Wisdom from Pat Robertson

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Christian right leader and occasional U.S. Presidential candidate Pat Robertson recently made the following statement on the '700 Club':

'Genesis was never intended as a science textbook. Genesis is the backdrop for the introduction of the Jewish race through Abraham, which was God's agency of salvation through Jesus Christ. That's what Genesis is all about.'

'I mean, if God intended a textbook, he wouldn't be, you know, talking about the sun in the sense of the moon and all this kind of thing because it's phenomenal language. Its what you see. And when I look out, I see the sun rise, and I see the sun set. We know now the sun doesn't rise and the sun doesn't set. But the Bible talks about "from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same." But it's poetical language.'

'It [the Earth] actually revolves, but the writer of the Bible doesn't say, "Well, the Earth revolved on its axis, and therefore it looked like the sun was coming up." [Instead, the Bible says,] "From the rising of the sun to the going down of the same." '

'[The Bible also says in Psalm 114:4] "The little hills skipped like lambs."  We'll, [sic] I mean, nobody really thinks the hills skipped. This is poetry! And to stake your whole faith on the basis of misinterpretation of poetry, to me, is a mistake… '

Apparently even Pat Robertson is persuaded by the evidence that YEC is a crock of hooey.  This goes to show just how marginal the YEC believers are.

 

[chickenman]

encouraging news

 

[mac_philo]

What is the source of this transcript?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0619robertson.asp

 

[Stormy]

It always amazes me when those that are spiritually blind and deaf read the same words and come away with a whole different interpretation... than those that posses the Spirit.

You think you have discovered something that supports your ideas. When in reality Pat Robertson is mocking you.

You really need to wise up.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Who is it supporting and who is it mocking Susan? AiG seem to have taken offence to Mr. Roberts statements.

 

[DrLao]

Originally posted by Stormy
It always amazes me when those that are spiritually blind and deaf read the same words and come away with a whole different interpretation... than those that posses the Spirit.

You think you have discovered something that supports your ideas. When in reality Pat Robertson is mocking you.

What are you talking about, Stormy? Perhaps you'd like to give us your superior, spirit-filled interpretation, so that we may all benefit?

 

[simplicity]

Of course, the Bible isn't designed to compete with scientific studies. I have never used it to get tips on astronomy, geophysics or genome research. But you know with so many advancements in science during my short lifetime, I can say without a doubt the world is still pretty screwed up. I don't think Creationists are to blame, either. We have an abundance of data about a bunch of things. But I would point out there are still enormous pockets of uncertainty even among those who support the idea of evolution.

My first-year ecology professor said, generally speaking, there is little evidence of a gradual process of evolution. Periods of recovery after various instances of mass extinction on earth would suggest, from available data, species appeared out of nowhere.

I feel the Bible helps bring us closer to God. That's why I read it. So it accomplishes its mission. True enough, it doesn't address every fanciful hair-brained scientific idea that comes across the table. I don't believe that is its intended purpose. Nor would I read it if it were. It brings people closer to God. I'm perfectly happy living not knowing everything about life.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Stormy
It always amazes me when those that are spiritually blind and deaf read the same words and come away with a whole different interpretation... than those that posses the Spirit.

You think you have discovered something that supports your ideas. When in reality Pat Robertson is mocking you.

You really need to wise up.

Yes, I can see how Robertson is mocking the sorts of credulous people who would believe that the sun doesn't actually move around a stationary earth.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Stormy
It always amazes me when those that are spiritually blind and deaf read the same words and come away with a whole different interpretation... than those that posses the Spirit.

You think you have discovered something that supports your ideas. When in reality Pat Robertson is mocking you.

You really need to wise up.

Amen to that.

When I read the starting post in this thread, I tried desperately to see what was supposed to be controversial about Robertson's statement. It made perfect sense to me. I don't know if it's poetry or literal, but it's not something on which Christianity stands or falls.

Indeed, Pat was hammering home the same thing I've been saying here about evolution. The reason why our opinions about these things is unscientific and unreliable is because we have no direct observation to rely on. We weren't there.

 

[seebs]

While I agree that it's not something on which Christianity stands or falls, you're rather isolated in that belief, among Creationists; we get a lot of people through here who specifically state that anyone who doesn't accept literal 6-day creation is going to hell.

However... I take strong exception to the claim that it is impossible for us to have scientific, and reasonably reliable, information about something from indirect evidence. 99% of what we know about the world is, at some level, indirect. We have theories about how the sun works, but we've never been in it. We have theories about other stars, comparing them to the sun, even though we've never been to any of them.

Science is built on the assumption that the world continues to act on the same principles over time. If we accept that, some form of evolution is the only remotely plausible explanation - and it's a very good explanation.

 

[bumpas10]

(Pat Robinson poletition.)

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs
While I agree that it's not something on which Christianity stands or falls, you're rather isolated in that belief, among Creationists; we get a lot of people through here who specifically state that anyone who doesn't accept literal 6-day creation is going to hell.

Well, I happen to think it's a literal 6-day creation, but I don't think we have any idea what that really means. I don't think it necessarily means 24 hour days in the same way we now measure 24 hour days. We also don't know if there were pauses between the days, although I have no idea why anyone would assume that except to try to arbitrarily harmonize the Bible with what science believes.

It's not that I don't believe God is perfectly capable of doing it in 6 consecutive uninterrupted 24-hour days by our measurement. I do believe that. So Genesis could certainly mean a literal 6/24. But here's the point. If tomorrow I found out it wasn't a literal 6/24 creation it wouldn't elicit much more than a yawn from me.

Here's what comes across as much more important to me: God instituted a literal 7-day system, which is the foundation for many other extensions of that system in the Bible. I also believe the issue of creation itself is far more important than how we'd measure the time of the 6 days of creation. After Genesis, it only mentions the days of creation in the context of the 7-day system, not in the context of whether or not those days were 24 hours long by current measurements. But the Bible REPEATEDLY refers to God creating all things, and does so in both a literal and figurative sense.

Even so, IMO it's not a salvation issue. I've yet to find a verse in the Bible that says you have to pass a theology test in order to be saved. But I do think it dishonors God to doubt Him at His word when He speaks so plainly about things.

Originally posted by seebs

However... I take strong exception to the claim that it is impossible for us to have scientific, and reasonably reliable, information about something from indirect evidence.

It depends on what you consider to be reasonably reliable. And as I've said before, indirect evidence about things operating in the present and indirect evidence about how things operated in the past are two VERY different types of indirect evidence. You can test your theories based on indirect evidence of how things operate in the present. You can't test your hypotheses about how things operated in the past because you can't go back in time. You think you can because you think you can interpret the evidence left behind -- but you're interpreting it based on knowledge of how things work NOW, not based on how things may have worked differently THEN.

You think that's good enough. I don't.

Originally posted by seebs

99% of what we know about the world is, at some level, indirect.

99% of your statistics are hyperbole.

Originally posted by seebs

We have theories about how the sun works, but we've never been in it. We have theories about other stars, comparing them to the sun, even though we've never been to any of them.

Some of those theories could be VERY wrong. Many have been wrong, the theories that replaced them were wrong, and by no small margin. What makes the current ones you trust so much more reliable than the incorrect ones they replaced? We know more now than we did then? But that is surely what people would have said about their confidence level 50 or 100 years ago when THEY were wrong.

Originally posted by seebs

Science is built on the assumption that the world continues to act on the same principles over time. If we accept that, some form of evolution is the only remotely plausible explanation - and it's a very good explanation.

And if it hasn't been acting on the same principles over time, then all your conclusions about the past are almost guaranteed to be wrong.

 

[seebs]

Nick: I guess what it comes down to is, I see genesis as essentially myth and allegory; I see the 7 day creation, not as describing any kind of chronological truth, but rather, as helping set the tone of seven-day weeks we use to this day. If the entire thing never happened, the only real issue is figuring out where sin came from.

My current belief, and I have no particular basis for it, and will drop it if anything cooler comes along, is that Adam and Eve were the first two homo sapiens that God created souls for.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Some of those theories could be VERY wrong. Many have been wrong, the theories that replaced them were wrong, and by no small margin. What makes the current ones you trust so much more reliable than the incorrect ones they replaced? We know more now than we did then? But that is surely what people would have said about their confidence level 50 or 100 years ago when THEY were wrong.

There are degrees of certainty. There are things that science theorizes about NOW that might be "very wrong". Then there are the things for which confidence is high - there is little chance that they will be "very wrong".

In science the goal is not "truth", instead it is an "accurate description". Therefore, Newton's laws are not "true" nor are they "wrong" - they are a description that is accurate on human scales of distance. Relativity is not "true", nor is it "wrong" - it is an explanation that is accurate over a larger scale of distance, while remaining accurate over newtonian scales.

What is it that scientists using the scientific method were "wrong" about in the past? Did they have as much reason for confidence about those things as we do about darwinian evolution now? How well tested were those theories? Were the theories falsified or were they replaced with something more accurate?

And if it hasn't been acting on the same principles over time, then all your conclusions about the past are almost guaranteed to be wrong.

That is true. Science assumes that nature is intelligible, that if there is evidence for a billion year history of life on earth, then there really was a billion year history of life on earth. It cannot cope with nature that changes its rules whimsically. If nature really changes its rules from day to day, or year to year - we can't even have scientific knowledge of what is happening now. We cannot draw conclusions about a law of nature, because a law of nature is subject to change without notice, and may have even changed several times while we thought we were observing it. Newton's f=m*a may have been a mistake that we perpetuate today, not realizing that the laws that govern forces change capriciously in such a way that mimics f=m*a. Down this path lies scientific nihilism.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Stormy
It always amazes me when those that are spiritually blind and deaf read the same words and come away with a whole different interpretation... than those that posses the Spirit.

You think you have discovered something that supports your ideas. When in reality Pat Robertson is mocking you.

You really need to wise up.

Noooo, I don't think so.

You need to take another look.

Robertson is mocking the nutcase Mike Farris, the founder of Patrick Henry college, because he requires his teachers to believe in a literal 6-day creation.

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs

My current belief, and I have no particular basis for it, and will drop it if anything cooler comes along, is that Adam and Eve were the first two homo sapiens that God created souls for.

I used to think that, too. It also explained where all those people came from that Cain was afraid of.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
You can't test your hypotheses about how things operated in the past because you can't go back in time. You think you can because you think you can interpret the evidence left behind -- but you're interpreting it based on knowledge of how things work NOW, not based on how things may have worked differently THEN.

But Nick, there is no evidence that things worked differently long ago.

• There is no evidence that the laws of physics were different.
• There is no evidence that chemistry was different.
• There is no evidence that different geological principles were operating on the Earth.
• There is no evidence that the fundamentals of biology were different.

To withhold support for scientific theories about the past on the objection that we don't know how the world operated in the past is position completely at odds with the evidence.

The whole point of science is to draw conclusions from the evidence, and not from unsubstantiated pie-in-the-sky theories about how things might have been "different".