« Languages | Main | Green is Patriotic »



Silently agreeing with him that 'evilotution' is false.

Paul "the tree" Carpenter

It's hard, it really is. Christian fundamentalists have accused thier fellow Christians of being "unfaithful" or even "fake" when they respond to the fundamentalists with one of Galieo's greatest suggestions: why would God give anyone a brain, not intending for them to use it?


"U.S. Magistrate Judge Miles Davis"

LOL. That's awesome!


Why don't moderate Christians speak up? Because they're close enough to the problem to realize it's useless. And I would venture a guess that most moderate Christians would rather work "behind the scenes" and try to tone down fundamentalists on an individual level.

For example, my mom is a fundamentalist (though, I don't think she's nearly as wacko as Hovind and his ilk -- maybe I'm just biased). I talk to her from time to time about some of the more annoying fundamentalist beliefs she holds, and I explain why I think she's wrong. While I probably haven't changed her mind about many things, I've at least gotten her to think about them.

Now, what if instead of doing that I chose to stand on a street corner and shout about how stupid fundamentalists are. Or write scathing, nationally syndicated articles (assuming I could get them published) about how dumb fundamentalists are. I would only end up being as effective as they are -- which is to say I would be an annoying jerk who only appeals to those who already agree with me. Not much point in doing that now, is there?

The simple fact is, most non-fundamentalists are reasonable whereas mosts fundamentalists are not. It just doesn't make sense to put the time and effort into yelling louder than they do.


And for the record, I think in the article (or one of the sites that links to it) there's mention of the fact that the "owned by God" argument is a bit of a precedent among the fundamentalist crowd.

However, this guy scares the pants off of me.


Even amongst other creationists, Hovind doesn't have a lot of credibility.

Apart from his fundie wackiness, there's still the lawsuits and how his PHD came from a diploma mill - and has nothing to do with the subject he claims to be an expert on. At this point, I don't even think he can leave his home state to travel, pending the results of yet another hearing.

But hey, let's not worry about that so long as there's those naughty science-loving heretics out there!


I'm a creationist, and I don't think Hovind has very much pull at all, except in very conservative christian circles. He resorts to using knowingly bad evidence, and an offensive demeanor, and it really reflects bad on the creationist community, and the christian community at large. That's not even mentioning his run-in with the law. He's pretty much been blacklisted by all the creationist organisations (Answers in Genesis doesn't even acknowledge him as being a scientist in their list of PhD holding creationists).

The problem with what you are saying is that reasonable mainstream Christians are not really Christians at all. I would call them wishy-washy. There is no such thing as a strong mainstream Christan.

Michael Sullivan

Mark: I have to disagree strongly with your assertion that mainstream christians are not christians at all. I suppose for some definition of "mainstream" I'd agree with you, but my definition would include about as many fundamentalists and creationists as it would mainliners and liberals.

The idea that every word of the bible is to be interpreted *literally* is a relatively new one. There is zero evidence that the early church did this. It didn't start at all until medieval times, and the common modern idea of complete biblical literalism is an 18th century idea.

No surprise to me, as it's essentially an example of reductionism, a characteristic flaw of enlightenment thinking.

The real problem with literalism is that it's inconsistent. Nobody is actually a literalist. Everyone who claims to be finds reasons to ignore certain uncomfortable passages. There are just different choices about which passages to ignore.

In any case, there are plenty of christians who find no justification in the bible to disagree with established scientific theories that do not specifically address the nature of God or our spiritual relationships. Since most serious scientific disciplines are remarkably silent on these key issues, I don't get the problem with evolution.

The creation story is a story, told to make a spiritual point. That the world was made, not by us, but by another. It is a gift, the ultimate gift, and we are stewards of that gift. That point stands the test of time, no matter if the particulars of how it came about may differ from what's said in 500 word text that resulted from a revelation to an ancient Hebrew, transmitted orally for thousands of years, finally written down, then translated into a modern language (assuming you don't read biblical Hebrew).

If the point of the revelation had been to predict a full scientific explanation of the origin of the planet, I'm quite sure God could have managed that, but the story would have been a lot longer, and how many of those ancients would have understood 1/100th of it? The spiritual point would have been lost in irrelevant details.

The comments to this entry are closed.

The .999... Posts That Made Me Briefly Famous

My Feeble Attempts at Humor

Other blogs I like

  • EvolutionBlog
    He writes mostly about evolution, but he's a math guy.
  • Good Math, Bad Math
    Scienceblogs finally has a math guy!
  • Kung Fu Monkey
    A very smart, high-profile screen writer and comic with sensible politics and an amazing ability to rant
  • Math Spectrometer
    My ideas about life, teaching, and politics
  • Pharyngula
    Biology, lefty politics, and strident anti-Intelligent Design
Blog powered by Typepad