Robertson claimed "evolutionists worship atheism," evolutionary theory a "cultish religion"
On CBN's The 700 Club, host Pat Robertson claimed that "the evolutionists worship atheism" and that because "evolution becomes their religion" it is "an establishment of religion contrary to the First Amendment." Robertson went on to suggest that evolution advocates were "fanatics," stating further, "it is a religion, it is a cult. It is cultish religion."
On the December 15 edition of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, host and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson claimed that "the evolutionists worship atheism" and that because "evolution becomes their religion," it is "an establishment of religion contrary to the First Amendment." Robertson was reacting to a ruling by a federal judge that it was unconstitutional for Cobb County, Georgia, to require the placement of stickers in biology textbooks, reading:
This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.
That decision is currently under review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The suit that led to the decision was initiated by a group of parents -- in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) -- who argued that the sticker constitutes an endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Robertson went on to suggest that evolution advocates are "fanatics," stating further, "it is a religion, it is a cult. It is cultish religion."
From the December 15 broadcast of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club:
ROBERTSON: You know, what we have got to recognize just there in this case is that the evolutionists worship atheism. I mean, that's their religion. And evolution becomes their religion. It is a matter of religion. So this is an establishment of religion contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. And the fact that somebody comes along and says, "We are not sure that it's accurate, it's a theory and not a fact" -- how can you say it's a fact? You are talking about 10 to 15 billion years ago. Who was there?
TERRY MEEUWSEN (co-host): Scientifically, you would think that the scientific community would rise to the occasion and say, "Absolutely, let's keep an open mind. Let's continue to discover and search."
ROBERTSON: Yeah, well, a lot of scientists are. More and more are. They are saying there are just too many things that can't be explained by evolution. But, I mean, these fanatics, I mean, it is a religion, it is a cult. It is cultish religion, and whenever you start talking about the origins of life, you now get into religious matter, and theirs is just as much religion. The only difference is that even questioning, questioning that -- the ACLU says even if you question our religion, you are guilty of violating the First Amendment. I mean, give me a break.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
WOW, so Pat Robertson now agrees that the Universe began 10-15 billion years ago??
That's a good first step, Pat. You're right; no one was there. But if he can disagree with one bit of Old Testament, why should he stick with any of the rest of it??
Welcome to the world of rational thought, Pat!
Tele-preacher Pat Robertson, like others before him, seems destined to over-act his role in his old age, and to destroy any former credibility, by becoming presently incredible.
Kind of like intelligent Robertson statement
That comment sums it up neatly.
How do you worship atheism?
Every day I am aware/ There is no proof that God is there/ There's still no proof he's there today/ And to this thought I kneel to pray...
I am not sure what you're talking about here. I respect everyone’s choice to believe as they want; but I personally am a Christian and I hope you are thoughtful enough not to deride my beliefs as I respect your right not to believe. I see evidence of God everyday. Nature itself is a miracle.
Peace Out,
Lynn
I see no ridicule in Brabs little ditty. I dont want to launch into a religious treatise here but I never have seen religious belief as having anything to do with proof. Its about faith. Faith being one of the lessons we are supposed to learn in this little game we are playing called life. As the great Scottish philosopher David Hume wrote logic is not the vehicle to take to God. We know (in the terms of logic and this world) only what our five senses tell us, no other vehicle exists to inform us. To find God is to go far beyond that limitation. Logic is like a ladder that can never reach that destination (this is a poor paraphrase of the brilliance of A treatise concerning Human Understanding but it will have to do) when that is aknowledged we must understand that others will not see it the same way. For some proof, existential evidence is necessary. I dont see saying it doesnt exist as an attack on my beliefs. We see things differently. I agree such proof does not exist I dont think it was meant to. Atheists can not get past this, perhaps this also is part of the plan.
"I agree such proof does not exist I dont think it was meant to" - Solon
Agreed! I just wonder how some people can be so certain about this; but then again I am certain that God does exist. Oh well, I really don't think God will hold anything against an Athiest just for being an Athiest. Why should God care if we mere mortals believe he's God, he's God. I do however think we will be judge by our actions while on this earth, and how we treated God’s creations. This includes the treatment of each other, animals, the land, etc; and we can call ourselves anything we want Christian, Muslim, Jew, Athiest. I think it matters little to an awesome God.
Even Pat is allowed to believe that he in no way resembles a monkey!
But it's just my opinion that when we refer to religion, we refer to something that is made by man. Although, when we refer to spirituality or "god" we are referring to something which we cannot fully comprehend...In fact, who would be so bold as to claim that everything which exists in this universe, we can experience in our physical state of being?
I question; How can this be so with the limitations our 5 senses impose? This is why science has only so much value & why we must rely, to some extent, on our own subjective experiences.
None the less, in science class, keep "god" out. Citizens of this country need not force our religious views of the world on others. As the Buddha, Jesus & many other great teachers have preached, we must show tolerance and compassion in the face negativity & angst. There are two ends to every stick, when you pick up one end, you must realize that you pick up the other...In other words we must consider the consequences of our actions and how they impact others. Love.
It's just a play on "the other day upon the stair". I was also making fun of the concept of "worshipping" atheism, that's all. I'm not sure why you thought I was deriding anyone's beliefs.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but sometimes MMFA's very zelous Athiest friends here slip into making fun of those that believe in God. My Bad.
"But, I mean, these fanatics, I mean, it is a religion, it is a cult." ---
Evolutionism is a CULT? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't cults have crazy authoritarian leaders? Who are these "fanatics" and who is the Jim Jones of Evolutionism? Where is his heavily-armed tinder box of a compound located?
"Scientifically, you would think that the scientific community would rise to the occasion and say, 'Absolutely, let's keep an open mind. Let's continue to discover and search.'" ---
Uh, isn't that what science is about? research and discovery? Isn't that what the scientific community has been doing? Uncovering evidence that the earth may be more than 4,000 years old? Looking for logical answers to the existence of dinosaur bones and skulls with jaw lines long enough to actually fit all 32 of their teeth?
"They are saying there are just too many things that can't be explained by evolution." ---
And the Bible explains it all?
Just exactly how old is the Old Testament?
How can anyone believe what it says? To quote the Rev. Robertson, "Who was there?"
Pat is determined to make everyone religious even if he has to make one up.
Not believing in theistic explanations of how the universe came into being is really theism? Well, gimme a shot of whatever Pat's having. I like a good rigorous, delusional intoxication once in a while.
I am an atheist and I believe that evolution is scientifice fact.
The closest I come to "worship" are the occasions when I pause to let the wonder of the natural world wash over me in a flood of awe.
well said. me too.
If evolution is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I have 2 friends who are a couple - one does not believe in evolution. The other one told her he believes creation is ongoing on all the time - that the notion that there WAS a creation and then it stopped is the product of a human mind that cannot grasp the concept of infinity, and that "creationism" and "evolution" are simply different perspectives on the same phenomenon and that there is no difference between the two in the context of infinite time.
Whoa!
Oxford English, Funk & Wagnalls,any other dictionary-all Good Books.
I can't believe the God Squad is still hauling out the "Atheism is a religion" argument.Once they've established this lie as a base, they can make the stretch that anytime you DON'T mention God, you're promoting the religion of Atheism, & violating the establishment clause.(as in removing "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance.)
There's just one little flaw with this tactic.I used to work with some "Born Again Xtians"who tried this one .That's when I'd find a dictionary(great source for objective, factual tie-breakers), and every one I've consulted defines "religion" as a belief in God or a supernatural origin of the universe.The precise OPPOSITE of Atheism.
The aforementioned Christians were usually too stoned to get it, but feel free to use this.Although it's possible that dictionaries are part of the left wing media, or were written by Satan to deceive us.Either way, I think they're pretty good books.
Of course it isn't a religion, Pat may be conflating the organized ethical societies that many Atheist and Agnostics belong to as somehow being comparable to "places of worship". These Societies hold regular meetings, lectures etc. There is one not too far from where I live. They have their own building and a name. The society meets on Sunday, but I am sure that's because it is probably the most convenient day for the membership to meet. These societies do not promote Atheism they promote ethical behavior and all are welcomed not just Atheist and Agnostics. This may be what cycled through the dysfunctional matter in Pat's head and the twisted logic that emanates from that dysfunctional matter concluded that the atheist are holding services and therefore they are a religion.
In my evolutionary atheistic religion, you won't hear hate-mongering preachers telling the people in Kansas that they asked for the No-God's wrath because they voted to teach creationism in the public school science class.
My religion will simply defend the Constitution and ask Christian fundamentalists to please keep to teaching their religious beliefs in their own tax-exempt Sunday Schools.
OK, it seems the time is right for Pat to be led off to the home. After the year he's had and all the insane statements he's made, it's time to close up shop.
My favorite Christian teacher is the apologist Dr. James White, and even he, though very conservative, says he often wishes Pat Robertson would "just shut up." The man is an embarrassment. I look to Jesus, not to Robertson.
I have to wonder why Robertson is hung up about science at all. Let's not forget that he is a practitioner of faith healing, which is about as unscientific (and unbiblical!) a practice as anyone could imagine.
robertson's hung up about science because science strips him of his power.
it appears from polls and studies that the more science a person knows, the less likely they are to be theists.
the 1996 survey of the national academy of sciences members revealed that a staggering 93% of them do not believe in gods.
"This book contains material on Creationism. Creationism is not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
If Pat promises not to bring religion and its accompanying racism, sexism and bigotry into my school, then I promise not to bring science with its accompanying consensus, judiciousness and consistent discourse into his place of worship.
Actually Catholic Bibles aren't too far off from that. In order to be a Catholic Bible, there has to be an introduction to each book explaining the author, the circumstances, and the context in which the book should be read. As well as footnotes.
Doctrinally Catholics does not beleive in fundamentalism (not to say there aren't those out there that don't understand their own religion) and are open to the idea of science and evolution.
The bible should be read and interpreted in context and as a whole. Taking the bible, a book that has historical books, poetry, parables, and much more, literally word for word would be like reading an entire newspaper and deeming the classifieds and comics in the same light as the front page.
I just don't understand why there are Christians out there that insist you have to be an atheist to beleive in science. Are we really that ignorant of a country?
Unfortunately yes...
--so we "worship" not worshiping anything?
Let his God take him home. Now.
You think he wants him there? Pat might be the first human to live to be two hundred years old, remember the good die young.
The argument sponsored by Pat Robertson and the one sponsored by science are irreconcilable. The one sponsored by science maintains that we are the greater, having come from the lesser (slime to human). The one sponsored by religion maintains that we are the lesser, having come from the great but because of a catastrophe we lost our status (fall of Adam), but that we can regain that position through redemption. The arguments will never be compatible. One is based on doubt (science), which is necessary for science to work. The other is based on faith (religion) which is necessary for religion to be viable. I believe that Robertson needs to review Ecclesiastes and realize that his continual arguments against evolution are merely a "chasing after the wind." Likewise, I believe that those arguing against religion in favor of evolution are chasing after the same wind. Both arguments are based on a "belief," one in the efficacy of religion, the other on the efficacy of science. Like those in the Orient, we ought to just recognize that "belief systems" are inarguable and turn instead to respecting each other's beliefs as just that -- beliefs.
Science is not inarguable. It is a method of finding out about the world. Scientific findings are not to be taken on faith, as is expected in religion. Scientists are expected to provide evidence and a convincing argument to defend their conclusions, and their methods are supposed to be clearly described and replicable, so that others can try the same methods to see if they get the same results. Some findings of science have been clearly demonstrated, such as the mechanics of evolution. Some are based on indirect evidence, such as the theories about how evolution has shaped modern species. We need better science education so that more people will understand just how little science and religion have in common.
the above comment is a misnomer. science does not require "belief". that is an oft-used concept which is completely without merit, and makes obvious the misunderstanding of what science is and/or does. this whole debate over "scientific materialism" is bogus... it, in fact, looks very much like the ID movement itself... trying to use scientific jargon to make intellectual in-roads and manipulate the masses... sophistry at its best/worst. i'll tell ya' the difference in world-view -- it's called fantasy v. reality. i'm sorry, but a TALKING SNAKE was responsible for the fall of humankind? well, as a critical thinker with an open mind, i don't absolutely dismiss anything without giving it a shot....but there hasn't been another talking snake in over, what, 6000 years? and religious folk hate Harry Potter?!?!
I agree with most of what you write, especially your last sentence, which is what the comparison I offered attempted to assert. It is an analogy which blends both Huston Smith’s and Robert Persig’s arguments about varying Weltanschauungen, worldviews. I “believe” in science, in empirical evidence, and in the theory of evolution, and I also believe in both direct and indirect evidence offering a much more “real” explanation of life than the Genesis story. I also know, however, that within the scientific community, scientists “argue” with each other about varying perspectives of reality, which is the basis for my assertion that science relies on “doubt,” i.e. the fundamental principle that all scientific “theories” and all “parts” of theories are of necessity subject to intense scrutiny. Were it not so, we would still have but four elements and the sun would still be rotating around the earth. The use of science as a “tool” makes the questioning of theories both possible and viable, because the scientific method allows us to test and re-test theories with consistency. The religious model of something like Intelligent Design does not allow the use of “science” to question the major premise of its theory, namely that perhaps there IS no God. Not questioning the existence of God, and certainly not being able to TEST that assumption, throws ID squarely into the realm of religion, for one must “believe” the assumption that God exists in order to make sense of the ID theory. However, if a person’s Weltanschauung is based on faith, that person’s understanding of “reality” is no less “true” on a personal level than the perspective of the world by a person who relies on empirical evidence rather than a belief in God to form his/her personal reality. It is when the religious view of an individual (or group of individuals) is foisted upon the society as a “truth” that everything gets screwed up. That doesn’t happen when science gives the world a theory, because the scientific community is comfortable enough in the empirical evidence to say, “You don’t have to ‘believe’ us, but the facts at our disposal will reveal the truth – over an over again. "The religious perspective DEMANDS of its followers an absolute, unquestioning belief in whatever religious system is currently dominant in a particular culture at a given time. I use the word “belief” for both systems, because I as a lay person who believes in the scientific perspective, can never say with absolute certainty that I “know” something to be true simply because of the empirical evidence that I am capable of comprehending is there before me . Not being a scientist, I must rely on professionals’ findings to “know” the “truth, ” because I do not know all of the subtle scientific “truths” that lie hidden beneath my limited depth of scientific understanding. But I DO believe in a scientific perspective about life and the origin of the world. That is why I called the two systems, religion and science “belief systems.” Were I a scientist I may hold another perspective about “knowing.” Were I a priest, I may have a different perspective about the religious explanations of life. Unfortunately, I am neither, and my wit has allowed me only the choice between the two systems, and I have elected to believe the scientific model because it makes the most sense. However, I do not believe in “scientism,” as does the other person commenting on my original argument. Those believing in “scientism,” the notion that ONLY science can explain the mysteries of the world, are as much ideologues as the Dobsons and Bakkers and Limbaughs who say that the only answer to the mystery can be found through (a Christian) God. To put ID in a science curriculum would be a disaster and set us back 300 years. You are right. We need much better science in our schools.
This is typical over the top Pat Robertson. A good comment was the Old testament is from a couple of thousand years ago, if noone was ther how can it be true? This guy is way gone.
it would seem like capitalism is more of a religion than atheism. It's also one Jesus warned you about.
i'll bet pat and the other theocrats are bursting arteries today because of the dover court decision.
"A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled today that a public school district in the south-central part of the state cannot require the inclusion of "intelligent design" in biology classes as an alternative to evolution. [...] In his ruling today, [U.S. District Judge] Jones said several members of the Dover Area School Board repeatedly lied during the trial to cover their motives for promoting intelligent design even as they professed religious beliefs, the Associated Press reported."
I expect him to be raving about this on his next show, he'll probably pray for the judge to be smited.
I have learned the actions and teachings of Jesus.
I have observed the Rev. Billy Graham.
Jesus and Graham shared a characteristic: they avoided hatred and divisiveness, and emphasized love and togetherness.
I have observed Pat Robertson. He embraces hatred and divisiveness, and throws in judgmentalism and ignorance.
Pat, you are no part of Christ. Who DO you serve (besides yourself)?
I often wondered what Billy Graham thinks about Pat and Jerry. Billy's own son can be a little over the top as well.
I wonder what he thinks about the "Grantsburg" letter on evolution, education, and religion, the intent of which is to make a public statement that it is not contradictory to be a person of devout Christian faith and to support and teach evolution as the central tenet of biology.
More on this at [link to www.uwosh.edu]
"I am Pat Robertson and I should know."
And I am sure the sheep agree. Will this crazy man ever be committed?
well, i'm happy to know the courts in the south are beginning to protect students from the misinformation of creationists: can you imagine a student showing up at MIT espousing those views? it is fine to believe there is an order to the universe, or even to believe that some whacky guy with a big beard made that universe; but unfortunately, that doesn't really apply to the biotech industry, to evolutionary biology, to quantum physics; nor does it give students any tools to work with in a very high-tech world.
when american students are already doing poorly in sciences, this issue could've become a fatal blow.
and, yeah, pat robertson... whoa, that comment about killing mr. chavez really blew me away; i don't think anything he's said since can even touch that one.
When I was a kid and the Civil Rights movement was in full swing, I dreaded the nightly newscasts: invariably, the dumbest, most vicious, illiterate southerner was put on air to speak for The South. I am a southerner and still get embarrassed when I remember how otherwise decent white people let those morons color an entire region. Now, I'm embarrassed that vicious, rich "Christians" may be influencing how people look at all followers of Jesus--who, if He were in a grace, would be rolling in it to hear how His name is taken in vain by Robertson, et al.