Matt Damon and Looney Liberal Paranoia About Creationists

[gengwall]

"I need to know if she really thinks that dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. I want to know that, I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes." Matt Damon

I knew before that Matt Damon was a really good writer from Good Will Hunting
I knew before he was a tolerable action actor from the Bourne series
I now know he is a complete ignoramous when it comes to Christians, creationism, and executive power.

Let's start with Matt's completely ignorant (and false) assumptions about Christians and creationism. Apparently, Matt believes:

All evangelical Christians are creationists
All creationists are young-earth creationists
All creationists completely reject evolution
All creationists desire to impose their view on society

These are all completely false assumptions in general. But let's see how they stack up against the actual documented record of Sarah Palin.

It is clear from the churches she has attended and from her very unabashed statements regarding God that she is Christian. It is also clear, at least to me, that she would fall into the evangelical camp. Moreover, she has stated a positive position regarding creation. So, assumption one, while not universally true, is mostly true about Sarah Palin.

As far as being a young-earth creationist, there is absolutely no evidence to support that assumption. In fact, she has only made the very general comment "I believe we have a creator", a view supported by both Barack Obama and John McCain (not to mention the Pope), even though they also believe in evolution. Moreover, she has staked a neutral position regarding timelines and creative methodologies, stating "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be". So the second assumption is at least very premature regarding Sarah Palin, and probably not true at all.

Now is Sarah Palin a creationist revolutionary, believing that evolution should be completely excised from science curriculum and replaced with intelligent design? Here, the record is crystal clear. When campaigning for Governor she stated a personal preference for teaching both theories: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both". She later clarified that position by stating that she was not advocating a curriculum change per se, but instead was expressing the belief that debate over competing ideas fosters critical thinking in young adults as well as being healthy for science in general: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum". Most scientists, I would think, would agree, as both peer review and rebuttal are integral components in scientific progress. So, Matt’s third assumption is demonstrably false.

But maybe this was just a Trojan horse. Maybe these were just bromides to pacify those dupes up in Alaska so they would elect her and then she could unleash her evil plot to destroy the hearts and minds of poor unsuspecting public school children. After all, actions speak louder than words, right? So what is her record as Governor? Again, the truth is there for every one to see. She has steadfastly stuck to her pre-election promise to not push for creationist teaching in schools. In fact, her refusal to get embroiled in social issue politics on the job and her ability to separate personal convictions from constitutional dictates has endeared her to Alaskans of all political stripes. Not only is Matt utterly wrong about Christians in general in his last assumption, he apparently has not done any research on Sarah Palin before jumping to those erroneous conclusions.

I will leave his last statement alone because it is so immature and lacking in logical thought that it requires no more piling on from me. Apparently Matt lives in some kind of Dr. Strangelove-esque fantasy world where one’s belief in the age of the universe is directly related to one’s nuclear trigger happiness.

 

[Donkeytron]

I think what he was saying is that someone who thinks the flinstones was more than a cartoon is probably too stupid to be trusted with an atomic arsenal. I tend to agree with that assessment. Whether governor palin is actually a creationist or not I dont know, but its certainly possible.

 

[tulc]

I knew before that Matt Damon was a really good writer from Good Will Hunting
I knew before he was a tolerable action actor from the Bourne series
I now know he is a complete ignoramous when it comes to Christians, creationism, and executive power.

Let's start with Matt's completely ignorant (and false) assumptions about Christians and creationism. Apparently, Matt believes:

All evangelical Christians are creationists
All creationists are young-earth creationists
All creationists completely reject evolution
All creationists desire to impose their view on society

These are all completely false assumptions in general. But let's see how they stack up against the actual documented record of Sarah Palin.

It is clear from the churches she has attended and from her very unabashed statements regarding God that she is Christian. It is also clear, at least to me, that she would fall into the evangelical camp. Moreover, she has stated a positive position regarding creation. So, assumption one, while not universally true, is mostly true about Sarah Palin.

As far as being a young-earth creationist, there is absolutely no evidence to support that assumption. In fact, she has only made the very general comment "I believe we have a creator", a view supported by both Barack Obama and John McCain (not to mention the Pope), even though they also believe in evolution. Moreover, she has staked a neutral position regarding timelines and creative methodologies, stating "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be". So the second assumption is at least very premature regarding Sarah Palin, and probably not true at all.

Now is Sarah Palin a creationist revolutionary, believing that evolution should be completely excised from science curriculum and replaced with intelligent design? Here, the record is crystal clear. When campaigning for Governor she stated a personal preference for teaching both theories: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both". She later clarified that position by stating that she was not advocating a curriculum change per se, but instead was expressing the belief that debate over competing ideas fosters critical thinking in young adults as well as being healthy for science in general: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum". Most scientists, I would think, would agree, as both peer review and rebuttal are integral components in scientific progress. So, Matt’s third assumption is demonstrably false.

But maybe this was just a Trojan horse. Maybe these were just bromides to pacify those dupes up in Alaska so they would elect her and then she could unleash her evil plot to destroy the hearts and minds of poor unsuspecting public school children. After all, actions speak louder than words, right? So what is her record as Governor? Again, the truth is there for every one to see. She has steadfastly stuck to her pre-election promise to not push for creationist teaching in schools. In fact, her refusal to get embroiled in social issue politics on the job and her ability to separate personal convictions from constitutional dictates has endeared her to Alaskans of all political stripes. Not only is Matt utterly wrong about Christians in general in his last assumption, he apparently has not done any research on Sarah Palin before jumping to those erroneous conclusions.

I will leave his last statement alone because it is so immature and lacking in logical thought that it requires no more piling on from me. Apparently Matt lives in some kind of Dr. Strangelove-esque fantasy world where one’s belief in the age of the universe is directly related to one’s nuclear trigger happiness.

...so Matt Damon shouldn't ask questions? How else does he find out things?
tulc(thinks questions are good)

 

[ArnautDaniel]

The way I see it -

1. Any president is an individual that has to rely on the opinions of experts to make a decision. No one can expect the president to be knowledgeable about everything.

2. A creationist is someone who ignores the sum total of scientific expertise and opinion to go for some other opinion based on nothing.

3. If a person is willing to ignore the expert opinion of the scientific community and believe in something with no basis or foundation, that simply tells us this person thinks they know everything and has not respect for experts or people that devote their lives to studying a problem

4. Thus we can conclude such a person will rely on their own uniformed opinion to make decisions rather than consulting with people who make it their life's work to know about a particular topic.

Thus we would have every reason to believe a creationist president would make ignorant decisions all over the map by relying on their own opinions over systematic and scientific studies.

That is why it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that a creationist would make a terrible president.

If a president ignores the scientific community, why wouldn't they ignore their experts on Russia because they are so sure they "know" things about Russia that their advisors just don't get?

 

[AirPo]

The way I see it -

1. Any president is an individual that has to rely on the opinions of experts to make a decision. No one can expect the president to be knowledgeable about everything.

2. A creationist is someone who ignores the sum total of scientific expertise and opinion to go for some other opinion based on nothing.

3. If a person is willing to ignore the expert opinion of the scientific community and believe in something with no basis or foundation, that simply tells us this person thinks they know everything and has not respect for experts or people that devote their lives to studying a problem

4. Thus we can conclude such a person will rely on their own uniformed opinion to make decisions rather than consulting with people who make it their life's work to know about a particular topic.

Thus we would have every reason to believe a creationist president would make ignorant decisions all over the map by relying on their own opinions over systematic and scientific studies.

That is why it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that a creationist would make a terrible president.

If a president ignores the scientific community, why wouldn't they ignore their experts on Russia because they are so sure they "know" things about Russia that their advisors just don't get?

And I can see Russia from my house.

.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

There is no place for teaching Creationism in secular schools. Evolution has scientific support, and is independent of religions. Creationism rests on religion and belongs in houses of worship. Let's also mention that I never hear fundamentalist Christians who want Creationism to be taught in schools to also allow the multitude of other religious Creationist stories to also be taught.

 

[JustOneWay]

I knew before that Matt Damon was a really good writer from Good Will Hunting
I knew before he was a tolerable action actor from the Bourne series
I now know he is a complete ignoramous when it comes to Christians, creationism, and executive power.

Let's start with Matt's completely ignorant (and false) assumptions about Christians and creationism. Apparently, Matt believes:

All evangelical Christians are creationists
All creationists are young-earth creationists
All creationists completely reject evolution
All creationists desire to impose their view on society

These are all completely false assumptions in general. But let's see how they stack up against the actual documented record of Sarah Palin.

It is clear from the churches she has attended and from her very unabashed statements regarding God that she is Christian. It is also clear, at least to me, that she would fall into the evangelical camp. Moreover, she has stated a positive position regarding creation. So, assumption one, while not universally true, is mostly true about Sarah Palin.

As far as being a young-earth creationist, there is absolutely no evidence to support that assumption. In fact, she has only made the very general comment "I believe we have a creator", a view supported by both Barack Obama and John McCain (not to mention the Pope), even though they also believe in evolution. Moreover, she has staked a neutral position regarding timelines and creative methodologies, stating "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be". So the second assumption is at least very premature regarding Sarah Palin, and probably not true at all.

Now is Sarah Palin a creationist revolutionary, believing that evolution should be completely excised from science curriculum and replaced with intelligent design? Here, the record is crystal clear. When campaigning for Governor she stated a personal preference for teaching both theories: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both". She later clarified that position by stating that she was not advocating a curriculum change per se, but instead was expressing the belief that debate over competing ideas fosters critical thinking in young adults as well as being healthy for science in general: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum". Most scientists, I would think, would agree, as both peer review and rebuttal are integral components in scientific progress. So, Matt’s third assumption is demonstrably false.

But maybe this was just a Trojan horse. Maybe these were just bromides to pacify those dupes up in Alaska so they would elect her and then she could unleash her evil plot to destroy the hearts and minds of poor unsuspecting public school children. After all, actions speak louder than words, right? So what is her record as Governor? Again, the truth is there for every one to see. She has steadfastly stuck to her pre-election promise to not push for creationist teaching in schools. In fact, her refusal to get embroiled in social issue politics on the job and her ability to separate personal convictions from constitutional dictates has endeared her to Alaskans of all political stripes. Not only is Matt utterly wrong about Christians in general in his last assumption, he apparently has not done any research on Sarah Palin before jumping to those erroneous conclusions.

I will leave his last statement alone because it is so immature and lacking in logical thought that it requires no more piling on from me. Apparently Matt lives in some kind of Dr. Strangelove-esque fantasy world where one’s belief in the age of the universe is directly related to one’s nuclear trigger happiness.

Do you happen to have a link to Matt Damon's writing which states all his beliefs?

 

[keith99]

I knew before that Matt Damon was a really good writer from Good Will Hunting
I knew before he was a tolerable action actor from the Bourne series
I now know he is a complete ignoramous when it comes to Christians, creationism, and executive power.

Let's start with Matt's completely ignorant (and false) assumptions about Christians and creationism. Apparently, Matt believes:

All evangelical Christians are creationists
All creationists are young-earth creationists
All creationists completely reject evolution
All creationists desire to impose their view on society

These are all completely false assumptions in general. But let's see how they stack up against the actual documented record of Sarah Palin.
...

Of course any reasonable person knows Matt Damon made no such assumptions. As even you implicitly admit to by examining where Palin stands on these points.

In fact it is doubtful he made any assumptions at all. All he did was decide that statements attributed to Palin raise the issue and need an answer.

When people object to that I have to wonder if they fear the answer.

 

[tulc]

in case anyone wanted to see where the quote came from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a25jieLVOgw
and I have to say, I didn't hear any of those questions asked.
tulc(just sayn')

 

[JoshuaW]

While I will defend your right to believe in creationism, there's no way I'll let you govern the country.

 

[Btodd]

While I will defend your right to believe in creationism, there's no way I'll let you govern the country. I don't expect you to understand, let's just say I believe all creationists are running on lower wattage than the rest of us.

If someone is gullible enough to fall for Creationism, then they aren't qualified to make even tougher decisions that affect the entire world. There, I said it, and I stand behind it.

And what Matt Damon said is that we need to know, "Does she think the world is 4,000 years old?"

I want to know. It IS important. The same way that I wouldn't want a world leader to think the Earth is flat. Judgment matters, and if you can't see straight on what is essentially a slam-dunk, then you don't deserve to make decisions for the rest of us; you're dangerous.

And finally, has the OP'er been to a Pentecostal church before? Are you suggesting that it isn't likely for her to be a YEC? Pentecostals are VERY literal about the Bible.

It's not 'paranoia' to want to know if a (possible) future world leader believes the Earth is 6000 years old, or if they think Jesus punishes this nation in direct relation to our support of Israel, or our agreement with 'God's will'. These aren't criteria I want her basing decisions on; the stakes are way too high to put up with this type of nonsense.


Btodd

 

[JoshuaW]

Another thing fundamentalist churches are strict about...the husband makes the decisions in the family. We've already seen that Todd Palin sits in on government meetings, maybe more questions should be asked about what part he plays in whatever decisions Sarah Palin makes.

 

[Grizzly]

While I will defend your right to believe in creationism, there's no way I'll let you govern the country. I don't expect you to understand, let's just say I believe all creationists are running on lower wattage than the rest of us.

I don't think its a lower wattage. Its the ability to ignore scientific evidence in favor of perceived religious truth. If she is a young-earth creationist, it means that she is willing to discard the mountain of scientific evidence in favor of her interpretation of the writings of bronze age goatherders when it comes to evaluating a scientific question. This kind of person should be kept at least an arms length away from making policy.

 

[variant]

If someone is of the opinion that creationism should be taught in public schools as science or an alternative to it, they either lack the integrity to stand up to the religious right, or lack the intellectual heft to be president.

Sadly though, a good portion of our voting public lacks the ability to know why it should never even be considered for an alternative to evolutionary theory.

 

[GWRULES2004]

Matt Damon is an idiot. It has nothing to do with how one would handle the relevant issues i.e. the economy, healthcare, energy security. I would rather have a creationist in a Whitehouse than someone like Obama who believes socialism works. I think that is even more loony.

 

[platzapS]

Matt Damon is an idiot. It has nothing to do with how one would handle the relevant issues i.e. the economy, healthcare, energy security. I would rather have a creationist in a Whitehouse than someone like Obama who believes socialism works. I think that is even more loony.

We have socialist fire departments in America that work pretty well.

 

[Staccato]

Matt Damon is an idiot. It has nothing to do with how one would handle the relevant issues i.e. the economy, healthcare, energy security. I would rather have a creationist in a Whitehouse than someone like Obama who believes socialism works. I think that is even more loony.

What are your views on socialist creationists?

 

[Grizzly]

Matt Damon is an idiot. It has nothing to do with how one would handle the relevant issues i.e. the economy, healthcare, energy security. I would rather have a creationist in a Whitehouse than someone like Obama who believes socialism works. I think that is even more loony.

Hmm. So its more looney to think that collective action can work (at least in some respects) than it is to believe that the earth was made 6,000 years ago and dinosaurs walked with man?

I do not understand your standards of evidence. We know there are successful socialist countries (Norway and Sweden). Even if their rule of government is not to our liking, we can see these countries as being effective. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that the earth is only thousands of year old.

May I suggest that perhaps your standards of evidence are a tad looney?

 

[JustOneWay]

in case anyone wanted to see where the quote came from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a25jieLVOgw
and I have to say, I didn't hear any of those questions asked.
tulc(just sayn')

Thanks for the link tulc

I agree. Damon asked none of the questions typed in the OP. I wonder if we will ever get links to Damon's comments about all those creationists?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let's start with Matt's completely ignorant (and false) assumptions about Christians and creationism. Apparently, Matt believes:

All evangelical Christians are creationists
All creationists are young-earth creationists
All creationists completely reject evolution
All creationists desire to impose their view on society

I can't answer what Matt Damon believes about All Evangelical Christians/Creationists, but Sarah Palin (the one he was specifically referring to):

IS an Evangelical Christian,
IS a Creationist,
AT LEAST PARTIALLY rejects evolution,
ALMOST CERTAINLY wants to impose her views upon others,
and ABSOLUTELY WILL have the nuclear codes.

And let me tell you, boys and girls -- Damon's not the only one who finds all that unsettling.