Article

2005-11-11 Home Front: Culture Wars

Pat Robertson warns Pa. town of disaster

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-11-11 09:08|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."

...and my God is a VINDICTIVE God!

Posted by Pat Robertson 2005-11-11 09:37|| 2005-11-11 09:37|| Front Page Top

#2 Look at meeeeeeeeee!

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-11-11 09:41|| 2005-11-11 09:41|| Front Page Top

#3 Its also wrong to discount a theory just because it somehow ties back to a belief in a higher power. I don't think science has proven God doesn't exist.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2005-11-11 09:48|| 2005-11-11 09:48|| Front Page Top

#4 But what of the folks who "voted God TO KEEP IN your city"? Can Pat put a word in with God to make a highly selective disaster like wiping out only the ~~first born sons of Egypt~~ recall voters of Dover?

Posted by ed 2005-11-11 10:04|| 2005-11-11 10:04|| Front Page Top

#5 Later Thursday, Robertson issued a statement saying he was simply trying to point out that ~~"our spiritual actions have consequences."~~ people should send him money.

Posted by 2b 2005-11-11 10:20|| 2005-11-11 10:20|| Front Page Top

#6 uh, Brer:

Belief isn't science. Belief isn't a theory.

Heck, I personally believe cows think in Spanish. And they worry an awful lot. Prove me wrong.

Don't get me wrong. Religion is great. Fine. Fantastic, even. (Well, except when it tells you to hate everyone else and blow 'em up.) But religion ain't science.

So don't teach it in science class.

Posted by PlanetDan 2005-11-11 11:13|| 2005-11-11 11:13|| Front Page Top

#7 Pat Robertson gives a bad name to those who think tha beleif in a higher power has no conflict with the process of evolution. He's just as bad as the nitwit Professor who didn't want anyone admitted to the Natural Sciences dept of a college that wasn't an athiest. A plague on both of them...

Posted by BigEd 2005-11-11 11:35|| 2005-11-11 11:35|| Front Page Top

#8 A scientific theory is not a fact or truth. It can be likened to a religious belief. Evolution is a theory that has yet to be proven.

Science education should offer as many sides of a question as possible. Global warming comes to mind. I am not as eloquent as others. I refer you to an article by Fred Reed, http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm article #292 "Yet More Evolution" for a more middle of the road stance.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2005-11-11 12:13|| 2005-11-11 12:13|| Front Page Top

#9 BenDover, grab your ankles.

Posted by Captain America 2005-11-11 12:59|| 2005-11-11 12:59|| Front Page Top

#10 God is tolerant and loving, but....

I am intolerant, unloving and unlovable. Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

Posted by Snaigum Cleamble8072 2005-11-11 13:22|| 2005-11-11 13:22|| Front Page Top

#11 Brer Rabbit _ You can't prove a negative.

Besides, it's not science's job to prove gods don't exist, just how things work. If you want other people to act as though your particular god does exist, YOU have to prove he/she/it has some smack.

Posted by Whinemp Flutch9261 2005-11-11 13:26|| 2005-11-11 13:26|| Front Page Top

#12 Brer:

No scientist worth his salt would ever consider scientific "theory" (whether it's evolution or quantum physics) to be "truth." Science describes physical phenomenon and the relationships amongst them. Science is not based on belief.

There is something called the "scientific method" that poses hypotheses and tests these hypotheses in the natural, observable world.

As new hypotheses emerge, they too are tested and the results of these tests add to or modify the underlying theory, making it more robust or sometimes more troublesome.

Such was the effect of Einstein on the field of physics a century ago. He upset the conventional wisdom of the day with his new way of thinking about physics. Over time, his views were tested and helped to reshape the entire discipline.

But belief in some "intelligent agent" cannot be tested. Belief in a creator cannot be tested. Belief in a designer cannot be tested.

That would be like Einstein saying "light moves because some intelligent force causes it to"

Such thinking gets critical scientific discourse absolutely nowhere.

I know you WANT to reconcile your beliefs with the scientific community. But good science doesn't care what the scientist WANTS. It only cares about observable phenomenon.

And belief, as strong as it is, is not observable.

By the way, the very fact that the world is nervous about bird flu is one very clear example of evolution in action. The strain of virus doesn't travel from human to human....yet. But because of natural selection, it is very likely to mutate into one that does.

Posted by PlanetDan 2005-11-11 13:43|| 2005-11-11 13:43|| Front Page Top

#13 And the whole ID flurry misses the point entirely. If the only possible meaning to an event is the physical description of how it happened, then evolution (a description of a process) is adequate to describe human origin and nature. So the ID folks attack evolution, rather than attacking the hidden assumption that purpose==process.
Kids should learn a little elementary philosophy. I've tried to do this with my own kids: explain that just because you know all the steps in a procedure that doesn't mean you don't know what it means.
Pick up a rifle, point it at man, pull trigger. Are you an assassin, a man defending his home against attack, a soldier, or a member of a firing squad? The meaning of the action differs a bit.
I know that philosophers disagree about this point, but we never bother to tell our school kids that there is a question about purpose and meaning--we just let them absorb the unexamined notion that a physical description is all you need.
I wouldn't put this intro in a biology class--it should come a little earlier.

As for this story: I wish Robertson would become a Trappist. (vow of silence)

Posted by James">James 2005-11-11 14:16|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2005-11-11 14:16|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm pretty sure Pat Robertson doesn't speak for God.

I only with he (Robertson) would realize it himself.

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-11-11 18:37|| 2005-11-11 18:37|| Front Page Top

#15 I only wish he (Robertson) would realize it himself.

Sometimes even Preview doesn't help (when your multitasking...).

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-11-11 18:44|| 2005-11-11 18:44|| Front Page Top

#16 he speaks as much for me (as a christian) as Jesse or Al or Louis speak for all blacks.....

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-11-11 18:48|| 2005-11-11 18:48|| Front Page Top

#17 #5 2b wrote: Later Thursday, Robertson issued a statement saying he was simply trying to point out that ~~"our spiritual actions have consequences."~~ people should send him money.

LOL. That is soooo true.

Posted by cingold 2005-11-11 20:24|| 2005-11-11 20:24|| Front Page Top

#18 Preachers have been predicting hellfire and damnation for,oh, two thousand years. And yeah, once a millenium the plagues strikes.

Does not mean they are wrong. Cause and effect with zero correlation. Preachers ain't statisticians.

See, if we had not gone after Saddam, we would not have created all the terrorists. NYT uses same technique all the time.

Posted by john">john 2005-11-11 22:38|| 2005-11-11 22:38|| Front Page Top

00:23 JosephMendiola
23:59 Zenster
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:51 Zenster
23:42 Zenster
23:37 Unetch Flinetch3868
23:30 CrazyFool
23:24 CrazyFool
23:19 Zenster
22:50 Elmenter Snineque1852
22:42 gromgoru
22:38 john
22:37 Penguin
22:17 Bobby
22:06 Zenster
21:52 Zenster
21:44 ed
21:40 Zenster
21:37 ed
21:29 anymouse
21:27 ed
21:19 Pappy
21:18 Glenmore
21:15 ed