http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2014/0206/Pat-Robertson-rejects-young-earth-creationism.-Nonsense-he-says.-video
“There ain’t no way that’s possible,” Mr. Robertson said Wednesday on his show, “The 700 Club,” taking issue with the “young earth” version of creationism, which holds that the universe is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old. “We have skeletons of dinosaurs that go back 65 million years,” Robertson said. “To say it all dates back to 6,000 years is just nonsense, and I think [it’s] time we come off of that stuff, and say this isn’t possible.”
“Let’s be real; let’s not make a joke of ourselves,” he said.
He has expressed these views before, in fact, but after the widely anticipated clash between Messrs. Nye and Ham, responses to the televangelist’s comments came quickly on Twitter and other social media sites. Many crowed that even a conservative fundamentalist like Robertson, who helped lead the rise of the religious right since the 1960s, couldn’t agree with Ham’s literalist views. Others saw his comments as a betrayal, if not a form of heresy.
But Tuesday’s debate and Robertson’s reaction underscore the deep cultural ambivalence and complicated history that American Evangelical Protestants have with the science of evolution. Indeed, the issue has haunted the conservative subculture for more than a century, and in many ways it continues to be a touchstone in the diverse intellectual and theological identity of politically powerful Evangelicals.
I predict this is going to cause big trouble on the Right. Although anti-scientific religious fundamentalism is not necessarily a Conservative trait, it is certainly identified with a key constituency on the Right. Once non-Biblical biological theory is allowed, what could be next?
-
The problem seems to be that
-
divine inspiration
-
Thank you Robert; whether my interpretation was divinely inspired or not, is open for scrutiny.
-
inspired one way or another, Johannes ;-)
-
inspired one way or another, Johannes ;-)
-
Thank you Robert; whether my interpretation was divinely inspired or not, is open for scrutiny.
-
Sad. It's worth a headline when a Christian Conservative makes some sense.
-
Then again, maybe it doesn't mean anything.
-
Are you saying that
- Are you saying that the match between modern scientific concepts and the concepts from the old book are a coincidence?
-
Are you saying that
-
divine inspiration