I... but... Pat Robertson, voice of moderation? Bhe... huh? Head. Full of fuck.
Good morning! Now you don't need coffee.
Or even, necessarily, mainstream Christian theology.
Apparently it's mainly a US American phenomenon. It's part of the whole anti-science-movement that seems en vogue in the US lately: anti-vaccine, global warming denial and creationism/ID. Over here everyone, especially politicians, voicing such nonsense would be laughed out of their office.
I guess we have to keep in mind that just because Pat Robertson claims to be able to bench-press two-thousands pounds that doesn't mean everything he says or believes is completely unreasonable.
Lately? It's been around for at least a century, see public school curriculum battles:
That they have almost always lost once in court hasn't deterred them yet.
Well part of that is because The Discovery Institute has no other purpose. The other part is that there are always small school boards that are ignorant enough of the law and history to keep trying.
In the early 1990's I was involved in a debate with my school board over a graduation prayer. Members of the school board tried to reject the idea that they were part of the government and were therefore subject to the first amendment. I was flabbergasted at the time that these somewhat influential people in my town were so ignorant of basic civics.
I am much less naive now.
Normally, I'm not very well aligned with the Christian Right, but I have to admit Pat Robertson is being smart and helpful about the sad situation that the creationists are creating.
That they have almost always lost in court hasn't deterred them yet.
Sometimes I look at creationists who argue about it and just want to remind them that Jesus is patiently waiting for his cross back. I don't, but I want to.
I believe that it is part of Pat's plan to eliminate evil by causing hell to freeze over.
The "Creation Science" museum is designed to make money, and the debate was designed to publicize it, not to convince anybody new. Even though Pat Robertson lives a life that's pretty much the opposite of the example of Jesus Christ, his self interests are not helped by the creation museum.
I don't think there is an anti-science movement in the US. I think there are certain issues that have been politicized to the point that the science is either ignored or called into question as part of a larger conspiracy/used as propaganda. Global warming is a scheme to extort money from crap like carbon tax and green tech subsidies, anti-vaxxers against Big Pharma, anti-GMO vs Big Ag, evolution is a scheme to attack religion, etc. While these are more highly publicized and are hot button topics, I don't think a majority of people are attacking science on a majority of issues.
Conversely, China has a thriving market in herbal and questionable alternative medicine. Oscillococcinum is widely used in Europe - one of the top 10 drugs in France. Several European countries have anti-GMO laws, even though there is a lack of science showing said GMOs are "bad". But I don't believe any of those places are anti-science.
There are hints of creationism being brought to other parts of the world though, notably the Jehova's Witnesses won't go as far as claiming the earth is young and they won't outright deny evolution but they will act outraged if you think "man descended from monkeys" (their words, not mine!) which is of course a lovely mess of confusions you couldn't hope to untangle in a few minutes.
But yeah, here in Mexico at least, we recognize this as a "USA" invention and, and they make everybody look dumb, some for believing, others for tolerating it.
Which is the reason these people have been winning, these are never debates about the truth but about science and yet they are discussed as political issues.
A comment in my local paper derided Mr. Nye for this. The talking point here isn't so much that creationism is bunk, but that Nye is big meanie for nutpicking this dingbat to debate instead of a more reasonable creationist who would bring reasonable arguments, thus proving Nye is afraid of the weakness of his position. Or something.
Just an observation but there is a difference between science and technology, (science is a method and a body of knowledge and technology is the practical application of science) and yes in the US there is a lot of technology and this is readily accepted, but when you question the body of knowledge that allows for that technology and you question the methods by which you arrive at that body of knowledge then you come up against situations like this where science (knowledge) becomes politicized.
Which is to say, that the things we understand to be true, are subject to being managed by political means.
I mean, politics is the "art of the possible" right? Why doesn't it deal with technology then? Seems to me the reason courts can approve creationism is because they view it as an application of truth, therefore, debatable.
The hidden assumption being that there are reasonable creationists out there with actual evidence to argue their case?
Conservatives have tacked far to the right of where they used to be. Many Reagan and Eisenhower actions wouldn't be done by most modern conservatives. If Robertson lives long enough, he'll eventually be considered a hippy.
Lately = since the 19th century. This particular weird strain of American Fundamentalism grew up out of semi-literate preachers who were reacting against the new knowledge coming out of science. It's fundamentally (sorry) political/ social, not really religious.
Having Pat Robertson represent Christianity makes as much sense as having Andrew Wakefield represent science. Both are con men with followers.
"That whackjob telling people the earth is only 6000 years old is making people not believe me when I say that hurricanes are caused by gay people."
next page →