D. James Kennedy died earlier this week.
Shortly after I moved to Kansas I discovered the local Evangelical radio station. This was my introduction to precisely what Christianity means to very large segments of the South and Midwest. Preacher after preacher blared forth from my speakers, each one doing his darnedest to out-stupid his predecsessor.
And from out of this maelstrom of malarkey came one preacher who towered over all the others. That was D. James Kennedy. With that combination of ignorance and arrogance so typical of his breed, Kennedy would stand before his distressingly large audience, dressed in a PhD gown, speaking with a voice dripping with condescension, and discourse on the great issues of his day. Others could only stand in awe at his ability to utter the baldest sort of nonsense without any trace of shame or self-doubt.
So let us have one final look at the wit and wisdom of D. James Kennedy, as he states it plain about that most Satanic of scientific theories: Evolution.
From his book Why I Believe:
As famous a scientist as Sir Ambrose Fleming completely rejects evolution, as does the Harvard scientist Louis Agissz, probably one of the greatest scientists America has produced. (pp. 49)
(Fleming died in 1945. Agissiz died in 1873. It's a bit rich to describe then in the present tense. And Agissiz was born in Switzerland and educated in Europe. I don't think it's fair to say that America produced him.)
Evolution is the religion of modern unbelieving man, and it has been the pseudoscientific foundation of every false and anti-Christian “ism” that has come down the pike in the last hundred years. For example, consider Nazism. Hitler accepted the evolutionary platitudes of Nietzsche: the idea of a super race. “Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for LIfe,” a subtitle of Darwin's book, had to do with the survival of the fittest race. Hitler's master race was simply an outgrowth of evolutionary thinking. Mussolini, who frequently quoted Darwin in catch phrases, said that the idea of peace was repugnant to the idea of the survival of the fittest and the progress of the race; war was essential for the survival of the fittest. (pp. 50-51)
A recent science that has developed is the science of probability. Dr. James Coppedge, PhD, director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth -- all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate on and one half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibiliities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10,262 years. (pp. 53-54)
The truth is that God made you and me. Those who carried away the scientific movement created by Christians to draw us closer to God, and who have postulated a naturalistic, materialistic, atheistic world and have indoctinated hundreds of millions of students in it all over the world, have been at last found out for what they are -- they have been teachers of falsehoods and they have promulgated the “Great Lie.” (pp. 57) (Emphasis in original).
From the Kennedy Commentary, August 10, 2006:
The most scientific statement ever made on the subject is this: “In the beginning God created the heaven's and the Earth.” Millions and millions have been deceived by this naturalistic philosophy passing itself off as science, declared as fact while the longer it goes the more pillars of evolution collapse. Until, as one scientist said, &lduqo;It will not be too long until evolution is regarded as a curious scientific religion of the twentieth century.”
From the Kennedy Commentary, August 12, 2003.
We live in a time when there are only two religions competing for the minds and hearts and loyalties of intelligent, Western man. One of those religions is Christianity. The other religion is evolution. And if you do not realize that evolution is a religion, then you don't know too much about evolution. For example, Professor David Allbrook (ph), professor of anatomy at the University of Western Australia said that, “Evolution is a time-honored scientific tenet, a faith.” Why, you've been led to believe it was a science, hadn't you? Not so at all.
From the Kennedy Commentary, August 15, 2003.
Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales wrote an interesting book entitled Why Scientists Accept Evolution. This book is loaded with documentation, it contains numerous letters written by Darwin and Huxley and Spencer and other of the early evolutionsits. And it points out that these men indicated in their own letters, by their own admissions, that it was because of their hostility to God and their bias against the supernatural that they jumped at the doctrine of evolution. I myself, personally heard Sir Julian Huxley one of the world's leading evolutionists, descendant of Thomas Huxley, Darwin's bulldog. He said, “I suppose that the reason that we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”
From the Kennedy Commentary, August 19, 2004.
One scientist said that he was confident that, if they were willing to be honest about the matter, if you interviewed social scientists at our elite universities across the country, you would find that at least ninety-five perhaps ninety-nine percent of them would not be willing to sign the declaration of Independence. If they were honest. Why? Very simple. They don't believe in a creator. They do not beieve we have been created. They do not believe that we have been endowed with certain inalienable rights by this creator. None of that do they believe. And if they were honest, they would not sign the document that makes us and made us American.
From the Kennedy Commentary, July 22, 2004.
Stephen Jay Gould was, three years ago, the most influential evolutionist in America, and then he had a great awakening. He died, and he met the creator face to face. That must have been a horribly shocking event to say the least. But in one article he wrote, “Man, or even woman, as the crowning achievment of some grand cosmic plan? What mortal conceit! We are but an afterthought,” he says, “We are a little, accidental twig.”
From the Kennedy Commentary, May 13, 2005.
Who was the greatest scientist who ever lived? Well, according to a large survey made of scientist some time ago, this was Sir Isaac Newton. Sir Isaac Newton said, “I have a foundational belief in the Bible, and in God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily,”said the greatest scientist who ever lived. And yet modern evolutionists say, as one said in a debate right here in this church, “Creation is not scientific, and therefore creationists are not scientists.” A creationist discovered science! The greatest scientist who ever lived was a creationist!
Get the idea?
- Log in to post comments
Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. It's hard to feel remorse for someone who made a career out of peddling superstition and ignorance.
D. James Kennedy was a master of smooth pseudo-intellectualism. He projected utter assurance, which must have been very soothing to his congregation of true believers. I found it fascinating to watch him as he enumerated all the famous scientists who had been creationists, although he forgot to mention that the majority of them were dead and buried before Darwin published The Origin of Species. Was he a conscious liar or just deluded? Perhaps a mixture of both.
In one famous episode, Kennedy slimed Sir Julian Huxley by describing an interview of Huxley that he, Kennedy, claimed to have watched on public television. He said that Huxley attributed the success of evolution among scientists to its usefulness as justification for sexual licentiousness. Kennedy vividly described how he nearly fell out of his chair upon hearing so outrageous a statement. Sounds like eye witness testimony, no? Except that there is no evidence that Sir Julian ever gave such an interview or made such a statement. Kennedy was quite the nut case. I feel sorry for his family, now in mourning, but his influence was baneful and one hopes it fades away.
One must get great amusement out of Kennedy invoking Issac Newton. Obviously, the late Reverend Kennedy was unaware that Newton wasn't a Christian as he rejected the concept of the trinity.
On talk.origins, the pro-evolution forum on Usenet that's been around for at least twenty years now, it was universally agreed that of all the anti-evolutionary preachermen, D. J. Kennedy was the one destined for Hell if there is one. He was too smart, too slick, and too calculating; he had to know he was lying to the rubes.
I only focused on evolution here, but Kennedy was vile and ignorant on every subject he touched. On various occasions he expressed delight at the idea that people like Bertrand Russell, Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould were all now in hell. His sermons on evolution were so utterly divorced from reality, even compared to the already low standards of other young-Earthers, that it was hard to believe such an intelligent person could be so completely devoid of conscience. All that mattered to him was the adoration of his know-nothing congregants. He didn't care in the slightest about actually getting anything right.
You know what they say — Heaven for climate, Hell for company.
Years ago, I wathced Kennedy's slickly produed video "The Case for Creation" (not to be confused with journalist Lee Stroebel's video/book with a similar name) - I even taped it. It was the usual litany of lies and distortions, but one clearly ridiculous claim (moreso than most) was that, in the section on the 'impossibility of life arising naturally', he declared that the chances of any two nucleotides linking up in a DNA molecule is 1 in 10^87 and thus impossible.
Incredible.
Blake Stacey--
I don't think it was 'they' who said heaven for climate and hell for company. I think it was Merk Twain.
Quite a number of years ago I was part of a debate on evolution at a small midwestern college. The creationist was a faculty member in chemisry, but a local church decided he needed help and Kennedy was brought it as a hired gun.
It was kind of fun. I caught him in several quotes out of context and got to nail Kennedy with the "are you a poor scholar, or just a dishonest one". He was flaming mad at me before the session was done. I won't miss him for a nanosecond.
"Jason, speaking with a voice dripping with condescension, and discourse on the great issues of his day. Others could only stand in awe at his ability to utter the baldest sort of nonsense without any trace of shame or self-doubt."
I really think, after reading a bit on this blog, that your (plural) arguments for your type of atheism is simply ad hominem. I mean it's ridiculous how little argumentation goes on here, and how much venom is spewed out instead. There have been only a few here who have been scholarly in their explanations of their views. I appreciate that no matter what the viewpoint; but name calling and degrading others is simply the lowest form of argument. I would hope that you can get back to the explanation because that is far more helpful in understanding what you really believe.
Thanks Bryan. Those are some words of wisdom. Hopefully we all shall benefit from this.