I find the following bit of video to be very interesting. The letter itself, which they read at the beginning, is instructive of why many people are creationists or otherwise anti-science. They are afraid to go to hell. The idea that a person will go to hell for believing in science is something you have to be taught. The people who teach this should … well, they can go to hell, as far as I’m concerned.

Then, of course, the answer to the letter is amazing. It is a revolution in thinking. Please keep in mind that the person making the statements you are about to witness is the chairman of a major broadcasting network, and has quite a large following. People might pay attention to this. If not, we must make sure to point it out at every opportunity. Look and be amazed:

So, Bishop Usher was NOT, it turns out, inspired by God when he said that the earth was created in the year 4004 BC, and it turns out that you CAN believe in an old earth, and dinosaurs, and all that implies, without going to hell. Who would have thought?

Now, we do have to weigh this new revelation in relation to the success or veracity of Mr. Robertson’s earlier revelations, of which he has had quite a few. Like when he predicted that the end of the world would occur in the Fall of 1982. (He got an Ig Nobel Prize for that!) Or when he predicted that George Bush was going to win by a huge landslide in 2004. Or the time he predicted the Great Pacific Northwestern Tsunami of 2006, the Great Terror Attack of 2007, The Great Social and Economic Upheaval of 2008, Armageddon in the Middle East also in 2008, and the acceptance of Socialism in America by the end of 2009. Oh, he also predicted that Obama would lose in 2012.

And now he says that Dinosaurs existed “before the time of the Bible.”

Oh crap. What if he’s wrong about that too???

Comments

  1. #1 Eric Lund
    November 28, 2012

    The Great Social and Economic Upheaval of 2008

    I’m inclined to give Robertson that one. (Blind squirrels, nuts, etc.) There was a major economic crisis in 2008. And for a certain subset of the public which strongly overlaps Robertson’s target audience, electing a black man with the middle name Hussein as President of the United States might be regarded as a significant social upheaval.

  2. #2 dean
    November 28, 2012

    Eric, here in West Michigan you could have made your comment as

    …electing a black man as President of the United States might be regarded as a significant social upheaval.

    and adequately described the response of the conservatives and the religious (christian reformed and other sundry groups)

  3. #3 MacTurk
    Prague Czech Republic
    November 28, 2012

    In the same way that a stopped clock is right at least for two tiny instances every four hours, so it is that Pat Robertson is not automatically wrong every time he o[pens his mouth, and this is a case in point.

    Mind you, it is still overwhelmingly the case that if you want to be on the correct side of any issue, just make sure you are NOT on the same side as that dreary, faux-folksy, scam artist…..

    But nice to hear he has accepted that fact that there is no point fighting scientific facts – sorry, “revealed science” as he calls it…..

  4. #4 MacTurk
    Prague Czech Republic
    November 28, 2012

    In the same way that a stopped clock is right at least for two tiny instances every twenty four hours, so it is that Pat Robertson is not automatically wrong every time he opens his mouth, and this is a case in point.

    Mind you, it is still overwhelmingly the case that if you want to be on the correct side of any issue, just make sure you are NOT on the same side as that dreary, faux-folksy, scam artist…..

    But nice to hear he has accepted that fact that there is no point fighting scientific facts – sorry, “revealed science” as he calls it…..

  5. #5 Dave Conrad
    Canada
    November 28, 2012

    How could any intelligent and reasonable person think the world is 5000 years old? You really have to have a closed mind and poorly working mind. Fear created religion and people wrote the bible to explain it all. Religion should never replace logic although they two seem to be enemies.

  6. #6 marvin nubwaxer
    November 28, 2012

    i’ve got a monkey on my back and he’s my cousin.

  7. #7 Tyler
    Alabama
    November 28, 2012

    I liked the post up until the end. There has to be a lot of people out there who blatantly deny science based on something as silly as the young-Earth stuff. Hearing something simple like this from someone like Pat Robertson can do a lot towards getting people to explore their curiosity without fear of retribution from some omnipotent power. words words words words

  8. #8 Joe
    USA
    December 1, 2012

    Equating a disagreement with the philosophical idea of speciation through gradual descent from a common ancestor with being anti-science is a logical fallacy, and an indication of desperation and insecurity.

  9. #9 Alsee
    December 18, 2012

    Joe, you’re right that it’s not valid to equate doubt-of-evolution with being anti-science.

    It is entirely possible for someone to be pro-science while being uninformed/misinformed on the subject of evolution. Unfortunately most people in the U.S. receive little or no education in the subject, and much of what they do learn is often grossly incomplete if not outright wrong. If someone really is pro-science they are inevitably very easy to completely win over on evolution. It just takes a knowledgeable person to lay out a proper explanation of evolution along with a decent explanation of the evidence that exists. Anyone who is pro-science and who is remotely reasonable will agree that the evidence that does exist does establish evolution is true, far beyond any sane definition of doubt.

    Many people have been told, and believe, that there is little or no evidence backing up evolution. One of the great things about an “X doesn’t exist” claim is, when it’s wrong, how easy it is to utterly demolish such a claim. All you need to do is pull out X and showing it to someone. I’ll admit that tactic doesn’t work on people who *doesn’t genuinely care* about evidence, but we are assuming a pro-science person here. Anyone who does not put evidence first is not pro-science.