Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
Now that video up above is over 48 minutes long so I don't expect anyone to sit through the entire thing without ripping their hair out.
I certainly couldn't.
However here is a brief synopsis by the blog Danthropology followed by some snippets of Carson's remarks:
Most people know that Carson denies evolution is a fact and instead subscribes to young earth creationism, believing the earth is only 6000 years old and humans were created as is. Whether he is stupid enough to actually believe this or is pandering to the ignorance of the GOP voter base has been up for question among some, but a video discovered from 2011 seems to close the door on that idea.
And here are some of the actual remarks that Carson offered during an event called “Celebrating Creation":
[20:56] “… there is abundant evidence, geological evidence, that there was a worldwide flood. Go up into the Andes Mountains and see all those fossils on the top of those mountains. I mean, these things, when you talk to the evolutionists about them, they always say the same thing … ‘well, we don’t understand everything.’ And I just say, ‘I’m not sure you understand anything.’ You know, they look at all those layers, and then they find some fossils in one of the layers, and they says this fossil is this many years old because it’s in this layer. So, that means this fossil is like a million years old. And then later on they say, ‘well, this layer is a million years old because this fossil which is a million years old is in it.’ You know, that’s like saying, you know, ‘the sky can be red or blue’. And you say, well, the sky is blue. And you say why is it blue? ‘Because it is not red.’ Well why is it not red? ‘Because its blue.’ Yeh, you know that’s known as circular reasoning. That’s how they explain the age of all these things, its very circular reasoning, and really it has no real scientific validity.” [22:22]
How interesting that he recognizes the term "circular reasoning" but does not seem to understand that his entire argument is based on the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and therefore any evidence which disputes that claim must be rejected, and only evidence which supports the Biblical accounts will be accepted.
By the way that is a consistent theme throughout his Q and A. [27:24] “You know, according to the theory [of evolution] it [the eye] had to go pukh! and there was an eyeball, overnight, just like that, because it wouldn’t work in any other way. And when you ask the evolutionists about that they say, ‘well, we don’t understand everything.’ And I say, ‘well, I don’t think you understand anything.” [27:48]
That is of course completely false, and evolutionists indeed have a working understanding of how the various eyes in the animal kingdom developed. (As you can see for yourself in this Ted Ed video.)
The fact that a medical doctor does not understand this is more than a little troubling.
[answering a woman’s question, 45:07] “I personally believe that this theory that Darwin came up with was something that was encouraged by the adversary [Satan], and it has become what is scientifically politically correct. Amazingly, there are a significant number of scientists who do not believe it but they are afraid to say anything.” [45:38]
So to be clear the man who is currently polling at number two for the GOP presidential nomination, believes that things which disagree with his religious perspective are the work of an evil entity whose job it is to undermine Christianity by introducing doubt.
The thing that I noticed while watching the video is how utterly convinced Carson is that he is absolutely correct in his thinking.
So sure is he that he feels comfortable ridiculing those who dare to consider that science may have the answers instead of the Bible.
That kind of absolute certainty is frightening to behold, and reminds me in no small way of George W. Bush in the lead up to the Iraq war. In my opinion Carson is a truly dangerous person who should be kept far away from the levers of power.
People of faith seem to feel confident in their belief, regardless of the evidence, while people of science are always searching for that next bit of evidence which will change their minds completely.
Personally I am much more comfortable with the uncertainty of the thinker, over the certainty of the believer.
Okay so on Saturday Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum and the worst thing to happen to children's brains since lead based paint, wrote a post explaining how everybody is wrong to assume that Creationists do not like science.
In fact they LOVE science. Just not the science that scientists understand.
Confused? Me too.
But here let Ham explain it to you:
You see, there are two different kinds of science. Observational science works in the present and is testable, repeatable, and observable. Historical science deals with the past (origins) and is not directly testable, repeatable, or observable. With historical science, the worldview you approach the evidence with is going to determine how you interpret the evidence. Secular scientists start from the perspective that man is the ultimate authority and determines truth, but we start from the view that the Bible is God’s Word and provides the true history of the universe. So we both reach different conclusions when we look at the evidence.
Okay so now do you get it?
The "science" that scientists study is the kind that relies on ridiculous things like facts, reliable testing procedures, and peer review. That kind is much more accessible for really smart people, and makes the brains of less intelligent people hurt like crazy.
However the much easier to understand "historical science" (Which is a term that apparently Ken Ham pulled out of his ass.) simply means that you rely on your faith in the Bible to explain how things work. See? No brain pain.
Ham then goes on to explain that using his "scientific method" puts the whole global warming thing into perspective, and renders it not nearly so frightening:
I want to emphasize that we do not deny climate change. Even Bill Nye continues to spread the false charge against us that we supposedly deny climate change! What we do deny are the worldview-based assumptions behind the interpretations of what causes climate change. Climate change is observational science (we can observe it by recording measurements), but it needs to be interpreted as to why it’s happening—and your starting point determines your interpretation. Starting from the Bible, we know that there was a global Flood a few thousand years ago that completely changed Earth’s surface and climate, and that the earth is still settling down from this catastrophe. So we should expect there to be some variations in climate change, but this is not alarming and is not the direct result of modern human activity.
See that kids?
Sure the earth IS experiencing climate change. However there is no need to worry your ignorant little heads over it because it's really just due to the earth getting its act together after a huge global flood for which there is absolutely NO evidence.
But what am I thinking? What I mean is that there is no "observable science" which proves the existence of Noah's flood. But if you get your information straight from the "historic science" of the Bible, well then everything makes perfect sense.
So don't worry about switching to renewable energy sources, or having to buy an electric car, because God would never allow humans to break the planet he gave us.
And if the oceans do rise, no problem. Because surely God will simply wave his magic wand and give us all gills to help us survive underwater.
I remember reading the Bible for the first time in my late teens, after my only previous exposure having been during Sunday school lessons and a few boring sermons.
At first it was a little like reading Shakespeare in that I had to adjust to the language before it started to flow. But once it did I was almost immediately horrified at the amount of rape, death, and destruction that poured from its blood soaked pages.
The god of the Old Testament was a tyrannical creature who relied on abject terror in order to control his subjects. And the New Testament god was not much better in that he killed without mercy and even sacrificed his own son in the most brutal way imaginable when he could have easily done away with original sin with a wave of his omniscient hand.
I came away wondering how the words in that book could have inspired even a small cult, much less the largest religion in the world.
You know if you read the Bible as it was intended to be read, as a book of allegories which teach religious lessons, that is fine with me, and I would probably never say anything negative about it or challenge its accuracy.
However many Christians take the Bible as being LITERALLY true, and use it to make decisions about how to view the world around them, how to vote, how to think, and who to trust.
In fact when it comes to arguing against science, Noah's flood is their "go to" Biblical resource.
Of course as illustrated above the entire premise of the story is too fantastical to ever seriously entertain, much less use as the basis for rejecting scientific evidence.
It is not only Noah's age that should make reasonable people reject the myth, it is also the ridiculous idea that Noah could have gathered two of EVERY land animal that we see today from all over the world, that the Ark would have been large enough to hold them (About 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. Not even close!), that Noah could have brought along enough food to keep them alive for 40 days and 40 nights, and that wild animals would have responded to a human and remained docile for 40 days and 40 nights. I mean please!
It is a tale for children, and as a child we can all enjoy it right along with the 12 Labors of Hercules, and Aesop's Fables, but as rational thinking adults we should be able to recognize that children's stories can no longer be used to explain the world around us.
For that we look for evidence, and let that evidence guide us toward a greater understanding our universe and our place within it.
