3:24pm | #

x,

I really meant a flying car in every home, including mine. With automated piloting so that the flying car in my home will be in my garage, rather than embedded into my roof.

james | November 1, 2007, 3:25pm | #

Brian S why is it necessary to believe in a creator being act all?

james | November 1, 2007, 3:26pm | #

that's supposed to at not act

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 3:26pm | #

"What you detractors arrogantly fail to recognize are your own unprovable preconceptions and that it requires more faith to believe in purely naturalistic (atheistic) evolution than it does in a Creator who has something to do with the existence of the Universe and the fact that we live on this planet."

I think it takes a lot of faith to believe in a god. If God created all this, how did he do it? Does he have hands? Does he have a physical brain? What is his MO? Saying a god did all this answers nothing because you're left with the question of how he did it. It's easier for me to understand all of this coming about over hundreds of millions of years (multicellular organisms) by genetic mutations and natural selection.

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 3:34pm | #

"On a side note, there was a recent thread on beeradvocate.com about converting Bud/Miller/Coors drinkers to craft beer. Hmm... maybe people try to introduce other to things they're passionate about because they want to share the joy they get from that passion. Doesn't mean it's any less annoying, but perhaps you should simply be pissed off at passionate people"

I never got any passion from Christianity. One thing I hate about Christians is their belief of eternal damnation for those who don't believe the way they do. Is that such a horrible thing that the person who doesn't believe a certain thing on faith should deserve an eternity of suffering in Hell? Frankly, I don't see how a thinking and loving person can find passion in such a monstous philosophy.

robc | November 1, 2007, 3:35pm | #

ClubMedSux,

BMC drinkers piss me off.

Brian S. | November 1, 2007, 3:36pm | #

RE: "Basing one's beliefs on evidence does not make anybody intellectually superior. It does, however, make society intellectually superior."

Lamar,
Yes, following the evidence is the superior path to knowledge and truth. What we think the "evidence" means depends on how we filter it through our preconceptions (e.g. whether the supernatural exists or only a purely material universe; evidence = proof; Bible always literal; Scientific consensus is infallible; etc). The Bible is not necessarily at odds with Science. Only people are at odds with one side or the other because of what they preconceive about the side they have chosen to take. There are volumes of evidence for the reliability of the Bible and the existence of God. Drop a comment on my blog if you dare, and I'll e-mail you some resources.

the truth | November 1, 2007, 3:36pm | #

Contrary to popular belief evolution is actually quite impossible. If you really researched the subject you would find that it makes the most sense that there is a creator who made the universe, not just random chance. God and science fit together perfectly

Akira MacKenzie | November 1, 2007, 3:37pm | #

BTW, if you are going to read a general history of the "Middle Ages" check out Hollister's Medieval Europe - A Short History.

Oh! That's one of my favorites.

J sub D | November 1, 2007, 3:37pm | #

The big three - IMHO Newton, Planck, and Einstein are the physics big three. Einstein would probably be best described as a Deist. Planck, I have no idea about his theological leanings. There are lots of theists who were great scientists. I'm an atheist, but I have respect historical facts.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 3:38pm | #

Brian S.,

There are volumes of evidence for the reliability of the Bible and the existence of God.

Pray reveal why so many sections of the canonical gospels conflict with one another?

robc | November 1, 2007, 3:39pm | #

Speaking of Planck, when are we going to all switch to Planck units?

Mohummad | November 1, 2007, 3:40pm | #

"Some guy telling others to drink a different beer is not the same as systematic murder and torture to convince someone to convert to Christianity."

Is that still going on? Who knew!

ClubMedSux | November 1, 2007, 3:40pm | #

Sorry, Taktix, didn't mean to be so jumpy. And I certainly don't condone murder on behalf of any religion. That being said, while religious fervor may have been used as motivation for countless conflicts, I think the conflicts themselves were generally power struggles between different groups where religion just happened to be what separated one group from the other. If religion were completely wiped off of the face of the earth, groups would still find other reasons to hate, fight and kill each other.

Mark A Tarnowski | November 1, 2007, 3:41pm | #

"New Testament is more or less a rewriting of the Old Testament."

That's just stupid.

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 3:41pm | #

"From the poll taken between May 21-24, results showed that 68 percent of Republicans tended to favor the idea that humans were created in their present form about 10,000 years ago,"

The Republican Party = the stupid party.

Akira MacKenzie | November 1, 2007, 3:42pm | #

Contrary to popular belief evolution is actually quite impossible

Then why is there so much irrefutable evidence that supports it?

God and science fit together perfectly

"God and science" is a contradiction in terms.

Droolin' Bill | November 1, 2007, 3:43pm | #

"science changes with every generation"

The science of every age is not based on fact, but rather its absence.

SPD | November 1, 2007, 3:43pm | #

ClubMedSux: "If religion were completely wiped off of the face of the earth, groups would still find other reasons to hate, fight and kill each other."

Granted, sadly, but at least there'd be one less reason.

J sub D | November 1, 2007, 3:44pm | #

Contrary to popular belief evolution is actually quite impossible.

This is real. Get over it.

Steve S. | November 1, 2007, 3:45pm | #

Crucifixion is too good for those B/M/C drinkers! Burn them I say!

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 3:45pm | #

Akira,

Yes, Hollister is a great writer (amongst other things).

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 3:46pm | #

"New Testament is more or less a rewriting of the Old Testament."

"That's just stupid."

I knew that would get a response. Look at the Christian Messiah for instance. The Jews were waiting for a political leader, not a sacrificial messiah. The Old Testament taught people were saved through the law, The New Testament taught people were saved through faith. Christians claim to believe in the same God Jews beleived in, but look at the difference in the two gods or did God change his mind?

Randi | November 1, 2007, 3:47pm | #

"I think it takes a lot of faith to believe in a god. If God created all this, how did he do it? Does he have hands? Does he have a physical brain? What is his MO?"

The power of speach (e.g., and G-d said, "let ther be light."

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 3:49pm | #

Akira,

Apparently Hollister died in 1997; a true loss.

J sub D | November 1, 2007, 3:49pm | #

If religion were completely wiped off of the face of the earth, groups would still find other reasons to hate, fight and kill each other.

Sadly true. But you couldn't promise people eternal bliss for committing atrocities, could you?

Reinmoose | November 1, 2007, 3:49pm | #

I never got any passion from Christianity. One thing I hate about Christians is their belief of eternal damnation for those who don't believe the way they do. Is that such a horrible thing that the person who doesn't believe a certain thing on faith should deserve an eternity of suffering in Hell? Frankly, I don't see how a thinking and loving person can find passion in such a monstous philosophy.

RJ -
I was thinking about this just this weekend when my own mother said to me that she hopes I don't go to hell. I don't think it was a compliment, either. I've always had scorn for the arrogance that if you simply believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, etc. it undoes all of the awful shit you do to people (directly and indirectly)

Pro Libertate | November 1, 2007, 3:51pm | #

You know, most of the Republicans I know are not Creationists. Maybe I have a bad sample, but I don't see how a majority of the country or of either major party could be, given that the Creationists generally lose their political battles. Also, aren't most of the Christian churches open to modern views of cosmology, geology, and biology?

Of course, there's no shortage of fundamentalists and/or Creationists. I'm contending with both with my stepson at a Baptist private school (long story, but we didn't have much choice about him going there. The indoctrination, esp. in regards to evolution and Young Earth claptrap, is profound.).

It's people of a certain type of worldview that are creating the conflict between religion and science. There is no reason at all why suppositions about God and observations about the universe can't co-exist. If it comes to believing words written or spoken by men and the universe itself--the ultimate "Bible"--I'm believing in the latter. Bah.

Pastor John | November 1, 2007, 3:54pm | #

"Pray reveal why so many sections of the canonical gospels conflict with one another?"

Ever been to a crime scene? Witnesses’ accounts tend to differ from one another. The fact that the four gospels contradict one another is encouraging. Four liars would have all gotten their stories straight first.

Brian | November 1, 2007, 3:55pm | #

Akira MacKenzie: "'God and science' is a contradiction in terms."

This demonstrates exactly what I mean by preconceptions. You assume that God and science are mutually exclusive. Science is a tool, a methodology, for the study of the measurable material world. It has nothing to say (and by definition, cannot say) about subjects outside of its scope. Yet some people speak as though Science can provide the answer to anything. Given the domain of Science, how then can it contradict the existence of God?

Akira MacKenzie | November 1, 2007, 3:56pm | #

I've always had scorn for the arrogance that if you simply believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, etc. it undoes all of the awful shit you do to people (directly and indirectly)

Appearently, Jesus didn't get the whole forgiveness thing, either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzuxyq3ltls

Reinmoose | November 1, 2007, 3:56pm | #

I'd just like to clear something up.
I don't think there's a conflict between GOD and science, but there is most certainly a conflict between religion and science. Up until now, no religion I know of has a clause in it that says they will change their views if they are scientifically proven to be wrong. In this way, religion is most definitely incompatible. Science on the other hand has not yet disproven God.

washedandforgiven | November 1, 2007, 3:56pm | #

Uhh, guys, I hate to break it to you, but the majority of Americans don't believe in macro-evolution... so that kind of makes him normal. And furthermore, why aren't you calling for people to discredit Dennis Kucinich. He insists he's seen UFO's... which is hardly "reasonable." There's a lot more people who have offered proof for and existence of God than an existence of UFO'S.

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 3:57pm | #

"The power of speach (e.g., and G-d said, "let ther be light."

And how is speech supposed to create things?

x | November 1, 2007, 3:57pm | #

Libertate,

Yeah, I actually understood that. I was sort of spoofing. I also assume that the ironic meta comes down to you are pro-science. I am.

Anyway, God hasn't given me a practical flying car, either.

x

Pastor John | November 1, 2007, 3:57pm | #

"Christians claim to believe in the same God Jews beleived in, but look at the difference in the two gods or did God change his mind?"

No, just his tactics. Had to.

Lamar | November 1, 2007, 3:59pm | #

BrianS: I've been through that debate before. I have no desire to go there over and over. A literal interpretation of the Bible is at odds with science and observation.

I am not filtering any "preconceptions" when I say that burning bushes will be consumed 100% of the time because we both know that fire requires fuel and air and that the fire consumes that fuel. It's what fire does. There is no burning bush that is not consumed. Not anywhere, never...no preconceptions, just unarrogant scientific knowledge available to all.

Now the overarching idea of a God who created the world and everything else might not be inconsistent with science. I'll readily concede that. Thus, God might not be incompatible with science, but the Bible is.

Your idea that evidence only exists through the lens with which we view it is unsettling. Don't you think it's a little presumptuous to assume that nobody has thought about this on a deeper level than you? Or that groups of people haven't cross-examined each others views in a profound and respectful way? That nobody has ever explored those avenues? You don't believe in a truly open mind, and by extension, free will.

adrian | November 1, 2007, 4:00pm | #

I think my main problem with religious people is I'll never be able to tell them "i told you so". They will keep believing until the moment that they die which is when they would realize there is no god, but at that moment they won't be conscious so they won't realize anything, and thus won't remember me telling them that there wasn't a god.

bummer

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 4:00pm | #

"Uhh, guys, I hate to break it to you, but the majority of Americans don't believe in macro-evolution... so that kind of makes him normal. And furthermore, why aren't you calling for people to discredit Dennis Kucinich. He insists he's seen UFO's... which is hardly "reasonable." There's a lot more people who have offered proof for and existence of God than an existence of UFO'S."

They're both nuts. But in Kucinich's defense, he didn't say it was a flying saucer or anything from another planet. He just said he saw something in the air that he couldn't identify, which makes it an unidentified flying object. It could have been no telling what.

de stijl | November 1, 2007, 4:02pm | #

I say let the B/M/C drinkers be. Do not prosletize them with the good stuff. In fact, I say let's do everything in our power to get more people to drink crappy beer. And if they get a wild hair about drinking a quality beer, them we lie to them and steer them towards Heineken or somesuch.

I do not want demand pressure driving up the price of my favorite beers.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 4:02pm | #

Pastor John,

Ever been to a crime scene? Witnesses’ accounts tend to differ from one another. The fact that the four gospels contradict one another is encouraging. Four liars would have all gotten their stories straight first.

So they are historically accurate but contradict one another? So which contradicted story does one accept? Furthermore, these are "witness statements" by any stretch of the imagination. They were put down on paper at least one generation after the supposed death of Christ (in the case of John's gospel we're talking about two to three generations after such). It is also the case that it is obvious that they are drawing on one another and on sources which no longer exist.

Brian S. | November 1, 2007, 4:02pm | #

Gotta get back to work; lunch is over. Drop me a line if you want to continue this conversation later.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 4:03pm | #

...these aren't "eyewitness statements"...

x,y | November 1, 2007, 4:05pm | #

Think of all the advancements and things we know now that our ancestors -- as recently as a few hundred years ago -- didn't know.

I feel 100% comfortable saying we don't really know sh*t about the origins of the universe, what predated the cosmos, where it came from, how that stuff got there, etc. I can see where our immense lack of knowledge could lead someone to believe in a higher power, i.e., an intelligent form *greater* than us. It wouldn't surprise me if we were "created" by something far beyond anything we can understand.

That said, all the creation myths and modern religions are bullsh*t. And until someone can prove otherwise, I'll remain a skeptic.

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 4:06pm | #

"Christians claim to believe in the same God Jews beleived in, but look at the difference in the two gods or did God change his mind?"

"No, just his tactics. Had to."

If God is omniscient, why didn't he employ those tactics to begin with if he knew people couldn't obey his laws?

Brian | November 1, 2007, 4:07pm | #

Syloson of Samos:

You've asked a "When did you stop beating your wife?" kind of question. The onus is on you to provide the specific examples that you think are contradictory. I'll let Pastor John handle this one since he's already on it. Suppose your doubts remain about your perceived discrepancies between the gospel accounts, but you are presented with a ton of evidence for the reliability of the Bible. What would that do for you? Okay, I really have to go now. Later.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 4:08pm | #

Rattlesnake Jake,

If god exists, it could be easily assumed that he or she is a rather incompentant god. I suppose that's why I find gnosticism of interest.

james | November 1, 2007, 4:09pm | #

Brian S the Hindus believe in Ganesha just one of their gods here is a brief description of him. They believe in his reality as surely as you believe in the reality of the Christian god. I'm sure that a Hindu would argue just as fiercely that his book is proof of the validity of his belief.


Lord Ganesha is the most widely worshipped Hindu God. He is worshipped at the start of any action or venture, for he is considered to be the Lord who removes obstacles (vignam) and hence is also called Vigneshwara.
He has an elephant head, four arms. In his upper hands he holds the paasam (noose) and ankusam. The lower two hands are held in the abhaya and varada mudras. He is also seen holding his broken tusk in his right lower hand and a modhakam in his left lower hand. He has a huge belly and is fond of various sweets and fruits. He wears a snake as an ornament round his belly. He is depicted in seated, standing and dancing postures.

He is considered a bachelor, but according to another school of thought, he has two Sakthis - Siddhi & Buddhi. Siddhi represents success and prosperity. Buddhi represents wisdom. His vahana is a tiny mouse (mooshikam or minjur).

Of course I'm sure you believe Hinduism is as laughable as some of us believe Christianity is.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 4:10pm | #

Brian,

These are well known contradictions by those who have read the canonical Gospels. Indeed, scholars have spent a lot of time trying to reconcile these contradictions and have come up with a lot fancy intellectual footwork to do so. These are not new issues, they are about as old as the creation of the a canonical NT. So really, the onus isn't on me.

Pastor John | November 1, 2007, 4:12pm | #

"I've always had scorn for the arrogance that if you simply believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, etc. it undoes all of the awful shit you do to people (directly and indirectly)"

Actually, he died for everyone. Everyone. It's only the egotistical who think it means just them. But you know, he died for them too.

Geotpf | November 1, 2007, 4:13pm | #

That Christian Post article quotes my favorite poll EVER.

Here's the direct link:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_N.htm?csp=34

53% of people surveyed thought this statement was true:

"Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life"

66% of people surveyed thought this statement was true:

"Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"

DOES ANYBODY ELSE SEE A PROBLEM WITH THESE RESULTS?

At least 19% of those surveyed agreed with both statements (could be higher, since it was possible to disagree with both statements or say No Opinion). And the statements were 100% contradictory.

That is, if surveyed, 19% of the American public will say black equals white.

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 4:14pm | #

"Ever been to a crime scene? Witnesses’ accounts tend to differ from one another. The fact that the four gospels contradict one another is encouraging. Four liars would have all gotten their stories straight first."

I first saw this argument in Frank Morrison's "Who Moved the Stone". At the time, I thought it was a good argument, but have since come to see how unsound it is. The four writers probably didn't even know each other. The four Gospels circulated in different locations at different times. The four writers were probably from different Christian sects and each probably claimed theirs to be the more accurate. Each writers of each Gospel tried to convey different ideas. And what Syloson said.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 4:14pm | #

Brian,

...but you are presented with a ton of evidence for the reliability of the Bible.

There is no ton of such evidence. It doesn't exist. For example, there are exactly references to Jesus outside of the NT (and here I simply ignore the claimed Thalmudic references they refer to someone with the same guy's name) - by Josephus and Pliny. And there references are a generation (Josephus) or more (three in the case of Pliny) after his supposed death. I know a great deal about this stuff.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 4:16pm | #

Brian,

...there are exactly references two to Jesus outside of the NT...

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 4:18pm | #

Rattlesnake Jake,

Well, the purposes and philosophical background of each writer(s?) are also quite different. Each of them has their own axe to grind in other words - be it against the Jews or in taking up Jesus as a apocalypticist or what have you.

Pastor John | November 1, 2007, 4:18pm | #

"If God is omniscient, why didn't he employ those tactics to begin with if he knew people couldn't obey his laws?"

Because He IS omniscient. It's a long-term strategy.

deron | November 1, 2007, 4:20pm | #

Augustine's an interesting reference since his perspective was a result of rejecting a manichean view of the world, he's the opposite of the trend in Huckabee's christian constituents who increasingly embrace a manichean view of the world. Heresy's come and heresy's go, but science we'll always have with us.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 4:20pm | #

Rattlesnake Jake,

And John is a real outlier - he's really the only one who specifically treats Jesus as a God, for the rest of them it is either rather ambigious or even less than that.

james | November 1, 2007, 4:20pm | #

The whole eternal damnation thing was what caused me to examine my religious views. I use to be a Baptist (when I was very young). My greatest fear was sinning and going to hell. They overplayed that angle in my sect of Christianity and after awhile the inconsistencies jumped out at me. How could you have a loving god who would sentence his "child" to eternal damnation for sinning. ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS!!

StupendousMan | November 1, 2007, 4:21pm | #

"Science on the other hand has not yet disproven God"

Which god are you referring to?

Science most certainly has developed information which disproves many divinities. For example, evolution creates very little room for the Abrahamic creator. In fact, if the bible is supposed to be the word of god science has proven him wrong time and again- Gawd made the claims, science has proven them wrong. Pretty strong evidence for his non-omniscience and if he's not omniscient he's not the god Christians think they are worshiping.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 4:23pm | #

james,

The problem of evil is something that many religions have a very hard time explaining in any sort of logical, believable fashion.

Gustaff | November 1, 2007, 4:24pm | #

"but science we'll always have with us."

Not if the terrorists win. How many Nobles have gone to Islamofascists?

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 4:24pm | #

"Actually, he died for everyone. Everyone. It's only the egotistical who think it means just them. But you know, he died for them too."

How does Jesus's death save us? You will say that our belief in his death saves us, so how does that save us? We are back to the illogical concept that somehow accepting a belief on faith is a virtue and not accepting something on faith deserves eternal punishment. If God created us, didn't he intend for us to use the brains he gave us? By using critical thinking, we are using our brains. When we think critically, we don't accept some outlandish concept on faith just because it appeals to us or because our parents taught us to believe it or because our society believes it. We think for ourselves.

Reinmoose | November 1, 2007, 4:27pm | #

StupendousMan -
did you completely ignore the rest of my post where I differentiated between religion and the concept of a god?

Reinmoose | November 1, 2007, 4:29pm | #

"I've always had scorn for the arrogance that if you simply believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, etc. it undoes all of the awful shit you do to people (directly and indirectly)"

Actually, he died for everyone. Everyone. It's only the egotistical who think it means just them. But you know, he died for them too.

That's what I meant to imply. It doesn't change my comment though.

Reinmoose | November 1, 2007, 4:33pm | #

"If God is omniscient, why didn't he employ those tactics to begin with if he knew people couldn't obey his laws?"

Because He IS omniscient. It's a long-term strategy.

So Pastor John -
are you a
"We're accountable for our own actions because God gave us free will."
kinda guy, or a
"God has a plan for you" kinda guy, or as you put it he has a "long-term strategy?"

james | November 1, 2007, 4:37pm | #

Yes that discrepancy is what "woke" me up as it were. Father John that belief that you are right drives me crazy. You only believe that particular myth because of where you were born. We look at the religious tales of the greeks, romans, norse etc as myths. Remember that in the ancient times there were people who believed that Zeus, Jupiter, or Odin literally walked the earth. Just like you believe Christ died for your sins. What makes Christianity more right than the religions that came before it. I believe in buddhist philosophy which is not the same thing as buddhism the religion. You won't see me trying to get others to convert to my philosophy. Believe what works for you but don't insult me by implying that your views are right and mine are not.

Pro Libertate | November 1, 2007, 4:38pm | #

S of S,

My understanding is that the Josephus reference is most likely a later addition. I don't doubt for a moment that Christ was historical--the indirect evidence is compelling--but it appears to be an unfortunate truth that early church fathers weren't above monkeying with "bolstering" the historical record.

Pliny and most of the other references were non-contemporaneous. Whatever one might believe, there's no doubt that the Gospels and an organized religion that we call Christianity existed in the first century A.D. (and, of course, beyond). So early references to "Christians" don't prove much.

This has nothing to do with religious faith, either. Even if we had tons of historical proof of Christ's existence, it doesn't change the fact that the religious view of Christ requires a leap of faith. And that leap is a choice left to each individual to make or not make.

StupendousMan | November 1, 2007, 4:39pm | #

I did read it. I was commenting on the last sentence. I think Science has much evidence that the god defined in the bible doesn't exist.

Or are you saying that Science hasn't disproved every conceivable god?

maybe I missed your point... on pain meds- hope the feds don't git me.


Anyway I get irritated every time someone says that Science can say nothing about god or why we're here, etc.- of course it can.

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 4:40pm | #

"but science we'll always have with us."

"Not if the terrorists win. How many Nobles have gone to Islamofascists?"

Gustaff, you really believe that the terrorists represent that big a threat that they could take over the world?

Pastor John | November 1, 2007, 4:42pm | #

"So Pastor John -
are you a
"We're accountable for our own actions because God gave us free will."
kinda guy, or a
"God has a plan for you" kinda guy, or as you put it he has a "long-term strategy?""

Why only the two choices? I'm a free-thinking kind of guy.

Syloson of Samos | November 1, 2007, 4:43pm | #

Pro Libertate,

What was likely a later addition was Josephus' praise of Jesus. The portion where he mentions Jesus is likely part of the original text. Of course there are arguments for and against.

Pastor John | November 1, 2007, 4:43pm | #

"You won't see me trying to get others to convert to my philosophy."

You just did.

Reinmoose | November 1, 2007, 4:44pm | #

StupendousMan:
I see... I capitalized "god" in my final sentence. I did mean to say that science has not yet disproven every conceivable god, as in, a higher power.

Rattlesnake Jake | November 1, 2007, 4:45pm | #

"I don't doubt for a moment that Christ was historical--the indirect evidence is compelling"

Compelling? Read G.A. Wells and Earl Dougherty.

StupendousMan | November 1, 2007, 4:46pm | #

Reinmoose,

Cool, I get it. Thanks for the clarification.

james | November 1, 2007, 4:47pm | #

I think some people find the idea of Heaven comforting. Personally I think it would be extremely boring having your every desire and wish catered to for an eternity. I think it was DL Hughley who said something to the effect in a joke that, "you can't smoke, can't drink, can't have sex sounds