ATHENS, Ga. - Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.This takes on added significance because representative Broun sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
The Republican lawmaker made those comments during a speech Sept. 27 at a sportsman's banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell. Broun, a medical doctor, is running for re-election in November unopposed by Democrats.
"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and 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 are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."
Broun also said that he believes the Earth is about 9,000 years old and that it was made in six days. Those beliefs are held by fundamentalist Christians who believe the creation accounts in the Bible to be literally true.
A petition has been created, requesting that Rep. Broun be removed from that committee. I have added my name to the 75,000+ signatures on that petition. You can add your name at this link.
God created a living (and as such growing) rational universe where his creation would become aware of the creation not a universe in stasis where all but the creator would remain in dull unenlightened ignorance, or maybe not.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link, Stan. Signed and re-posted.
ReplyDeleteI'm in Ireland and I'll sign that!
ReplyDeleteI'm very sad to see the intolerance from those who claim to be tolerant.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you understand the irony here:
ReplyDeleteUniversity of Georgia at Athens (B.S., Chemistry, 1967) and earned his Doctor of Medicine (1971) from the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta.[4] His internship was at Good Samaritan Hospital in Portland, Oregon and residency at University Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. He then practiced general medicine; starting in 2002 he maintained a practice based solely on house calls.
So, that's where all your scientists in Congress are - in the idiot caucus
Just to clarify, The photo in the article is of Neil deGrasse Tyson? Appreciate the irony, will sign too.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's Tyson, but the photo wasn't connected to the article; I paired them up.
DeleteThat petition is nothing but bigotry. I will not sign it, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself if you do. Some people do not hold to an exclusively naturalistic worldview, and it is neither illegal or unsafe to hold to a special creation.
ReplyDeleteI signed it too and I'm not embarassed or ashamed of having done so. That man has every right to hold that worldview, and I do not denounce him as a person for holding it, but he should not be sitting on a scientific funding committee.
DeleteDoes your church allow atheists and wiccans to be members? If it does, would it place them in administrative positions to determine policy and doctrine?
No, we wouldn't. But I was not aware that science had become a religion that has a committee in the House of Representatives. Creationists can be fine scientists, and many are. You very comparison is exactly the reason why he should not be kicked off the council, because neither science nor the country belongs to atheists. Or theists, for that matter. We have to share it, even when one says things the other does not particularly like.
DeleteThese Representatives are...representatives, and there are many people who believe exactly like this doctor, like it or not. If you exclude him, you are de facto saying the others are not allowed or worthy to join the conversation, and that is a travesty of justice. Saying that "you do not denounce him as a person" comes off as a very polite, but condescending platitude.
And really, I don't like to fuss about such things, but I can't help it when I see something so egregiously wrong. The man is a Representative of Georgia, and they deserve to have a voice on the appointed committee by the man they voted in.
Also, this debate is extremely old and ancient. Basil the Great was engaged in this same kind of argument roughly 1600 years ago. Here is what he said then:
DeleteThe philosophers of Greece have made much ado to explain nature, and not one of their systems has remained firm and unshaken, each being overturned by its successor. It is vain to refute them; they are sufficient in themselves to destroy one another. Those who were too ignorant to rise to a knowledge of a God, could not allow that an intelligent cause presided at the birth of the Universe; a primary error that involved them in sad consequences. … Deceived by their inherent atheism it appeared to them that nothing governed or ruled the universe, and that was all was given up to chance. To guard us against this error the writer on the creation, from the very first words, enlightens our understanding with the name of God; “In the beginning God created.” What a glorious order! He first establishes a beginning, so that it might not be supposed that the world never had a beginning.
I don't quote him to say that the Representative is correct, but to demonstrate that this is a conversation that will continue. The one thing we don't get to do is shut people out of the conversation.
Anonymous, your premise is badly flawed. You illustration implies that the Bible and science are at odds with one another, and nothing could be further from the truth. There is voluminous proof for a young earth and for an intelligent designer. The case for evolution and its accompanying tenets is weak at best, and in reality is the biggest hoax ever played on the human race. There are honest scientists who WANT evolution to be true who still have to admit that the THEORY is sadly lacking. You cannot honestly give an example where true science and the Bible disagree. Congressman Broun has every right to sit on that committee.
DeleteThe Bible says, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:3) And lest you quibble with the word "faith", it takes at least as much faith to accept the unscientific doctrine of evolution as it does to accept the possibility of a divine creator. We all have the God-given freedom to reject the Bible, but it does get tiring to hear the patronization that is expressed towards those who accept its truths. Bible believers are patted on the head like children who believe in Santa Claus. We are magnanimously allowed to hold our cute little beliefs as long we are not allowed to make any important or intellectual decisions. Based on his statement in Principia ("The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.")you wouldn't even allow Isaac Newton to be on that committee.
"You cannot honestly give an example where true science and the Bible disagree"
DeleteHow about Jonah surviving for three days underwater without oxygen in the belly of a great fish or whale.
That is exactly the point, Anonymous. Christians, as well as many, many other people, believe and God and they believe in miracles. Our entire faith is centered on a man who was also God, who was crucified for sinners not yet born, and that this crucifixion was a propitiation for everyone who would believe in him.
DeleteWe believe that Jesus of Nazareth was dead, stone dead, for three days and miraculously came back to life. We believe that the children of Israel went across the Red Sea on dry land and that pharaoh's armies drowned behind them. We have been around for two thousand years believing these things. Have you heard of this before?
So why, if we believe that a man died for our sins and came back to life, why should we blush at a young earth miracle? If you throw out miracles altogether, then I can see your point. But if they are real, then why exclude a man from a committee because he believes in them?
You can't "science" a miracle.
"You can't "science" a miracle."
DeletePrecisely.
Bravo.
There is voluminous proof for a young earth and for an intelligent designer.
DeleteUh, no there absolutely is not. There's no more proof of that than there is proof that The Universe was created by a unicorn. Your "opinions" are not science of fact.
Around the idea of miracles and science. Belief in those things such as Jesus coming back to life is belief in a past action which cannot be truly confirmed. Based on all scientific evidence of human life this would appear to be impossible, but if you believe it was a miracle that caused it then whatever, it would be impossible to debate it with you on those terms of scientific proof or verification of the actual event.
DeleteIn the case of 'proof for a young earth' and the idea of a young earth miracle, this idea is proved false by the huge amount of data collected constantly throughout the world by geologists, scientists, archaeologists, biologists etc etc. that shows the earth to be around 4.54 billion years old. Speaking to a geologist friend of mine he is finding evidence every day of the age of the earth and the various materials on it. My sister's study of space for her Masters in physics would also touch on the same subject. As would even my work in art history studying the ages of man made objects across the world, with civilsations and human activity stretching back through the tens of thousands of years.
If this is all actually a miracle, with the earth really being only 6000 or so years old, then did 'God' create a world in which all this evidence was merely an elaborate trick to disguise the true age of the earth, an age which is only known those who believe in choice statements in one book written two thousand years ago before the development of modern science?
Also, evolution is no longer a 'theory', but a tried and tested way in which all life-forms on this earth have developed.
It's a shame that people like Broun have ideologies and viewpoints which dismiss revelatory understandings of some of the greatest wonders of the universe and of our world.
Signed it, and thank you so much for sharing, Stan.
ReplyDeleteOh my, judging by Tim and Brads comments, the sooner America gets it's science sorted out the better. AS far as we know the cosmos is 13.7 Billion years old. It can indeed be dangerous to hold such blatantly wrong views in a position of power. "There is voluminous proof for a young earth and for an intelligent designer", yeah? I'd love to see it. The Bible and Science are completely different, The Bible was written two thousand years ago by a few men in a bronze age world, it is full of dubious stories and hasn't changed since it was written (accept for the new testament). On the other hand, Science is an ongoing endevour to understand how the universe, how our physical world works, it's based on experiment, evidence and tangible reliable results, those results are what we call facts and evolution is one of those facts we know a hell of a lot about. Saying it's a theory that is sadly lacking is just plain wrong. It was a theory when Darwin proposed it over a hundred years ago. It has now gained so much evidence over that time it cannot be denied, the discovery of DNA, RNA, cloning, mutation, natural selection, survival of the fittest, everything on the planet is related to each other, we breed new species, we domesticate species. There were once only wolves, now we have hundreds of species of dogs. I could go on and on here, america sort out your science, seriously!
ReplyDeleteStephen,
DeleteDo you believe in miracles? Many do, and we have our science sorted out. Thanks for the concern, though.
No, I do not believe in miracles. Never seen evidence for one.
DeleteIf Paul Broun is a true Christian it sure does not show in his views on marriage.
ReplyDeleteSo what if he's more of a hypocrite who is telling the masses what he thinks they want to hear?
Thanks for the post, Stan, and I'm on board for signing that petition as well.
ReplyDeleteComing from a evangelical background, our leadership taught us to claim that dissent of my views was bigotry ... that evolution was simply opinion.
Calling opposition bigotry bolstered the status of religious opinion to a realm of intellectualism -- if only in our own minds.
I see that same tactic above.
I wish that the effort were stronger, more productive, more accurate.
How could we possibly view someone being voted off a committee for their religious beliefs bigotry? What a bunch of dummies we are!
DeleteTell you what, how about we exclude atheists from the science panel because all evidence points to a Creator.
Does that feel like bigotry to you? I guess you could think we are just foolish for believing in God, but we think you are foolish for not believing in God. Thus, the impasse, and it is the very reason that each should be able to serve if they have the required votes.
Seems logical right?
No, it doesn't bother me. By all means, remove all atheists from science panels.
DeleteRemoving atheists wouldn't satisfy the definition of Christian bigotry or even plain old bigotry.
Atheism isn't predicated by whether or not evolution is or is not accurate.
We aren't at an impasse. I've been looking for evidence for Intelligent Design for a long time. Would you be so kind to point me toward some?
I find it bizarre that you're calling yourself disparaging names.
Tell you what, how about we exclude atheists from the science panel because all evidence points to a Creator.
DeleteThere is no such evidence of any kind.
I am stunned that there are two such fundamentalists reading your blog, Stan. One of the things I most enjoy, which enhances your excellent posts, is the intelligent and informed discussion that follows. It's a bit shocking to see such "blind faith", to use a euphemism for what I would really like to say.
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised. Being a fundamentalist does not preclude having an interest in many topics which are intermittently covered in this blog. I suspect there are quite a few here, most of whom simply lurk.
DeleteI have some links bookmarked re the changing prevalence of religiosity in the U.S. When I post those, perhaps I should post a survey in the right sidebar to see how the readership here consider themselves.
I'm not certain that I would pass the fundamentalist sniff test. I am a conservative evangelical Christian, yes. And I do not make the "Old Earth/New Earth" debate a dividing line for orthodoxy by any means.
DeleteThe problem is that we believe in miracles. That is the bedrock of our faith. You simply cannot allow for that in a purely "naturalistic" worldview. But if you believe in miracles, and if miracles truly do exist, then science cannot possibly explain everything in the universe.
And this is not a "fundamentalist" belief. In fact, the vast majority of people, I would guess, believe in both God and miracles.
So here is a serious question. What is the difference between believing in a miraculous creation from nothing and God raising a man from the dead after three days in a tomb? I see no difference, therefore I am not willing to give up the point that God could have spontaneously created an orderly universe 6,000 years ago because someone tells me that "science" says it is impossible.
And look at this, "I am stunned that there are two such fundamentalists reading your blog, Stan. One of the things I most enjoy, which enhances your excellent posts, is the intelligent and informed discussion that follows." I actually enjoy this blog very much. I would like to think that I have been involved in a couple of intelligent conversations. I also do not believe that I hold to a blind faith, as I think that creation itself is declaring the glory of God.
Earlier someone said that it was some kind of trite response to claim bigotry against people of faith. But that dismissal, if not bigotry, is at the very least insulting. I would never have said such a thing about you, Barbwire. Perhaps you have not known enough "fundamentalists" in your life. But we are real people, with good intellects, how happen to believe in God and the resurrection of the dead.
Brad, I am not a regular commenter on this blog, i rarely post. Maybe it is the fact that we have already interacted, which compels me to reply. I am rarely compelled to reply to posts on the internet, but sometimes, it's just so hard to read over things so, so wrong without replying.
DeleteThe Earth, the planet we are on can not "in no way shape or form" be only 6,000 years old! It goes against every bit of scientific evidence we know, it absolutely flabbergasts me how anyone could think it so. There is actually only 1 piece of evidence you need to know about the rough age of the cosmos and it is this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation . So ok, the universe is that old, maybe Gob twiddled his thumbs for a while and created Earth in 6 days 6,000 years ago. The next this we have is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating . So! unless yer god went around and put all this evidence in front of us to lead us away from him or he went around burying dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith. 10,000 years ago humans started farming and domesticating animals in the middle east.. domesticated animals have floppy ears man! This is gonna be my last post for a while, you're either a troll rilling me up or a lost cause. But I dont hope you are a lost cause, I was brought up Catholic, went to Catholic school, taught all the stories Jesus and the apostles, used to go to Church on Sundays. Dunno what it was about me, but I never fully bought into it. Forced to say prayers, forced to confess my "sins" to creepy priests (I'm from Ireland dont forget, they have a reputation there). Done my holy Communion, Confirmation. But by the time my Grandmother died, I at the age of 12 had, had enough. I thought about it a lot, all the in's and out's, I believed for about 4 years that there *must* be something after our brains shut down. We were alive, we had an impact on the world, we influenced things, we had energy, a soul perhaps, some kind of essence which was not restricted by a decomposing corpse. But after a while and further thinking, I began to realize that the comforting things I wanted, were what I wanted after my own death, I would like to look after who ever I left behind, I would want to see how humanity advanced, what will the WEBB space telescope deliver to us that we did not even think to ask of it. That is why I dont want to die, I want to know more things, not sit in an afterlife with all the answers, where is the fun in doing a puzzle if it's completed for you. Not sure what my topic here is, or if I have theme, I have a cold I should be sleeping ( the cold virus!! another good example of evolution right there, you dont get the same cold, every time you get a cold, it's a new variation, it has adapted, evolved to fight not only your own body's immune system but also the medicine you use to fight it, it is an amazing example of adaptive evolution for a 'creature' with such a small genome ) I.. I'm going to bed, good luck out there
Thanks for adding your comments, Stephen.
DeleteStephen,
DeleteOnce again, the entire matter turns on this assertion: "It goes against every bit of scientific evidence we know." Science is not all there is. That has been the exact misunderstanding from the beginning, it is still the misunderstanding, and I suppose it will continue to be.
I am not here arguing for a young earth, in fact, if you will read carefully you will find that I have never said whether I think it is a young earth or not. Our disagreement on this issue is more profound than the age of the earth.
Frankly, I do not know how old the earth is. I do not think that Genesis 1 makes a young earth necessary, but it by no means rules it out. (I have my undergrad in English Lit., and I have a Masters of Divinity w/ Biblical languages, so I have done a bit of work on this. ) I know that flies in the face of science, but it does not bother me in the least. I like science! But it is not the only tool in my toolbox because I believe in God. I believe in a God who does miracles, and so if He suspends the laws of science to give sight to the blind or raise the dead, then why should I just rule out an instantaneous creation because I cannot science a miracle?
I am not a troll. I have a profile. I have more exposure on the internet than the Stan whose blog this is. (I respect his semi-anonymity, that is not a cheap shot. I also do not mean that more people read our web magazine than come here. I simply mean that it is easy to find out who I am, and who I'm not.) I am a pastor. I write on a web-magazine devoted to looking at, enjoying, and critiquing popular culture.
All I am trying to do in these comments is to demonstrate that evangelical Christians are not imbeciles. (I mean, some are, but hey, the world is full of them.) We understand science, to varying degrees to be sure, as does the rest of humanity. The point is that we reject, flat out, that the natural world is all there is. You claim there is no evidence for anything beyond it, and forgive us if we are gobsmacked at that assertion, because we think that the very wonders of science you love are the handbook that the Creator gave us.
In closing, I will only say that we do not teach that in heaven you sit on clouds, playing a harp while knowing everything. That sounds pretty un-fun to me as well. I think that we will indeed spend an eternity discovering more than we can currently see with a telescope.
"we think that the very wonders of science you love are the handbook that the Creator gave us", I simply ask, then why didn't he put anything about science in that other handbook, The Bible?
DeleteFrom what I have witnessed Science is all there is and I guess that's why I come down on that side of things. We'll get bigger and better telescopes and other advances, so slowly push back our unknowns.
Thanks for the replies
Stephen,
DeleteThat's a good question, and I do not blame you for asking it. After all, if you believe that Science is all there is, it should be baffling as to why there isn't more of it in the Bible if there is a God.
And there you have the issue. If there IS a God, who made all that you see out of nothing, and if you have a soul that will last for eternity, and if there are such things as sin, righteousness, hell, and heaven, then I think you can answer why the Bible isn't about science. Science, as beautiful as it is, and I do believe that it is, becomes less urgent in the light of eternity.
That's all I will say here on the matter because I think we are moving into a different category now, which is fine, but I start feeling rude when the subject drifts on someone else's blog and it is basically my fault.
All I wanted to demonstrate here is that, when you believe in miracles, and I have only ever 'seen' one (which is my own conversion as an adult), then the miraculous, like people rising from the dead, etc., are no longer absurd. This doesn't detract from science, these things are simply beyond its scope.
Do you mind if I ask what the miracle was, if you are willing tell it. I never met someone who said they witnessed a miracle before
DeleteStephen,
DeleteNot at all. Though, I am quite certain it will not be impressive to anyone but myself. As I said above, I was an English Literature major in college, and as such, I read a lot. One of those things, naturally, was the Bible, as there is really no book that has had more impact on English speaking culture than that one. I was an agnostic at the time.
To make a long tale short, my own conversion is the only miracle I have ever witnessed. I had known of the claims of Christ for many years, and I had read the Scriptures. Much as you have described, I never really "bought in." I chalked it to the "that's probably helpful for some folks category" and "that is a great, great story." One evening though, while I was minding my own business at my apartment, became suddenly convinced that sin was real, my own personal offense to God was real, and that what I had read in the New Testament about Jesus Christ was absolutely true. I was not at a religious service, and I was not even particularly interested in the Bible at that moment.
Now, I am certain from a scientific perspective that is a rather uninspired miracle. Maybe it could be explained as something weird happening in my brain at that moment. But that event completely changed my life. I went from a person who was very skeptical about any 'truth' claim to someone utterly convinced that there is a God and that Jesus of Nazareth really was God's Son. That Jesus truly died for sinners like myself, and that he really did rise from the dead.
I have seen other providences of God in my life since then, but nothing that I would say rises to the level of miracle. I am convinced, however, that nature itself is like a book that reveals to us what God is like, and what we are like now.
I hope that is not too disappointing and anti-climatic for you. But imagine if such a thing happened to you from where you are. That you could suddenly go from being persuaded that there is no direct evidence for the existence of any god, to being completely and utterly persuaded that the God of the Bible is really God after all, and that everything that exists telegraphs his majesty. It's a pretty radical thing.
Of course, there is more to my personal story than that, and I have since learned a lot of theology as I pursued a Masters of Divinity after I finished my English/History degree. But that is my miracle in a nutshell. That happened to me sixteen years ago, and I still marvel at it. And, of course, many things since.
I love your blog, Stan. And I agree that Broun is a moron and shouldn't be in charge of a science committee. BUT... This post isn't internally consistent. The job of congress is lawmaking. Thus, doesn't it make sense for congress to be filled with lawyers? If lawyers aren't qualified to do science, then why do we think scientists are qualified to do law?
ReplyDeleteI look at the system differently. In my view, the job of congress is not to make laws. Their job is to represent us. Each one of them represents x-many-thousands of us. One doesn't have to have any knowledge of law to do their job - in fact most of them are not involved in law-writing; they have consultants and assistants that do that part of it.
DeleteTo say that their job is to make laws and they should be lawyers invites the counterargument that their job is to collect and spend money so they should be accountants.
The job of Congress is to represent normal people.
Looks like dear old Inquisition is back to work and stitting on the Committee on Science, Space, & Technology of the US United States House of Representatives. An as such it seems to be a very lucrative position.
ReplyDelete[The American Chemical Council is the lobbying front for chemical giants like Exxon Mobil, Dow, BASF and DuPont. And they got their friendly anti-science shill on the Science Committee, Paul Broun, to hold up a scientific report on the dangers to consumers using he products manufactured by... well, who else... Exxon Mobil, Dow, BASF and DuPont.
.....
Broun has taken in $4,920,087 in campaign cash since 2008 much of it from special interests with business before Congress. As we said, this cycle he has no opponent and he's already scooped up $1,161,355. This year he took a fat $5,000 legalized bribe from Exxon Mobil (up from the two grand he got in both 2010 and 2008 before he was chairman)]
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.ca/2012/10/paul-broun-another-gop-sociopath.html
and ACC's letter to the Comittee:
http://www.americanchemistry.com/Policy/Regulatory-Reform/ACC-Letter-to-House-Science-Committee-Regarding-Joint-Hearing-on-the-Report-on-Carcinogens.pdf
Perhaps that's an even better reason for Paul Broun not to be on the Science Committee. Will sign.
... and just wondering, if evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell, where does corruption belong?