GOP base still wants creationist answers

Who knew a question about evolutionary biology would end up being the most important part of last week’s Republican presidential debate?

Thursday night, John McCain was asked, simply, “Do you believe in evolution?” After pausing briefly, the senator answered, “Yes.” The Politico’s Jim VandeHei then opened it up to the whole GOP field: “I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree — believe in evolution?” The camera didn’t show the 10 candidates for very long, but three would-be presidents raised their hand: Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo.

The next morning, I asked, “Will the base look askance at candidates who reject creationism?” Apparently so. David Brody, who contributes to (and blogs for) TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network, noted that Mitt Romney was not among those who publicly rejected modern biology — and he’d like an explanation.

Kevin Madden, Romney’s spokesman, told Brody, “Governor Romney believes both science and faith can help inform us about the origins of life in this world.” This only piqued CBN’s curiosity.

With all due respect, what does that mean exactly? It leaves me with more questions. I have asked for further clarification which I assume will be forthcoming here at the Brody File. I have now asked the Romney campaign specifically if he believes in Darwin’s theory of Evolution or does he take the Creationist view? The answer above suggests that he may believe in both. I’m not saying he does. I’m just saying I’m a tad bit confused by the answer.

Here’s the key point. The majority of Born Again Evangelicals take the Creationist viewpoint. Some Evangelicals already have concerns about Romney’s Mormon faith. He needs support from Evangelicals to win. That’s why this issue is an important one that needs to be cleared up. I don’t think this is an issue that Romney can avoid. I believe his views need to be clear.

If other elements of the religious right follow up, Romney could find himself in a bind fairly quickly. By not raising his hand, Romney pretty clearly noted that he accepts the reality of modern biology. He’s willing to pander to the far-right on a great number of issues, but he seems to have drawn the line here. There are some depths to which even Romney won’t go.

But in his party, and with his base, that may not be good enough.

CBN’s Brody adds:

I understand Evolution can mean different things to different people and it can be a complicated issue. But Darwin’s theory of Evolution is more clear cut. It is considered a “religion” of sorts by fundamentalist Christians. I fully realize that a Commander in Chief will not be making any “executive” decisions when it comes to Evolution. But since many Evangelicals are looking for a candidate with solid social issue conservative beliefs, Evolution enters the equation along with abortion and gay marriage.

It disappoints me terribly that this is even a legitimate political discussion in the 21st century, but here we are.

And just to reiterate a point from the weekend, Huckabee, one of the three evolution-deniers, argued that this issue is a spurious tangent. “I’m not sure what in the world that has to do with being president of the United States,” Huckabee said.

I’d argue that it matters quite a bit. For an educated adult in the 21st century, who wants to be the leader of the free world, to reject modern biology, reflects a certain lack of intellectual seriousness. It speaks to how earnestly a man or woman takes evidence and reason, which in turn tells the nation quite a bit about how this person would make decisions in the Oval Office.

For Huckabee (and Brownback and Tancredo) to reject biology is to announce that scientific consensus has no meaning to them; they prefer dogma and pseudo-science.

We’ve had quite a bit of this the past six years; we don’t need more of it.

As for Brody’s questions for Romney, I have a hunch the campaign isn’t going to get away with an unpersuasive dodge. So, what’s it going to be, governor? Just how badly do you want to win over the GOP base?

Update: This morning, Brody rehashes a Boston Globe story from 18 months ago, where Romney said he opposes teaching intelligent design creationism in public schools. “Mitt Romney needs to get out of the first rounds of the playoffs before he competes in the Super Bowl,” Brody said.

Well this is the price of casting the whole party’s fate to an ideology rather than a politcal philosophy. Now every candidate has to pass the embarrassing litmus test of the wacko religious right.

  • If Brownback and crew want to reject modern biology that’s fine with me. The follow up question to the Towers of Intellect is, “Do you use antibiotics and eat genetically modified food such as virtually all corn?” If yes, then the next question is “If you don’t believe in evolution then why do you enjoy the fruits of it, you hypocrites?”

    I respect the hardcore Amish and Mennonites because they are true to their faith even though I strongly disagree with it. They live a simple life without any of the conveniences of the modern day.

    It seems that hypocrisy is the base principle of American Fundies when it comes to saying and actually doing.

  • The majority of Born Again Evangelicals take the Creationist viewpoint.

    That sounds nice, but I wonder what would happen (and I’m not saying I know for sure) to the accuracy of that statement if we changed “Born Again Evangelicals” to “Christians,” instead of leaving it as is and have a bunch of backward-thinking fundamentalists in the minority hijack an entire religion.

  • One thing that didn’t occur to me right away about something unusual is that Romney is a Republican Mormon who suddenly converted to a pro-life position while Harry Reid is a Democratic Mormon who has been pro life all along, but was depicted by Romney as part of a potential triumvirate (with Pelosi and Hillary) who could irreparably harm the country.

  • Does Das Base know it is politically irrelevant? Someone really ought to send them a note or something. On the other hand, I would pay good money to see a ReThuglican debate hosted by these arse hats. They could ask questions like this:

    If two strange men were guests in your home and all of the men from your neighbourhood demanded that you hand the strangers over for a gang-bang, would you:

    1. Pray to God for help.
    2. Barricade the doors and windows.
    3. Blow them away with your fully Constitutional grenade launcher.
    4. Offer your neighbours any female relatives you had laying around the house.

  • “It disappoints me terribly that this is even a legitimate political discussion in the 21st century, but here we are.” Sort of sums it all up in one tight little nutshell. And the moderators such as Vanderhigh feel the need to play along with such nonsense. I guess it is good to know such stuff, so rational thinkers can clearly identify who not to vote for.

    I sometimes feel that, back 6,000 years or so ago when God (assumning there is a God) used to speak occassionally to the peeps, one of them asked Him: “Where do we humans come from?” And God excitedly began to tell (and explain to) all the assembled peeps about DNA and cells and evolutionary type development and His experimentation with such things. God was on a roll with one of his best lectures/sermons, really getting into the discussion when, after about 45 human minutes, God looked up to see all of the peeps standing there slack-jawed, clearly not comprehending a single word he had to say. The silence He thought was amazement at the genius of it all was really only ignorance. God did not panic, though. He shook his head, looked at His feet, cleared his throat and began a story that a 3 year-old could understand, that being the story of Creation as told in Genesis, knowing that someday, hopefully sooner than later (although based upon the crowd He had before Him it very well might be MUCH, much later) humans would come to understand the science of it all. I still don’t think we are there yet.

  • Unless you a truly a Bible-thumping, God-Is-Coming-and-Boy-Is-He-Pissed evangelical Christian running for office, maybe it’s time to stop pandering to them. Believe it or not, and I’m kinda glad they don’t realize this, but even the most rabid right-wingers can win an election without them. Instead of pandering to the extreme fundies and whipping up fear amongst the moderate and independents to win the gig but be unable to govern within that gig, if the GOP caters to the moderates- the Americans who care more about Iraq and the economy and education and health care- they’ll sway more indies to vote for them than they even did in 00 and 04. Let the fundies die off like the endangered species they ought to be. After all, they’re going to a better place. For all us Godless heathens, we have to keep the planet together quite a while longer.

  • so when we will see a spate of articles about republicans pandering to their base? one can hardly wait!

  • If the Christian Right rejects Romney because he is not strong on creatonism, it is left with Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo. Works for me.

    Did the Christian Right interview Bush on creationism before ’00? How come we never heard about his pro-creatonism views?

  • For an educated adult in the 21st century, who wants to be the leader of the free world, to reject modern biology, reflects a certain lack of intellectual seriousness. It speaks to how earnestly a man or woman takes evidence and reason, which in turn tells the nation quite a bit about how this person would make decisions in the Oval Office.

    If the Christian Right applies a pro-creationism litmus test to presidential candidates, George W. bush must believe in creationism. There you go, prima facie evidence to support your point.

  • This says it all: “[The theory of evolution] is considered a “religion” of sorts by fundamentalist Christians.”

    Sad.

  • Is it possible to belive in evolution AND believe that Jesus rose from the dead on Easter Sunday?

  • “Is it possible to believe in evolution AND believe that Jesus rose from the dead on Easter Sunday?”

    Why I think an argument can be made that Jesus developed (through a many thousands of years long evolutionary process specific to Jesus’ ancestors/lineage) a special gene that allowed him to rise from the dead.

  • Actually, by not raising his hand, Romney clearly noted that it takes him a few moments to come up with base-pleasing answers on the fly.

    Bear in mind, we’re talking about a guy who believes that John Smith, Jr. found some inscribed gold plates in his yard, translated them into the English Book of Mormon thanks to a magic pebble he ate, and then returned the plates to an angel. In 1830.

    Even if evolution was just a theory, theory beats fairytale every time.

  • So, which Word of God is the fundie’s word of God? What about “a day is to him like 10,000 years?” Watching these droolers commit the sin of hubris that they “know” God’s word (listening in the checkout line yesterday to some single-digit IQ teenager talking about how she was “busy talking to God when…” I actually managed to not laugh in her ignorant face). Particularly when the creation story in the “Book of Genesis” is a Chaldean creation myth the Jews plagiarized during the Babylonian Captivity when they realized that their religion, which at the time wasn’t written down and “set in stone” as it were, needed some authoritarian heft on questions like “where do we come from?” if it was to survive the attempt to wipe them out that they had no idea how long it would last.

    And then, of course, most laughably, the fundies all look at The King James Version as “the inerrant word of God,” when 15 minutes on Google can present proof after proof of how the texts were manipulated to fit the politics of the ruler who comissioned the work – this is likely the least accurate version of the Bible ever created. But the morons, who believe up is down, in is out, day is night and black is white, are sure that God has spoken to them through it.

    Can’t we just send them all back to the tents to roll in the sawdust and play with the rattlesnakes?

  • Interesting that the most ignorant among us are the one’s claiming to be smart enough to intuit the mind of god.

  • As a Utahn and ex-Mormon perhaps I can shed some light on Madden’s comment. Most Mormons believe that the creation story is allegorical, not literal. Biologists at Brigham Young – the Mormon unversity teach evolution. Evolution and religion are not either-or for them. God created evolution – science and faith can inform about the origins of life.
    I still wouldn’t vote for him.

  • Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo may not believe in evolution, but evolution believes in them. I believe that is a very important political question since it shows us quickly and easily those candidates who are impervious to reason and evidence. They say the white house is insular, hell, the whole Republican party is insular on a very important level.

  • The stupidity, fanaticism, and hypocrisy of the so called evangelical fundamentalists is destroying our democracy. Gays in the military has nothing to do with the military but with these idiots. They attempt to hold the country hostage with their insanity, their “faith through fear of punishment” agenda used to justify their greed and grab for power. Where’s the Regent University Medical School, but no…It’s a law school to protect their power plays. The Brody blog is another polite non-thinking vat of hypocrisy whose petty discourse is an embarrassment to the political process. More important than evolution..”Do you accept Jesus as your personal savior?”, Isn’t that the real question Brody and his ilk wanted asked of the GOP candidates? Remember we’re talking about people who think 9/11 was punishment for our sins, who totally ignore science and think global warming is a ploy of Satan to distract them from gays and abortion. For their absurd beliefs to have a political reality in the GOP right should frighten anyone. The corporation of Jesus not only refuses scientific truth but enables the rape of natural resources and the control of individual rights,
    To disagree with them doesn’t mean you just have a different opinion, it means you’re wrong. That’s how they operate. All but three GOP Presidential candidates are wrong because they believe in evolution but they will still finance them after they slap them around a bit for their belief. The original question wasn’t aimed to see who the Right extremists would support but rather who was unfit to lead this country. For once I would like to see the Republican hopefuls grow a set and none of them pander to the Religious Right. Campaign reform could at least remove the Right’s financial influence which is the main reason they have any influence at all. How can anyone tolerate a political voice who wants to use our country to bring about an Armageddon and the violent end of the world? Our democracy is our best defense against rich fundalmentalist minorities and that is why these people are trying so desperately to infiltrate our government which would end our democracy. Then truly, the enemy has followed us home.

  • He shook his head, looked at His feet, cleared his throat and began a story that a 3 year-old could understand, that being the story of Creation as told in Genesis

    LOL. I suspect those peeps were better able to understand evolution than the average member of the Talevan: 1. They had no need to use Creationism as a tool in their drive for power. 2. We’re talking about people who raised livestock. You can’t breed animals without getting some clue about improvement through selection.

    Hmmm. Maybe that’s the lesson we’re supposed to draw from the story of Cain & Abel. Abel was a proto-scientist who carefully bred his sheep. Cain was a knuckle-dragging fundy who just grew any old plants because he didn’t believe in that evolution stuff. God the scientist favoured Abel and blew off Cain.

    Of course Cain whacked his brother so perhaps the moral is Keep ye a close eye upon the knuckle draggers lest they smash in thy head with a stone.

    listening in the checkout line yesterday to some single-digit IQ teenager talking about how she was “busy talking to God when…”

    Oh, how I wish you’d told that nattering twit about the mademoiselle who wound up bien cuit because she spoke to God.

    I know why these suckers hate the idea of evolution. They have just enough brain power to realize they’ve been left out of the process and are jealous of all the animals, plants, fungi and dysentery amoebas that have benefitted. I wonder if the GEICO “Caveman” campaign started as “So easy a Bible Banger can do it,” but the lawyers said no because that would violate truth in advertising regs.

  • Not to worry base, I’ll raise my hand next time. It’s what I do.

  • Let’s see now. According to right-wing Christian fundamentalists: 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the Virginia Tech massacre, the War in Iraq, and the killer tornadoes have all happened in America because we don’t mandate prayer in schools, we teach evolution, and we allow homosexuals to walk the streets. Rather than: a group of similarly fundamentalist murderous nuts took issue with our foreign policy, we neglected to heed the advice of civil engineers, a deeply disturbed individual had easy access to a pair of semi-automatic weapons, a cabal of neo-cons duped us into a hideous conflict, and our greedy, gas-guzzling culture is changing our climate.

    We cannot afford to allow our nation slip further into the hands of these Christo-fascist, waiting-for-the-rapture, 14th-Century ignorant turds.

  • You guys might be forgetting that when you disengage your brain, you can then reconcile belief in both evolution and fundamentalist bible thumping.

    Ya just gotta bleeve!

    Romney was always toast, no Mormon is going to get the fundies to pound the pavement, and without fundies pulling out all the stops the Republicans are dead meat. The only thing I can’t figure out is why the GOP money people backed him. Don’t they know the GOP is the property of the wingnuts now?

  • Let’s see now. According to right-wing Christian fundamentalists… — chrenson

    And just think, those are only the disasters that did happen. Remember how Pat Robertson was warning Dover that their evolution decision meant they turned their backs on God and they shouldn’t be surprised if they got hit by disaster?

  • Along the lines of Former Dan @ #2:

    I would presume also that anyone who rejects modern biology would also reject any modern methods to save their sorry selves should they become extremely ill. I await the news stories…..

  • Man…
    I’m sorry, americans, but your country is carnally penetrated 666 ways ON Sunday.

    Seriously…
    You only have two (viable) political parties.
    You have a population that is much too impressed and obsessed with an ancient set of books written by who-the-hell-knows.
    You have a media hounding stories about haircuts and blow-jobs,
    that manages to ignore stories of unprecedented corruption and group-think.
    And yet one of the biggest talking points is:
    “Thay Haitte UUus Furr hourr Frreeeidooums!”.

    Yeah…. They do!
    THAT’S THE TICKET!

  • so when we will see a spate of articles about republicans pandering to their base?

    I heard somewhere that Broder was working on that column just recently. What? Oh! you asked about articles talking about Republican’ts pandering…hmmm….I don’t think that’s what Broder will write about.

  • Mormons have a religious view that has uniquely allowed them to adapt their literal beliefs with modern scientific advances. Their scriptures, namely the Perl of Great Price, contain language about cosmology and that God is the creator of the order of the universe in its current form. However, it is not taught that God is a creator of matter or even of human existence. Joseph Smith taught that all men are less developed peers of God and have existed in eternity for as long as He has.

    Also, Joseph Smith talked about a 7,000 year existence for Earth in some sections of his scriptures, but also equated that timing to counting days on a different planet where one day was equal to 1,000 Earth days or something like that. The point is, on the question of creation and timing Mormons can believe that God created the Earth from preexisting matter up to billions of years ago.

    Finally, Mormons believe in a literal Adam and Eve, but they can believe that life existed on Earth before the Garden of Eden. It is a little convoluted, but plenty do.

    The big take away is that Mormonism is a progressive and conservative movement in one. It always has been and always will be. It attracts conservative authoritarian types, but has about of spacey New Age stuff built in that it has to keep. For example, “The glory of God is intelligence”, “As man is God once was. As God is man may become.”, stuff like that. So, Mitt is not a Christian wacko. He may be a Mormon-Christian wacko, but at least Mormons get to keep their brains turned on for just about everything except for questioning their religious leaders.

  • I like bubba’s conception at comment 6 that God couldn’t explain DNA to people who knew no science and instead used language they could understand.

    I saw a play-reading of “The Great Monkey Trial” recently, a play largely taken from the actual trial transcripts. At a climactic moment, Darrow gets Bryan to admit that when Joshua stopped the sun in the sky, he must actually have stopped the earth turning and that “God used language that people would understand.” Darrow didn’t fully seize on that, but I thought at that point Bryan had given up the game. All about the origin of the earth and of man in the Bible may, then, just have been what “people would understand” back then, and our scientific discoveries since were evidence left by God for us to find in our own good time. They need not be inconsistent.

  • This is EXACTLY why there is seperation of church and state and I wish some of the sheep running for president on both sides of the isle would remind the public that this is still the law.

    I would not vote for someone who did not believe in evolution but because of a religious reason.
    How could you trust someone like that to take care of the enviornment and
    support strong science and math programs in schools?

    When you think about it, it is really insanity that we are worring about evolution when the state of the world is the way it is.

  • As someone who grew up in a fundamentalist home, I can attest that very few Christians I knew then or now believe that accepting ‘young earth creationism’ is mandatory to their faith.

    As I tell my Sunday School class, the name of Darwin’s game-changing book is “Origin of Species” and his examples are indisputably correct by observation on Galapogos Island. The name of his book is NOT “Origin of Morality” or “Origin of God”. The question of motive or guidance for our evolutionary journey is an area I cover in church, and do not want the Government to guide in the classroom. Separating motive and guidance (creative design, perhaps?) from hard science shows proper respect for both areas.

  • Mormon Mormon, please. You make it sound like the fuzzy stuff makes it all so believable any way you want to believe it. How about the golden tablets and the magic pebble, the anti-miscegenation laws (conveniently apparently changed a bit later, piece by piece). The magic underwear! Gimme a break, Mormonism is every bit as loony as other religions, all the more so because it’s so recent that its BS stands out like a sore thumb.

    But I wasn’t going to write that, I just hit the bottom of the comments and saw it there and couldn’t help myself. What I wanted to say was I wish all the candidates, both Dem and Republican, would get more questions in the debates along these lines. Just a few suggestions:
    1) Do you believe in the devil?
    2) Do you believe in the Rapture?
    3) If you’re a Christian, doesn’t that mean you believe that everybody who’s not will be damned to hell? If so, wouldn’t that belief color your decisionmaking about international relations with non-Christian countries?
    4) For all those who answered positively to too many such questions: Don’t you think you’re too fucking delusional to be president of the United States?

    Let’s use the debates to smoke the nuts and panderers out of the woodwork.

  • In response to Brody’s distasteful little piece, I sent a comment which so far as I can see hasn’t been printed – something that doesn’t surprise me, since Christian fundamentalists seem unremarkable for their honesty and integrity.The comment was along the following lines:
    Contrary to the fundamentalist pretence, the theory of evolution is not a religion and does not require ‘belief’ in the sense adumbrated in Tertullian’s dictum, ‘Credo quia impossibile est’ (‘I believe because it is impossible’); to suggest otherwise is to demonstrate ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty or a combination of these.
    I then said that – as an Englishman – it was incredible to me that this manufactured issue was being used as a shibboleth to test presidential candidates in a nation that is the most powerful in the world and likes to consider itself the most advanced.
    Of course, the pretence that Darwin’s theory is a religion is a way of insinuating that it is arbitrary – without actually coming out and saying so, since to do that would suggest that Christianity is arbitrary, too.

  • Did anybody ask the candidates if they believed in Santa Claus? I mean, it’s a perfectly reasonable question, since obviously a belief in fairytales is a prerequisite for the highest office in the nation., according to the “base”.

    What a sad, pathetic joke these idiots make out of the process. If this is the best the Repugs can come up with, they are screwed – and good riddance.

  • More proof that America is merely a big country, not a great one.

    A big country filled with self-important, self-conscious pious frauds.

    As someone in my area recently wrote in the local paper, Christians had and still have no problem telling non-Christians that their religion is mythology and the correct number of gods is one. It’s about time we told the Christians that their religion is mythology and the correct number of gods is zero.

  • As we go around complaining about the wackos and nut jobs, let’s take a moment to think how well our democracy actually works.

    About 85% of the French voted last week in th elections. 85%!!. We are happy to get to 50%. What can we expect but the tyranny of the minority if all the sane and smart stay at home and all the koolaid drinking nut-jobs crowd the polling stattions.

    There’s always going to be a bunch of xenophobic fundamentalist idiots on the fringes of every society. The tragedy of our times is that we have collectively ceded our rightful place to these nutjobs with our apathy.

  • There is a legitimate issue there. Romney himself said “We need to have a person of faith lead the country.” How could that square with his support of atheistic darwinism?

  • If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they need do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell. This should be possible, because today they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about the contents of the so-called ‘simple’ cell.

    After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago, ‘according to the evolutionists,’ and having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely the evolutionists scientists of today should be able to make us a ‘simple’ cell.

    If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

    Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.

    Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

    Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

  • James Collins:

    Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution doesn’t say anything about how life began, only about how it progressed thereafter. What you are talking about is a separate issue.

  • Dear Mr. James Collins:

    We have not yet built the cell you require because we do not know how. Thus far, the available information we have collected on how life develops and changes over time do not contradict the theory of evolution in any appreciable way, although certain new bits of info have certainly refined our understanding of how it may work. Please note that I said “may work.” Science is never complete. A thing is accepted as true in scientific thought only so long as it seems to be supported by available evidence and has not been disproven. We can’t create a cell yet. We lack the ability to put together the amino acids and other raw materials in such a way as to create life whole cloth. We continue to theorize that life most likely came about in a way similar to this because certain evidence seems to support it and we do not have any real proof that it couldn’t have. In the meantime, other theories as to the origin of life have either been disproven or have shown themselves to be utterly unobservable based upon current technology and therefore outside the purview of science for the time being (ie, the existence of G-d).

    As a counter-challenge: If Christians want to end all arguments all they need to do is get enough faith together for a Christian to turn water into wine, or a single loaf of bread into many. After all, shouldn’t the largest religion in the world have at least one adherent with sufficient faith to duplicate this miracle? Jesus himself said in John 14:12, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” KJV

    Matthew 17:20 says, “And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.” Also, KJV

    Let’s see the mountain come to Pat Roberson, then. Or haven’t you the faith? Hasn’t he? Hasn’t anyone? I should think the removement of a mountain would show up in the global consciousness. You can’t hide a feat like that. Surely the Christians of today should be able to order around a “simple” mountain.

    If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that people who have such power granted them by God should not have proven the veracity of their belief to the world.

    Is my request absurd? Can you come up with a dozen reasons why you shouldn’t need to prove yourself in such a final way? Good. It was a ridiculous standard of proof for me to demand of you.

    Yours is no less ridiculous. The science of life on a cellular level is remarkable young. That we haven’t arrived at a conclusive blueprint of how the first cells came into being (and replicated it) proves nothing. One hundred years ago, we didn’t know how to make an airplane. Fifty years ago, we didn’t know how to do a heart transplant (today, we have a man who has lived 28 years with a transplanted heart). Ten years ago, we had no conception of the possibilities of nanotechnology. And yet we’re so silly as to believe that our limitations as of today are somehow perpetual? We’ve not even had two hundred years to perfect our understanding of cellular life. You’ve had two thousand to figure out your faith.

    Let’s get to some wine and bread and mountain movin’ I’m entirely too sober and hungry, and Baldy is blocking my view of some lovely clouds right now.

  • Comments are closed.