Is Gov. Perry Abandoning McLeroy?

by

Is Gov. Rick Perry abandoning Don McLeroy? The Houston Chronicle’s R.G. Ratcliffe asked the governor today whether he’s worried that the Senate would reject his reappointment of the controversial Bryan dentist as chairman of the Texas State Board of Education. The governor hardly offered a ringing endorsement of the man he first appointed to the post in July 2007:

“I’ll leave that up to the Senate. They have lots of people go through. The Senate will work that out.”

Ratcliffe then asked if the governor has been contacting senators and urging them to confirm McLeroy’s nomination. Gov. Perry’s answer seems to indicate that he’s not:

“I have 1,500 different appointees a year. We appoint them. They go through the process. That’s the way it’s always worked.”

You can see Ratcliffe’s post, along with video of his interview with Gov. Perry, here.

It looks like the chances that McLeroy will win Senate confirmation are beginning to crumble. Well, if so, then what? The question will be whether the governor appoints a new chairman who puts the education of Texas children ahead of personal agendas and divisive politics.

Advertisements

53 Responses to “Is Gov. Perry Abandoning McLeroy?”

  1. Charles Says:

    McLeroy is history. Can you say, “I need a filling?”

    The next sound you will hear is a bunch of Christian fundamentalist crap about being persecuted for standing up for Jesus. However, and I would like to make this perfectly clear, this was really about the particular INTERPRETATION of Genesis 1 that is held by only one small wedge of the universal church. But besides, didn’t McLeroy tell everyone, including the state sentaors yesterday, that his crusade was all about science and not religion? In the aftermath of his firing, it will be interesting to see what he says in the following weeks and whether those words define him as a liar.

  2. PHarvey Says:

    McLeroy a Liar? That’s redundent.

  3. Doc Bill Says:

    How can “Christians” stand up for anything in support for McLeroy? McLeroy has stated over and over and over and over again his cause is not religious based.

    Therefore, Christians have no basis for argument.

    Not that it’s stopped them before!

  4. Steven Schafersman Says:

    I agree that Gov. Perry is letting McLeroy swing in the wind. He is now too much of a liability for a governor who is seeking re-election, even a religious right-wing one whose base is the 39% Christian Fundamentalist segment of Texas citizens. That should say something about how stupidly McLeroy has done his job.

  5. Charles Says:

    Steve. I think McLeroy thought that he could do anything he wanted because he had an “insurance policy with the governor—-sort of like having “protection insurance” through Al Capone. His political calculus was off-target. In college, he should have spent less time preparing for dental school and more time over in the English Department studying the literary take on human foibles and doing a close study of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar.” His failure to do so lets me know that he has no business overseeing the adoption of a social studies curriculum.

  6. Larry Fafarman Says:

    The problem is that there are only 19 Republican state senators and 21 votes are needed to confirm McLeroy, so even if all 19 vote for McLeroy, the votes of at least 2 of the 12 Democrats would be needed.

    The board chairmanship is no big deal. This is petty revenge against McLeroy. He has only one vote on the board — he is not solely responsible for everything that the board has done.

    Cafeteria Christian Charles says,
    –I would like to make this perfectly clear, this was really about the particular INTERPRETATION of Genesis 1 that is held by only one small wedge of the universal church. —

    The only basis for believing the gospel is a belief in the inerrancy of the bible, and if the bible is inerrant, then the bible’s creation story must be true. Also, if god is assumed to be all-powerful, then the bible’s creation story makes sense whereas the gospel does not — the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must battle Satan for control of the world. Christianity cannot make a coherent argument for evolution, the Clergy Letter Project notwithstanding.

  7. shervin Says:

    will this mean that all the amendments that were created will no longer be valid for the science curriculum?

  8. TFN Says:

    No. The amended science standards will still be valid.

  9. shervin Says:

    If he is being criticized for his controversy regarding the amendments, and if the power to set standards will be taken away from the school board….then its only fair to re-do the standards from scratch.
    They can’t let a guy and a handful of religoius people set the standards for the next ten years.

    I can accept it if the power remains with the school board and if McLeroy keeps his post…….if that all changes, so should the voting on t he standards.

    I see a easy law suit case. Maybe we need to inject pressure from the federal level? This has got to be a violation of something for Texas to have different standards than anywhere else.

  10. eoAustin Says:

    All they can do is not confirm him for the Charimanship. He still gets to keep his board seat and still has a vote. Knowing Rick Perry he will then nominate Cynthia Dunbar who is equally estremist if not more to the position and then let her swing in the wind until the next elections in I think 2011. Just a sad sad situation. By the time they sort this whole thing out my kids will be out of school. At the end of the day it will be up to the parents to teach their kids how to think and make rational decisions and use intellectual thought processes in their lives. My young grade school kids can already spot religious nut jobs a mile away and they have already learned how to politely and respectfully disagree with them and walk away. I just hope that they get to live in a country where they are allowed to believe what they want with out judgement or fear of discrimination or reprisal from the hard core believers who are so insecure in their beliefs that they feel they have to convert everyone to their way of thinking so that they can vailidate what they believe. I personally think that the Universe is billions of years old and the earth is billions of years old and there isn’t anyone alive who has a clue as to the true nature and will of “God”. Only humans seem to be so arrongant and presumptious to think they have figured it all out in these last 5-6000 years. Keep religion out of the classroom and out of government. It wastes too much time and clouds peoples ability to be rational.

  11. Robert Says:

    Quoting Mr. Fafarman: “Christianity cannot make a coherent argument for evolution…” What place does any religion have arguing for or against any science? Can Christianity make a coherent argument for physics or chemistry or the internal combustion engine? And, by the way, which version of the creation story in Genesis does Mr. Fafarman think is inerrant? The one that says man was created first (Genesis 2: 7-15) or the one that says animals were created first (Genesis 1: 24-26)? They can’t both be inerrant. Or, how about the definition of pi in 1 Kings 7: 23? It is defined as 3. Not possible in this universe, Mr. Fafarman.

  12. Rocket Mike Says:

    The cracks are beginning to form between the biblical literalist zealots and the rational part of the Republican Party. Even Governor Perry must see that this group is not worth the damage they are doing to the party and more importantly public education for all Texans. Now that it is apparent that the voucher and Creationist crowd is losing its luster, it is time for the Governor to help Texas and nominate a sane choice for the next chair for SBOE. Without the high level of political influence available to Vouchers Lenninger, it would be a good time to once again nominate that good, rational, and conservative Tincy Miller to be the chair for SBOE.

  13. Larry Fafarman Says:

    Robert Says (April 24, 2009 at 2:50 pm) —
    –Quoting Mr. Fafarman: “Christianity cannot make a coherent argument for evolution…” What place does any religion have arguing for or against any science? Can Christianity make a coherent argument for physics or chemistry or the internal combustion engine? —

    So you agree with me, then?

    –And, by the way, which version of the creation story in Genesis does Mr. Fafarman think is inerrant?–

    Well, there are four versions of the gospel — which one is inerrant?

    Anyway, I did not say that Genesis is inerrant — here is what I said —

    The only basis for believing the gospel is a belief in the inerrancy of the bible, and if the bible is inerrant, then the bible’s creation story must be true.

    Rocket Mike Says (April 24, 2009 at 8:15 pm) —
    –it would be a good time to once again nominate that good, rational, and conservative Tincy Miller to be the chair for SBOE.–

    Darwinist “Chintzy” Miller is a hypocritical Cafeteria Christian — at a board meeting, she went into a big spiel about what a big Christian she is.

  14. James F Says:

    Larry,

    So which inerrant story do you believe, if any? Also, what is a “Darwinist?”

  15. Larry Fafarman Says:

    FYI (as Chris Comer would say) —

    Just got this broadcast email from the Discovery Institute:

    Academic Freedom Action Alert: Your Help Needed!

    Darwinists Are Trying to Expel
    Texas Board of Education Chairman

    Chairman Targeted in Retaliation for
    Promoting Critical Thinking on Evolution

    When elected officials take a stand for academic freedom, they become targets for the Darwin lobby. Because of his leadership and support for critical thinking on evolution, Texas State Board of Education Chair Don McLeroy has been targeted by Darwin’s defenders in the Texas Senate who want to remove him from his position. Less than a month ago, the Texas Board adopted landmark science standards that will protect teachers who want to let students evaluate and critique the evidence for Darwinian evolution. Now Darwinists are trying to convince the state Senate to block McLeroy’s reappointment as Board Chair.

    “Supporting those, like Don McLeroy, who take a stand for academic freedom to question evolution at personal cost is one of the most important and effective things citizens can do,” said CSC Associate Director John West. “It sends a message to elected officials that expelling leaders like Dr. McLeroy because of their stance on Darwin’s theory is simply not acceptable.”

    Here’s one thing you can do to help:
    E-mail the chairman of the Senate Nominating Committee, Mike Jackson, at MIKE.JACKSON@SENATE.STATE.TX.US and tell him you support Dr. McLeroy as Chair of the State Board of Education. Be sure to e-mail the other committee members as well at these addresses: KEVIN.ELTIFE@SENATE.STATE.TX.US, GLENN.HEGAR@SENATE.STATE.TX.US, JANE.NELSON@SENATE.STATE.TX.US, ROBERT.NICHOLS@SENATE.STATE.TX.US,, ELIOT.SHAPLEIGH@SENATE.STATE.TX.US, KIRK.WATSON@SENATE.STATE.TX.US .

    We’ve included a sample letter below:

    Dear [Committee Member],

    I support Don McLeroy as Chair of the State Board of Education, and I urge you to confirm the governor’s nomination and bring it before the Senate for a vote.

    Don McLeroy is a proven leader in education for Texas students. It is reprehensible that he has been targeted for removal because he has dared to question evolution and encouraged young minds to remain open to critical examination of Darwin’s theory. It is for this reason that Darwin’s defenders are trying to expel Dr. McLeroy from his role as SBOE Chair, and I hope that you will hear those of us who stand by Dr. McLeroy and support him against this political bullying by Darwinist groups.

    Sincerely,

    [Your Name]

    Please stand with Don McLeroy and support academic freedom in Texas. Forward this email to your friends and family, and let’s show the Darwin-lobby that they cannot expel critical thinking from the science classroom.

  16. nunyer Says:

    does McLeroy eat shellfish? wear poly/cotton blends? spare his children instead of stoning them to death outside the city limits when they get uppity?

    if not, why doesn’t LarryF label McLeroy as a “cafeteria Christian?”

    or is LarryF one of those who believes that Genesis is the only part of the OT which must be accepted as literal truth in order to be a TrueTM Christian?

  17. nunyer Says:

    . . .
    “if not” => “if so”

  18. Tom Says:

    Larry Fafarman begins with an argument that cannot withstand even the briefest scrutiny:
    “The only basis for believing the gospel is a belief in the inerrancy of the bible…”
    Please tell that to pretty much every non-literalist (ie 20th century deep-South American) Christian that has ever lived. This inerrancy nonsense is very new, very post-Reconstruction South, and very much borne of the knowledge of the target audience’s intellectual insophistication.

  19. Rocket Mike Says:

    Once again La Fafa is making his cafeteria selections on reality. He keeps thinking he can start with a conclusion and work backwards discarding everything that doesn’t fit. Maybe that is where we get the term “backwards”.

  20. James F Says:

    …let’s show the Darwin-lobby that they cannot expel critical thinking from the science classroom.

    DI to English translation: let’s make sure that we can wedge our creationist dogma into public school science classrooms.

    If the DI didn’t have so much funding, they’d be nothing more than a bunch of cranks with a web site. As it is, they’re a bunch of cranks with a web site, office space, paid fellow positions, and a lot of resources for misinformation campaigns.

  21. Larry Fafarman Says:

    nunyer Says (April 25, 2009 at 7:08 am) —
    –does McLeroy eat shellfish? wear poly/cotton blends? spare his children instead of stoning them to death outside the city limits when they get uppity?

    if not, why doesn’t LarryF label McLeroy as a “cafeteria Christian?”–

    There are compelling reasons for not interpreting some parts of the bible literally. I assert that there is no compelling reason for not interpreting the bible’s creation story literally.

    Tom Says (April 25, 2009 at 9:29 am) —
    –Larry Fafarman begins with an argument that cannot withstand even the briefest scrutiny:
    “The only basis for believing the gospel is a belief in the inerrancy of the bible…”
    Please tell that to pretty much every non-literalist (ie 20th century deep-South American) Christian that has ever lived. —

    I am talking about a literal interpretation of the gospel. A lot of theistic evolutionists claim that they interpret the gospel literally.

    To accept a literal interpretation of the bible’s creation story, one must only believe in the supernatural. To accept a literal interpretation of the gospel, one must not only believe in the supernatural but must also accept illogic, ambiguity, unintelligibility, and the idea of a weak god who is rivaled by Satan.

    William Jennings Bryan said,
    “If those who teach Darwinism and evolution, as applied to man, insist that they are neither agnostics nor atheists, but are merely interpreting the Bible differently from orthodox Christians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense?

    Holier-than-thou theistic evolutionists consider Christian Darwin-doubters to be heretics and apostates. Theistic evolutionists not only view Darwin-doubters as ignorant and stupid but view them as sinners and blasphemers who mock god by questioning god’s wisdom of using evolution as a method of creating. Theistic evolutionists have been shamelessly enlisting the clergy in efforts to marginalize and ostracize Darwin-doubters (an example — the Clergy Letter Project). Theistic evolutionist Ken Miller’s book “Only a Theory” is subtitled, “Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul.” Theistic evolutionists regard Darwin-doubters as agents of the devil. Some theistic evolutionists are as bigoted and hate-filled as any bible-pounding holy-rolling fundy crackpot. William Dembski calls theistic evolutionism the “most implacable foe” of intelligent design:

    Howard Van Till’s review of my book No Free Lunch exemplifies perfectly why theistic evolution remains intelligent design’s most implacable foe. Not only does theistic evolution sign off on the naturalism that pervades so much of contemporary science, but it justifies that naturalism theologically — as though it were unworthy of God to create by any means other than an evolutionary process that carefully conceals God’s tracks.

  22. Curly Says:

    Ah, Christian apologetics is so refreshingly consistent. Larry, please give me the evidence to that you use to assert the following statement:

    “I assert that there is no compelling reason for not interpreting the bible’s creation story literally. ”

    Translation minus the double negatives = I assert that there is compelling reason for interpreting the bible’s creation story literally.

    Further translation to Larry FaFa = I believe in the literal creation myth of the bible but I have no evidence I wish to state because I am a Christian apologist with no ground to stand on.

  23. John C Says:

    Damn those double negatives.

  24. Charles Says:

    Curly:

    Larry comes from a Catholic family, but it is not at all clear that Larry has any religious leanings—at least none I have been able to detect. He has occasional opinions about religious things, but those opinions do not appear to be derived from any belief or stance that he holds personally. Just opinions in the ether.

  25. jdg Says:

    Larry Farmhand is a creationist. He is an evolution/Aids/Holocaust Denier

  26. Larry Fafarman Says:

    Curly Says:
    –“I assert that there is no compelling reason for not interpreting the bible’s creation story literally. ”

    Translation minus the double negatives = I assert that there is compelling reason for interpreting the bible’s creation story literally. —

    Wrong — a compelling reason for one thing cannot be derived from the absence of a compelling reason for something else.

    My statement could also be worded as follows — “I assert that there is no compelling reason for interpreting the bible’s creation story figuratively (or allegorically).” There — I got rid of the double negative.

    Charles Says:
    –Larry comes from a Catholic family —

    Wrong.

    –He has occasional opinions about religious things, but those opinions do not appear to be derived from any belief or stance that he holds personally.–

    Sometimes, sometimes not. Where did you ever get these crazy ideas?

  27. Curly Says:

    Larry,

    You haven’t responded to our “deal” in the Live Blogging the McLeroy hearing. Any updates?

  28. jdg Says:

    Any chance in the upcoming SBOE chair election we could possibly get rid of Dumbar, Leo, Mercer, McLeroy

  29. TFN Says:

    The governor appoints one of the board members to be chairman. The next board elections are in 2010.

  30. txjak Says:

    Please don’t feed the troll.

    Larry Fafarman is a Creationist troll who should be ignored. He is totally illogical and mean-spirited and whose sole purpose in life is disrupting blogs about evolution. He has an obsessive antipathy for Chris Comer. He is like a Star Trek creature who feeds and thrives on the righteous replies of others who refute him. Logical responses filled with empirical evidence against him are useless since he ignores them. They simply confirm his self-worth and self-importance (because you deem him important enough to answer him).

    If he is ignored he will go where others deem him important enough to answer him.

  31. Charles Says:

    Thanks txjak. We already know that. We are just holding out in hopes that he might give us a look at some of his luggage. We are especially concerned that he has a “grip” that belongs to someone else and that Larry travels from place to place—not with it—but in it.

  32. Rocket Mike Says:

    I really appreciate La Fafa’s endorsement of Tincy Miller for the chair of TSBOE. It tells me that I hit the nail right on the head and suggested the best person in the world for the job.

  33. Larry Fafarman Says:

    Here is an example of what I mean about the gospel —

    Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
    Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
    And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

    John 19:10-12, King James version

    What Jesus said here is illogical and ambiguous if not unintelligible, yet it persuaded Pilate to seek his release. The gospel’s whole idea is illogical.

    I despise cafeteria Christians who blindly accept the whole gospel and then look upon those who question evolution — whether on scientific or religious grounds — as irrational, illogical, and superstitious.

    Rocket Mike Says:
    –I really appreciate La Fafa’s endorsement of Tincy Miller for the chair of TSBOE. It tells me that I hit the nail right on the head and suggested the best person in the world for the job.–

    You lousy troll, it is very unethical to say that I said the opposite of what I actually said.

  34. Buhallin Says:

    “I despise cafeteria Christians who blindly accept the whole gospel and then look upon those who question evolution — whether on scientific or religious grounds — as irrational, illogical, and superstitious.”

    How is that different than your view which, it seems, endorse the creation stories while decrying the gospels as illogical? You seem to defend and even respect those who prefer the creation myth version of God… How are they not caught in exactly the same “cafeteria Christians” you seem to have such a problem with?

    Or do you simply prefer someone to be consistent in their acceptance of illogic?

  35. Larry Fafarman Says:

    Buhallin Says (April 28, 2009 at 5:02 pm) —
    –“I despise cafeteria Christians who blindly accept the whole gospel and then look upon those who question evolution — whether on scientific or religious grounds — as irrational, illogical, and superstitious.”

    How is that different than your view which, it seems, endorse the creation stories while decrying the gospels as illogical? —

    I don’t endorse the creation stories. My questioning of evolution theory is based on scientific — not religious — grounds.

    –Or do you simply prefer someone to be consistent in their acceptance of illogic?–

    But the bible’s creation story is not illogical — to believe it, one only needs to believe in the existence of god and the supernatural. However, to believe the gospel, one must also accept illogic, ambiguity, unintelligibility, and the idea of a weak god who is rivaled by Satan.

    BTW, here is what Jerry Coyne says about being consistent in the acceptance of logic:

    It would appear, then, that one cannot be coherently religious and scientific at the same time. That alleged synthesis requires that with one part of your brain you accept only those things that are tested and supported by agreed-upon evidence, logic, and reason, while with the other part of your brain you accept things that are unsupportable or even falsified. In other words, the price of philosophical harmony is cognitive dissonance. Accepting both science and conventional faith leaves you with a double standard: rational on the origin of blood clotting, irrational on the Resurrection; rational on dinosaurs, irrational on virgin births. Without good cause, Giberson and Miller pick and choose what they believe. At least the young-earth creationists are consistent, for they embrace supernatural causation across the board.
    http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472&p=6

  36. Charles Says:

    Larry despises me. My vindication has come.

  37. Buhallin Says:

    “But the bible’s creation story is not illogical — to believe it, one only needs to believe in the existence of god and the supernatural. However, to believe the gospel, one must also accept illogic, ambiguity, unintelligibility, and the idea of a weak god who is rivaled by Satan.”

    Right… You’ve said that so repeatedly I expect you’ve got a macro set up for it.

    But have you EVER seen a Christian who claimed to believe in the literal creation myths, but NOT the gospels? I certainly never have. So anyone who believes in the “logical” creation story also believes in the “illogical” gospels. Your constantly-repeated quote points out that the two representations of God are contradictory. How is someone who believes in both acting consistently?

    The Coyne quote is also nonsensical. He makes the same mistake you do – attempting to define someone based solely on whether or not they’re creationists while disregarding the rest of their beliefs. You’re both creating a false split to try and win your arguments. It’s not “A or B” it’s “A or A+B”.

  38. Rocket Mike Says:

    I think Ben is right about La Fafa being in the grip of Satan. How else would you explain the fact that he capitalizes Satan but not God?

  39. TFN Says:

    We’re posting this in multiple threads and targeting no one in particular: please refrain from personal attacks/insults. We’re not going to censor honest and even sharp debate. But we do want to avoid the forum becoming a place for crude insults. Thanks.

  40. Larry Fafarman Says:

    Buhallin Says (April 29, 2009 at 3:33 pm) —
    –But have you EVER seen a Christian who claimed to believe in the literal creation myths, but NOT the gospels? I certainly never have. —

    There must be some Jews who accept the creation story literally but do not accept the gospel literally — otherwise they would be Christians, or at least “messianic Jews.”

    –Your constantly-repeated quote points out that the two representations of God are contradictory. How is someone who believes in both acting consistently?–

    They are not necessarily contradictory. The god of the gospel is not all-powerful but is rivaled by Satan — the creation story does not say whether god is all-powerful or not. The god of the creation story is logical, unambiguous, and comprehensible, but that doesn’t mean that god can’t be illogical, ambiguous, and unintelligible, as the god of the gospel is.

    –The Coyne quote is also nonsensical. He makes the same mistake you do — attempting to define someone based solely on whether or not they’re creationists while disregarding the rest of their beliefs. —

    I don’t think that is a fair characterization of what Coyne said or what I said.

  41. Buhallin Says:

    “They are not necessarily contradictory. The god of the gospel is not all-powerful but is rivaled by Satan — the creation story does not say whether god is all-powerful or not. The god of the creation story is logical, unambiguous, and comprehensible, but that doesn’t mean that god can’t be illogical, ambiguous, and unintelligible, as the god of the gospel is.”

    Then if they aren’t contradictory, what is your basis for negative labeling of those who believe the gospels but not creationism? How are these “cafeteria Christians” doing anything wrong when you say that there’s no contradiction?

    But you’re also starting to contradict yourself. In an earlier discussion you said:

    “The only basis for believing the gospel is a belief in the inerrancy of the bible, and if the bible is inerrant, then the bible’s creation story must be true. Also, the bible’s creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god, but the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must battle Satan for control of the world.”

    I’m getting dizzy trying to keep up with this you’re spinning so fast, Larry… Still, your core premise here (from the old thread) is also very, very false. One can believe in the inerrant nature of the Bible without believing every word of it to be literally true. This is what most rational Christians do. You can’t get out of the first few chapters of Genesis without being forced to logically admit that not every word is literally true – the dual creation stories sink that argument very, very quickly.

    And at that, your entire argument falls apart, because it’s built entirely on the assumption that reading everything literally is the only consistent approach (but others aren’t inconsistent).

  42. Larry Fafarman Says:

    Buhallin Says (April 30, 2009 at 2:26 pm ) —
    –Then if they aren’t contradictory, what is your basis for negative labeling of those who believe the gospels but not creationism? How are these “cafeteria Christians” doing anything wrong when you say that there’s no contradiction?–

    I see no contradiction if one believes both the gospel and the creation story. For the following reasons, I see a contradiction where cafeteria Christians accept the gospel but reject the creation story:

    (1) These cafeteria Christians reject the creation story because believing it requires belief in god and the supernatural, yet they don’t reject the gospel story for the same reason.

    (2) These cafeteria Christians reject the logical, unambiguous, and fully comprehensible creation story while accepting the illogical, ambiguous, and often unintelligible gospel story.

    Then these phony cafeteria Christians have the gall to look down upon both scientific and religious Darwin-doubters as supposedly irrational and superstitious.

    –But you’re also starting to contradict yourself. In an earlier discussion you said:

    “The only basis for believing the gospel is a belief in the inerrancy of the bible, and if the bible is inerrant, then the bible’s creation story must be true. Also, the bible’s creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god, but the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must battle Satan for control of the world.” —

    How am I contradicting myself here?

    –One can believe in the inerrant nature of the Bible without believing every word of it to be literally true. —

    That is a self-contradictory sentence — “inerrant” means that every word is literally true.

    –You can’t get out of the first few chapters of Genesis without being forced to logically admit that not every word is literally true – the dual creation stories sink that argument very, very quickly.–

    When I talk about the creation story, I am talking only about Genesis 1 — the creation of the natural world — and Genesis 2 — the creation of humans. These are the two chapters that are in conflict with evolution. By sticking to these two chapters, I don’t have to worry about questions like, “where did Cain’s wife come from?”

  43. Buhallin Says:

    “(1) These cafeteria Christians reject the creation story because believing it requires belief in god and the supernatural, yet they don’t reject the gospel story for the same reason.”

    Says who?

    People don’t reject the creation story because they don’t believe in the supernatural – they reject it because it’s actively contradicted by our observations of the natural world. They accept that a supernatural God created the world, but view the description of that creation as allegory which has some hope of being consistent with what we observe of the world. There’s nothing contradictory about that.

    “When I talk about the creation story, I am talking only about Genesis 1 — the creation of the natural world — and Genesis 2 — the creation of humans.”

    But even these two are contradictory. Genesis 1 places mankind’s creation on the sixth day, while Genesis 2 places it after the day of rest. The two chapters order creation differently as well.

    It’s becoming increasingly obvious that you have no real theological understanding or background, and are simply bashing anyone who doesn’t agree with you on evolution with no understanding of what they believe. Even if you happen to be right (which you’re not) thinking your two-chapter interpretation is more valid than people who have spent their lives studying the Bible and working to find consistent meaning in it is ludicrous.

  44. Larry Fafarman Says:

    Buhallin Says (May 1, 2009 at 10:34 am) —
    –People don’t reject the creation story because they don’t believe in the supernatural – they reject it because it’s actively contradicted by our observations of the natural world.–

    The gospel is also actively contradicted by our observations of the natural world.

    And some people do reject the creation story because they don’t believe in the supernatural. If they believed in the supernatural, they could accept the creation story because macroevolution has never actually been directly observed — only the evidence for macroevolution has been directly observed and this evidence could be wrong or misleading.

    Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
    John 20:29, King James version

    Some creationists believe that the evidence for evolution was planted by god just to test our faith in the creation story.

    –“When I talk about the creation story, I am talking only about Genesis 1 — the creation of the natural world — and Genesis 2 — the creation of humans.”

    But even these two are contradictory. Genesis 1 places mankind’s creation on the sixth day, while Genesis 2 places it after the day of rest. —

    That’s true. Originally, I regarded only Genesis 1 as the creation story. Then I read Genesis 2 and decided to add it, not realizing that it is not consistent with Genesis 1. Now I have to go back to regarding just Genesis 1 as the creation story — going beyond that gets into inconsistencies or ambiguities. But even the combination of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, though inconsistent or ambiguous, does not have the glaring illogic and even unintelligibility of the gospel story. Actually, there are four gospel stories, not just one.

    –It’s becoming increasingly obvious that you have no real theological understanding or background, and are simply bashing anyone who doesn’t agree with you on evolution with no understanding of what they believe.–

    I have not accused you of ignorance — you are just a lousy troll who is trying to provoke me into incivility.

    –Even if you happen to be right (which you’re not) thinking your two-chapter interpretation is more valid than people who have spent their lives studying the Bible and working to find consistent meaning in it is ludicrous.–

    Remember the story of the emperor who had no clothes.

  45. Buhallin Says:

    I have to admit, I’m at a loss here.

    So you’re saying that YECs are somehow more internally consistent because they believe in the entire literal word-for-word Bible, despite the contradictions of the gospels you point out, and despite the completely incompatible dual creation stories which are on the exact same page of the bible??

    And to get around this you declare the creation story to be consistent and logical by conveniently excluding anything other than the what, 20 or so lines you like? When if you read THREE MORE LINES it becomes utterly inconsistent? And yet you accuse others, constantly, of ignoring and censoring data they don’t like??

    How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? You say that you haven’t read the first two chapters of Genesis closely enough to recognize their inconsistency, and then bristle at having your level of understanding challenged. You claim so many inconsistencies in the Bible – how is anyone to trust any evaluation you make to not be cherry-picked and completely biased, given your lack of displayed understanding?

    Your last line makes it obvious why you sympathize with the creationists so much – you both revel in ignorance, and consider it a virtue. Yes, sometimes a child will point out something no one else is willing to. Far more often they’ll argue that the moon is made of cheese and they won’t get any presents if they forget to put the cookies out for Santa. Assuming everyone but you is just waiting for you to point out the nakedness is nothing but delusional arrogance.

  46. Larry Fafarman Says:

    Buhallin Moans:
    –I have to admit, I’m at a loss here.–

    Yes, you are at a loss because you have no common sense.

    –So you’re saying that YECs are somehow more internally consistent because they believe in the entire literal word-for-word Bible–

    Jerry Coyne said the same thing — so why don’t you go argue with Jerry Coyne?

    –despite the contradictions of the gospels you point out, and despite the completely incompatible dual creation stories which are on the exact same page of the bible??–

    Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are not necessarily on the same page of a bible, and they are different chapters.

    Genesis 1 alone has no illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, or unintelligibility. The combination of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is inconsistent, but that is nothing compared to the rampant illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility of the gospel.

    –How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? You say that you haven’t read the first two chapters of Genesis closely enough to recognize their inconsistency, and then bristle at having your level of understanding challenged.–

    Bozo, I checked for the first time today to find the exact names of the parts of the bible that I consider to be the creation story. I read Genesis 2 and saw it has the creation of humans and so I assumed that it is part of what I consider to be the creation story — I naturally didn’t think to check back to see if Genesis 2 is consistent with Genesis 1. I made a mistake and I admitted it, and I am glad that I learned something. Don’t you ever make mistakes, or are you perfect? I would say that you have made quite a few mistakes right here in this comment thread.

    You are just kicking a dead horse.

    You have really provoked me this time. You are a stupid crackpot.

  47. TFN Says:

    Some of the posts are coming close to the line, folks. Please be nice.

  48. Buhallin Says:

    “Bozo, I checked for the first time today to find the exact names of the parts of the bible that I consider to be the creation story. I read Genesis 2 and saw it has the creation of humans and so I assumed that it is part of what I consider to be the creation story — I naturally didn’t think to check back to see if Genesis 2 is consistent with Genesis 1”

    Your entire point I was trying to address was that creationists who read the entire Bible literally are more internally consistent than those who believe the gospels but not the literal creation story. But Genesis is NOT consistent – how can adding a provably inconsistent belief on top of what you claim is an inconsistent belief make them more consistent?

    The core problem here, Larry, is that it goes to credibility. Your understanding of something you quoted over and over proved to be so shallow that it defied description. More to the point, it wasn’t unique – you admitted that you were excluding elements you knew were inconsistent (you specifically noted Cain’s wife). Overall, your level of investigation into the elements of this debate is that superficial that your analysis simply can’t be trusted.

  49. Rocket Mike Says:

    St. Augustine realized in the fifth century that Genesis did not compute. We now know that these myths were set down when ox carts were cutting edge technology, and that the writers did not have any insight beyond what the common people had at the time. The two versions of the myths were borrowed from the Chaldeans, to boot. This is why mainstream, sane and logical Christians and Jews view the lessons of Genesis as allegory.

    Check here to see what St Augustine thought: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2008_02.html

  50. Larry Fafarman Says:

    Buhallin, you jump all over me before I even have a chance to explain or clarify. Your aim is not to have an intelligent discussion but is to put down the other guy so that you can declare victory and then go around bragging that those who disagree with you are crackpots who do not deserve to be heard.

    Buhallin said,
    –Your entire point I was trying to address was that creationists who read the entire Bible literally are more internally consistent than those who believe the gospels but not the literal creation story. —

    Jerry Coyne said,
    At least the young-earth creationists are consistent, for they embrace supernatural causation across the board.
    https://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/is-gov-perry-abandoning-mcleroy/#comment-3245

    Buhallin said,
    –But Genesis is NOT consistent – how can adding a provably inconsistent belief on top of what you claim is an inconsistent belief make them more consistent?–

    Genesis 1 is consistent. I separated out Genesis 1 because it has the creation story that corresponds to evolution. It would be arbitrary to include the rest of Genesis in the comparison to evolution just because the rest of Genesis also has the name “Genesis.” I’m glad to see that you finally forgave me for initially including Genesis 2 in the comparison.

    Evolution has been called “the creation story of atheism.” LOL

    The bible is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility. Genesis 1 is at least straightforward, containing none of these things. Yet Genesis 1 is a part of the bible — maybe the only part of the bible — that the Darwinist cafeteria Christians choose not to believe. Why is that? Science cannot provide absolute proof that Genesis 1 is not true.

    The Darwinist cafeteria Christians are entitled to their opinions. The problem is that they look down upon people whose interpretations of the bible are different from theirs. William Jennings Bryan said,
    If those who teach Darwinism and evolution, as applied to man, insist that they are neither agnostics nor atheists, but are merely interpreting the Bible differently from orthodox Christians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense?

    Unlike Bryan, I am not proposing that evolution not be taught in public schools, but I do think that scientific and pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution should be taught.

    There is now a big debate going on over whether scientific organizations should be promoting the idea that evolution is compatible with religion — the following posts on Panda’s Thumb are examples of this debate —

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/04/weekend-update.html

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/04/let-me-try-agai.html

    Rocket Mike Says:
    –sane and logical Christians and Jews view the lessons of Genesis as allegory–

    Who decides what is “sane and logical” — you?

  51. Ben Says:

    Larry, I strongly suggest you visit this link:

    http://www.stmichael.pair.com/

  52. Rocket Mike Says:

    Suggested further reading: A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/

  53. Larry Fafarman Says:

    Rocket Mike Says:
    –Suggested further reading: A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom —

    Did you check the copyright date? 1896!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: