Barton: Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin?!?

Is this Barton a right-winger or a wing-nut? Is the man well educated enough to read and interpret dates?

I heard that the founding fathers were against the Wright Brothers to. Said man wasn't meant to fly and stuff like that. Better close all the airports.

well, if Earth's history is only 6000 yrs (not 14 billion) what's the differnce if something happend in 1775 or 1849 it's all practically yesterday anyway\\
-end snark

Even if they were, somehow, aware of and convinced evolution is false, that doesn't mean it is. They weren't infallible, and if they were clearly wrong about something, we wouldn't have to follow it -- like slavery, for instance. Why would he pursue this reasoning, even if it wasn't absolutely ludicrous and anachronistic? Barton should only go to doctors that practice medicine as it was practiced in Thomas Paine's time.

I haven't seen the context of the 'historian' s statement, it's wrong on so many levels - is he saying that the founding fathers rejected the enlightenment? or humanism? or science? - if so he is so full of it he exhales flies

Don Luigi said: Is this Barton a right-winger or a wing-nut?

Science demands that we move on to better explanations as they arise.

I'm not at all certain about what Paine wrote about creationism, but clearly the actual principle in Barton's version of Paine is that we should follow the science.

That is true. And science demands that we not teach old rot as science.

Glen Davidson

Don Luigi said: Is this Barton a right-winger or a wing-nut?

Is the man well educated enough to read and interpret dates?

Don Luigi said: Is this Barton a right-winger or a wing-nut? Is the man well educated enough to read and interpret dates?

DB referred to "creation science", which is a mid-20th century interpretation of the Bible as if it supported something scientific in the denial of evolution, and as such, it is an anachronism in the 18th century. (I'm actually surprised that anybody still refers to "creation science", as I thought that that had gone out of favor. Anti-evolutionists in the 21st century seem to prefer other expressions.)

Thomas Paine was an 18th century deist, and as such denied revelation as a source of knowledge, so it would seem unlikely that he would have any interest in teaching the Bible.

However, I would not be surprised that an 18th century deist would accept the "clock-maker" image of god. I know that Voltaire used the analogy.

But without a citation, it would take some effort to determine what DB was referring to.

" . . . if so he is so full of it he exhales flies"

I'm so stealing that line. :)

I hate to cite this, but Barton does go into detail on his ideas:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=7846

"And where did the Founding Fathers stand on old versus young Earth, Mr. Barton?" The idea of a old Earth isn't anything all that new, either.

Barton is closely associated with one of the leading Republican candidates for president, who is, within the Republican Party, considered by some to be too "moderate".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mwGYr0OWzw

I don't care how conservative you are. The United States Republican Party is now grounded in outright denial of physical and historical reality, and that's a fact.

They are also limit testers. It's impossible to tell how far they will go. And they are to a large degree negatively motivated. That is, although some of their policy is based on naked self-interest, a lot of it is based on demonizing everyone else and reflexively attacking anything that is remotely associated with those they hate and resent. It is axiomatic that policy decisions that are not grounded in actual thought or concern, but are merely oppositional defiant disorder type contradictions of everything that "outsiders" seem to support, will tend to be very bad.
(Even signs of hope can be deceptive. For example, some current Republicans express anti-war views. Unfortunately, this is probably only because they "oppose everything Obama supports", not a consistent position.)

It borders on being a national emergency that one of our major parties has taken on these characteristics. The track record of extremist reality denying political parties is not a good one. This is especially true when such a party has a very slick propaganda operation and is good at riling up mobs. And this is very especially true when a population is feeling "humiliated" by bad military outcomes and a bad economy, and willing to listen to demagogues.

"Only" 30% or so of Americans are hard core say-anything-and-do-anything-to-support-the-Republicans-no-matter-what cult members (there is a near perfect overlap between these and hard core creationism supporters). However, many Americans just aren't sophisticated enough to see what is going on, which may not be surprising given that most print and television media outlets, with some exceptions, push the message that any Republican policy is "respectable" and "serious".

As I recall from Rudwick's magisterial tomes on the early history of the earth sciences, the first movement analogous to Creationism was the so-called biblical geology of the first part of the 19th Century, which fought the historical geology of Smith, Hutton, Murchison, Sedgwick, and Lyell over the age of the Earth. There were certainly people who opposed some of the earlier versions of evolutionary thinking, but the nature of the debate over geology was different because by 1820 there was scientific consensus about the antiquity of the Earth and trying to take the timeline of Genesis literally was already a crank stance like contemporary creationism. There was nothing like agreement about what to think about the origins of animals and plants so there really wasn't much to protest on that front. (Incidentally, the biblical geologists were also at war with the historians since the old Bible-based chronology of early kingdoms in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China had been rejected by serious scholars during the Enlightenment.)

None of this matters in the current debate, of course, since for the folks who follow Barton, the era of the American Revolution might as well be the dreamtime of the Australian aborigines, a zone in which wishes are facts.

mrg -

The "Founding Fathers" frequently made use of vague terms like "the Author" or "the Creator". They treated a vague, non-denominational Deism as the universal default position. This position was meant to be inclusive. The early United States may not have been very nice to women, slaves, and pre-existing native populations, but it was very much founded on principles of freedom of religion and conscience.

The Constitution of the United States never permitted or advocated taxpayer funding of specifically sectarian science denial.

Modern ID/creationism actively denies scientific reality. It denies scientific reality on a purely religious/magical rationale (I am not saying that the motivation is sincerely religious, but that the advanced rationale advanced is always that one interpretation of the Bible is "literally true" or that magic is required for things that can be explained scientifically).

It denies scientific reality that is accepted by many religious people. It is purely sectarian.

Barton is arguing that a nation founded on freedom of religion should not have freedom of religion.

Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda's book. His American history seems limited to combining through every document he can find searching for some reference he can interpreted as being Christian (even when it isn't) and American (even when it isn't). He doesn't seem to have made up his mind whether Jefferson was anti-Christian and therefore evil, or devoutely Christian because they all were!

Oh, and as far as the underlying history goes, this isn't really emphasized or organized into any coherent narrative. The point of his "history" books is to create a misleading impression of the founders' beliefs for theological purposes, and any actual history is irrelevant.

As Dawkins wrote, "there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence."

Jim Harrison said: As I recall from Rudwick's magisterial tomes on the early history of the earth sciences, the first movement analogous to Creationism was the so-called biblical geology of the first part of the 19th Century, which fought the historical geology of Smith, Hutton, Murchison, Sedgwick, and Lyell over the age of the Earth.

Thanks, mrg.

So, it seems that DB thinks that 18th century deism represents "creation science". At least when it suits his purposes.

My guess is that DB would not be satisfied with 18th century deism representing the alternative to evolutionary biology in public school classes.

harold said: The Constitution of the United States never permitted or advocated taxpayer funding of specifically sectarian science denial.

Jefferson for one made fun of the myth of Noah's Deluge in his "Notes on the State of Virginia" in Query 6.
http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefVirg.html
So he certainly did not accept Biblical creation though like his contemporaries was creationist because, well, he was living in the 18th Century so it should not be surprising that he had 18th Century views.

Flint said: Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda's book. ...

Flint said: Oh, and as far as the underlying history goes, this isn't really emphasized or organized into any coherent narrative. The point of his "history" books is to create a misleading impression of the founders' beliefs for theological purposes, and any actual history is irrelevant.

mrg said:

harold said: The Constitution of the United States never permitted or advocated taxpayer funding of specifically sectarian science denial.

You're preaching to the choir, sport.

Facepalm just doesn't convey the level of sheer disbelief and utter astonishment I have at seeing this. How can anyone listen to this Barton guy and buy into anything he's saying or offering. It utterly amazes me that there are actually people out there that will listen to this kind of tripe and nod in agreement.

Robin said: How can anyone listen to this Barton guy and buy into anything he's saying or offering?

Barton is wrong about this. The Founding Fathers were for the most part fake Christians who used Christian rhetoric to manipulate true Christians for their own ends--that is, hanging on to their property! The Gospel had stopped informing American politics when property requirements started replacing religious requirements for suffrage.

"Paine"??? He meant to say "Palin".

Wait, didn't George Washington have an authographed first edition of Darwin's book? That's something Barton should follow up on.

Now remember, Mike Huckabee said people should be forced to listen to Barton, at GUNPOINT if necessary, to hear the "truth" he spews forth. That the right-wing republican candidates listen to this jibberish is in keeping with their anti-science agenda, though they don't know any science to begin with. Woe is the U.S. if these people continue to infiltrate public office.

It is always fascinating to watch Christians lie, and lie badly, for their god, especially when their holy book says not to do this. It underlines just how little actual belief they have and how much religion is just a selfish and childish desire to need a divine boogeyman to agree with them.

Speaking of gibberish, the dishonesty institute is saying the Texas science curriculum is filled with bloopers:

http://www.discovery.org/a/16981

Perhaps they would like to update the curriculum with mouse traps?

mrg said:

Robin said: How can anyone listen to this Barton guy and buy into anything he's saying or offering?

Easy. He's telling them what they want to hear.

Robin said: While I know you are right, it just flabbergasts me that there are those folks who want to hear and believe things that so concretely contradict reality.

... Thomas Paine The Age of Reason-Part One (1794)

outrage ???

whimsical ???

strange ???

ambiguous ???

mythological ???

irreconcilable ???

Speaking of gibberish, the dishonesty institute is saying the Texas science curriculum is filled with bloopers: http://www.discovery.org/a/16981 Perhaps they would like to update the curriculum with mouse traps?

The rise of Idiot America is essentially a war on expertise. It’s not so much antimodernism or the distrust of intellectual elites that Richard Hofstadter deftly teased out of the national DNA forty years ago. Both of those things are part of it. However, the rise of Idiot America today represents — for profit mainly, but also, and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power — the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they’re talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a preacher, or a scientist, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert. ~ Charles Pierce, "Greetings From Idiot America"

Speaking of gibberish, the dishonesty institute is saying the Texas science curriculum is filled with bloopers:

When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

Of courses, some of the founding fathers may have known Darwin's work ... Erasmus Darwin, that is. Although speculations about evolution and even rudimentary descriptions of natural selection go back to the ancient Greeks, Lamarck (1809) was really the first evolutionary biologist (Buffon having a partial claim earlier). It is not until Lamarck's time that evolution would have reached enough people to even cause a controversy.

Of course, Barton says all this without specific quotations, so we can't see who was supposedly advocating the teaching of what, and what arguments they made.

Oops, "Of course ..." I have been grading homeworks and made a Freudian slip ...

"Courses! Foiled again!"

Speaking of Founders, Jefferson rejected the Flood as an explanation for fossil sea shells found on mountaintops. See A Sampling of Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia". Alas, he also rejected catastrophic mountain uplifting, but this was before James Hutton began to publish his work on geology.

I heard a story that Jefferson told Lewis and Clark to be on the lookout for mammoths. Which, given that they only died out recently, was not all that unreasonable.

Reminiscent of Harry Turtledove's alternate history stories about the New World being settled by pre-hominians and Homo sapiens not making it here until Colombus. Samuel Pepys gets a mated pair as servants and, in a moment of inspiration, comes up with Darwinian evolutionary theory much earlier on.
A lot of the Pleistocene megafauna also survived.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature **and of Nature's God** entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are **created equal**, that they are endowed by their **Creator** with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.... ....We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to **the Supreme Judge of the world** for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, **with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence**, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, July 4, 1776.

FL said:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature **and of Nature's God** entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are **created equal**, that they are endowed by their **Creator** with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.... ....We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to **the Supreme Judge of the world** for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, **with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence**, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, July 4, 1776.

Seems clear enough. Any questions? FL

FL said:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature **and of Nature's God** entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are **created equal**, that they are endowed by their **Creator** with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.... ....We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to **the Supreme Judge of the world** for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, **with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence**, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, July 4, 1776.

Seems clear enough. Any questions? FL

Just one:

Why do you fundies always seem to think that any mention of God/Creator/Creation etc. automatically implies christianity and biblical literalism?

...by Authority of the good People of these Colonies...

David Barton's "work" was the basis for the rewrite of the social studies curriculum here in Texas. The right wing here wants students to be stupid in two subjects science and history. Now they are gutting the financing of the system so people will be more willing to support vouchers for private and religious schools. I wonder what they will say when those vouchers go to pay for Muslim schooling?

Robin said:

mrg said:

Robin said: How can anyone listen to this Barton guy and buy into anything he's saying or offering?

Easy. He's telling them what they want to hear.

While I know you are right, it just flabbergasts me that there are those folks who want to hear and believe things that so concretely contradict reality. I can understand buying into claims that are beyond anyone's ability to genuinely observe, but this? It's no different to me than nodding and cheering someone insisting that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are actually made of butterscotch. It's so obviously disputable that I just can't fathom it being uttered with any seriousness.

Paine systematically goes through the old and new testament pointing out discrepancies in the Age of Reason. What struck me is that he states himself that these are just a few discrepancies as he was going from memory.

If my memory is correct, he did a response to clergy after the initial writing where he opens the good book and further points out the failures of the editorial staff, erh, the writer of the bible.

Paine clearly stated that science is the study of gods creation and how it works and it shouldn't be corrupted by the Church.

JB said: Paine clearly stated that science is the study of gods creation and how it works and it shouldn't be corrupted by the Church.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

FL has taken text from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States, which is the law of the land. There is a big difference.

If we wished to declare our independence and were requiring some figurehead authority to support our cause, we could not ask the King of England, which clearly he already rejected. And since royalty is based on their direct bloodline descent from God and heaven, we had to do the God route to justify our splitting with England, thus appealing to the same power the King did. Take that old King of England! But as bold as these words were, they were just words meant to appeal to some perceived uber-authority. We could have appealed to the Tsar of Russia or the King of Sweden, but they were on par with the King of England - hence no good and we went the traditional route.

What FL, and many fundies think, is that the D of I translates to the U.S. Constitution, which it does not. The signers were well aware of the strife that religion caused throughout history and sought, successfully, to create the grand experiment, the separation of church and state, the power of the state would not rely on a pope or other likewise "self-proclaimed religious cult leader."

Unfortunately we see that experiment being eroded day after day with the fundies demand for creationism, prayers in school, etc. Funny how they don't thank their God for tornadoes, hurricanes, epidemics, e-coli, etc., as well as for special treatment above non-Christians, or non-fundies for that matter.

FL said:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth...

Seems clear enough. Any questions? FL

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

FL said: Seems clear enough. Any questions?

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...

Article VI, paragraph 3 No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Indeed evolution or any thing contradicting Genesis was unknown in the 1700'.
The founding fathers themselves or the people had NO agenda or ideas about the subject of origins for schools. It truly was not on their minds from any stance.
There was no expectation that anything would be taught in schools that contradicted God or Genesis. This was a very Puritan yankee and Anglican Southern Protestant peoples.
They never imagined or intended any state or law actions to censor conclusions on origins or what we call today creationism(s).
There is nothing in the constitution that was intended to prohibit ideas and speech about origins.
The present censorship was only discovered at the end of ww11.

One must remember also what James madison said. The bigger thinker behind the ideas in the government.
he insisted that it was not the few esteemed men whose opinions on intents were but the people through their delegates that gave power and force to the constitution etc.
The people's intent were what matterd and not just a few guys.
This error is constantly repeated yet its illogical surely that a few men ideas were the essence of the nation.

For me the key phrase has always been "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". These are the words of a person who believes that we get our information about the world from the world, not from any kind of religious revelation. They assume that our understanding of God must be deduced empirically from our experience of creation. They're the words of an Enlightenment Deist, not of an orthodox Christian.

Created equal

This is interesting because it demonstrates the distinction between creation and design, and the problem that evolution-deniers have with the fallacies of composition and division.

No one says that all humans are "designed equal", that they have the same "eye", "immune system", "blood clotting system". No one believes that all humans have the same physical structure. Not everyone can be a jockey or a basketball player.

One can believe that individual humans are created, while accepting that their bodies are a result of a purely natural process of reproduction and development.

One can believe that individual humans are created, while accepting that Homo sapiens is a result of a purely natural process of evolution.

I'm confident that the "founding fathers" did not believe that all humans were "designed equal".

Of course, the evolution-deniers have found it a good strategy not to explain what they mean by "design" or by "creation", so they can say anything that they feel like.

Robert Byers said: ... One must remember also what James madison said. The bigger thinker behind the ideas in the government. he insisted that it was not the few esteemed men whose opinions on intents were but the people through their delegates that gave power and force to the constitution etc. The people's intent were what matterd and not just a few guys. This error is constantly repeated yet its illogical surely that a few men ideas were the essence of the nation.

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.

And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.

mrg said:

Robin said: While I know you are right, it just flabbergasts me that there are those folks who want to hear and believe things that so concretely contradict reality.

Yeah, I know you did. I've been wondering for a while just why the crank fringe attracts my attention so -- I'm pretty familiar with other cranks like conspiracy theorists, HIV deniers, and so on. I finally decided it's a kind of porn. Cranks get stimulation out of their assertive wanking; we get stimulation out of hating them. It can become an addiction. There's clearly a sleaze factor involved. Maybe one of these days I'll outgrow crank porn, but it clearly isn't going to be any time soon.

Two questions:

1. Why bother debating someone like Barton, who is openly a liar and a Xian extremist who would literally, if his faction gained power, see large numbers of people put to death to solidy that power, as well as to glory in abusing it? Isn't he simply to be opposed whenever his filth arises?

2. Both terminal PT shits have now appeared. Why is their endlessly repeated stupidity and toothless viciousness tolerated?

Since that turd in human form FL is here, I will leave - for some good amount of time again - now.

Here is part of a Thomas Paine speech that Barton quotemines on his website, and to which he is referring in the video. He uses it to suggest that Paine was a "creationist" who rejects evolution. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=81

Here is the whole speech, from which the true context can be seen. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=81

As someone correctly suggested above, Paine rejects the Bible or any humanly-printed text as being a source of wisdom about the creator of the universe, and accuses text-based religions of purveying all sorts of social wickedness. Rather, he says if you truly want to find God, then do good science and learn all you can about the wondrous and complex mysteries of nature.

Correctioin. The second link should be: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/existence_of_god.html

tupelo said: Two questions: 1. Why bother debating someone like Barton, who is openly a liar and a Xian extremist who would literally, if his faction gained power, see large numbers of people put to death to solidy that power, as well as to glory in abusing it? Isn't he simply to be opposed whenever his filth arises? 2. Both terminal PT shits have now appeared. Why is their endlessly repeated stupidity and toothless viciousness tolerated? Since that turd in human form FL is here, I will leave - for some good amount of time again - now.

As has been mentioned, the rethuglican christofascist David Barton is one of Chris Rodda's original Liars For Jesus(TM). Barton is a pseudohistorian, just as intelligent design creationism is a pseudoscience. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author) for the "gunpoint" quote and other discussions of Barton's lies, distortions and quotemining.

Robert Byers said: Indeed evolution or any thing contradicting Genesis was unknown in the 1700'. The founding fathers themselves or the people had NO agenda or ideas about the subject of origins for schools. It truly was not on their minds from any stance. There was no expectation that anything would be taught in schools that contradicted God or Genesis. This was a very Puritan yankee and Anglican Southern Protestant peoples. They never imagined or intended any state or law actions to censor conclusions on origins or what we call today creationism(s). There is nothing in the constitution that was intended to prohibit ideas and speech about origins. The present censorship was only discovered at the end of ww11. One must remember also what James madison said. The bigger thinker behind the ideas in the government. he insisted that it was not the few esteemed men whose opinions on intents were but the people through their delegates that gave power and force to the constitution etc. The people's intent were what matterd and not just a few guys. This error is constantly repeated yet its illogical surely that a few men ideas were the essence of the nation.

What blows my mind about Barton is the shortsightedness of his attacks on the Exclusion Clause. It is, despite all the froth generated by fundies on the matter, not inherently antireligious, and indeed can be seen as just the opposite.

It states that the government has no right to infringe on freedom of worship. Any government support of one religion would be very likely to at least implicitly infringe on the rights of others.
In the worst case, in the form of a state church coupled to the persecution of noncomformists, it would be entirely explicit. Given that many of the colonies were established to escape just that situation, that is hardly a theoretical issue and certainly it was well understood by the Founding Fathers.

Attempts to undermine separation of church and state are entirely dishonest, an attempt to obtain a self-serving advantage at the expense of freedom of belief.

What would our visiting fundies have to say about Mitt Romney talking against the separation of church and state? Since I just read that a good proportion of evangelicals would not vote for a Mormon under any circumstances, I doubt it would be anything good. Unlike the fundies, however, Romney isn't clueless enough to say any such thing.

Of course, when it comes to evo science, fundies have no hesitation to say it's about freedom of belief out of one side of the mouth, while saying it's only about the science out of the other.

Robert Byers said: Indeed evolution or any thing contradicting Genesis was unknown in the 1700'.

Why bother debating someone like Barton,

who is openly a liar and a Xian extremist who would literally, if his faction gained power, see large numbers of people put to death to solidy that power, as well as to glory in abusing it?

Isn’t he simply to be opposed whenever his filth arises?

DavidK said: FL has taken text from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States, which is the law of the land. There is a big difference. If we wished to declare our independence and were requiring some figurehead authority to support our cause, we could not ask the King of England, which clearly he already rejected. And since royalty is based on their direct bloodline descent from God and heaven, we had to do the God route to justify our splitting with England, thus appealing to the same power the King did. Take that old King of England! But as bold as these words were, they were just words meant to appeal to some perceived uber-authority. We could have appealed to the Tsar of Russia or the King of Sweden, but they were on par with the King of England - hence no good and we went the traditional route. What FL, and many fundies think, is that the D of I translates to the U.S. Constitution, which it does not. The signers were well aware of the strife that religion caused throughout history and sought, successfully, to create the grand experiment, the separation of church and state, the power of the state would not rely on a pope or other likewise "self-proclaimed religious cult leader." Unfortunately we see that experiment being eroded day after day with the fundies demand for creationism, prayers in school, etc. Funny how they don't thank their God for tornadoes, hurricanes, epidemics, e-coli, etc., as well as for special treatment above non-Christians, or non-fundies for that matter.

Lauri Lebo (of Dover reporting fame) has picked up this topic over at Religion Dispatches.

Dave

Joe Felsenstein said: Of courses, some of the founding fathers may have known Darwin's work ... Erasmus Darwin, that is. Although speculations about evolution and even rudimentary descriptions of natural selection go back to the ancient Greeks, Lamarck (1809) was really the first evolutionary biologist (Buffon having a partial claim earlier). It is not until Lamarck's time that evolution would have reached enough people to even cause a controversy. Of course, Barton says all this without specific quotations, so we can't see who was supposedly advocating the teaching of what, and what arguments they made.

Indeed evolution or any thing contradicting Genesis was unknown in the 1700’

As someone correctly suggested above, Paine rejects the Bible or any humanly-printed text as being a source of wisdom about the creator of the universe, and accuses text-based religions of purveying all sorts of social wickedness. Rather, he says if you truly want to find God, then do good science and learn all you can about the wondrous and complex mysteries of nature.

— Leviathan

Maupertuis is sometimes mentioned as an early proponent of evolution. Wikipedia says that he "was a strong critic of natural theologians". Maupertuis on evolution

harold said: This man is running for president of the United States. I keep posting this link, and it keeps being ignored. I guess people don't have the attention span to get through the less than a minute of introductory talk. The interesting stuff is from about 0:45 through about 1:20. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mwGYr0OWzw

My Fundabrain, after many years of disuse, finally kicked in this morning, and suddenly Barton's statements make eminent sense (but are still false).

From a scientific standpoint, ID/Creationism is summarised as "God Did It", with the other trappings added to suit the moment.

From a fundamentalist perspective, the ToE may be summarised as "God Didn't Do It". The other trappings vary with the times. The "Didn't" system of thought was actually invented by Satan as a trap and a deception around 6,000 years ago, and has been called by different names as expounded by different Satanic mouthpieces over time.

As for Satan's Great 19th-century mouthpiece, C. Darwin, his Theory is nothing more than a new suit of clothes for the original Lie Of The Devil.

Therefore it is not impossible to claim that evolution/creationism was debated at any time prior to Darwin's publication, since "creationism" and "evolution" are simply current keywords for "TRUTH" and "LIES".

The question remains whether the "Founding Fathers" "settled" the question. In the context of the construction of the nation, such controversy appears to be absent.

So in the 1700s serpents were still talking?

The present censorship was only discovered at the end of ww11.

Mike Elzinga said: WOW!

Henry J said: World War Eleven? When did that happen?

The problem with Barton is that a lot of what he says does have a grain of truth to it. It's the best kind of lie. As for the Founding Fathers (blessed be their names*) rejecting "evolution", my limited understanding is that the notion of the relatedness of species, and of one species changing into another had been around for many years at the time. The problem was that of "time" itself. In the late 1700's, there wasn't enough of it. Even given the then recent study of geology, it was recognized that even a few tens or hundreds of thousands of years wouldn't have been enough time for all of the species to have come into existence. Just like Lord Kelvin's calculations of the age of the sun, several decades later.

So, in that day you have an early notion of the relatedness of species, something that today we would recognize as akin to "evolution". And this notion would have been rejected by the Founding Fathers (blessed be their names), who were obviously educated men of their day. Never mind why this vague notion was rejected. Let's just go with, "something like evolution was rejected by the Founding Fathers (blessed be their names)". Drop the first two words, and you have Barton's premise: "Evolution was rejected by the Founding Fathers".

Easy.

(* snark)

mrg said: What blows my mind about Barton is the shortsightedness of his attacks on the Exclusion Clause. It is, despite all the froth generated by fundies on the matter, not inherently antireligious, and indeed can be seen as just the opposite.

It states that the government has no right to infringe on freedom of worship. Any government support of one religion would be very likely to at least implicitly infringe on the rights of others.

In the worst case, in the form of a state church coupled to the persecution of noncomformists, it would be entirely explicit. Given that many of the colonies were established to escape just that situation, that is hardly a theoretical issue and certainly it was well understood by the Founding Fathers.

Attempts to undermine separation of church and state are entirely dishonest, an attempt to obtain a self-serving advantage at the expense of freedom of belief.

What would our visiting fundies have to say about Mitt Romney talking against the separation of church and state? Since I just read that a good proportion of evangelicals would not vote for a Mormon under any circumstances, I doubt it would be anything good. Unlike the fundies, however, Romney isn't clueless enough to say any such thing.

Of course, when it comes to evo science, fundies have no hesitation to say it's about freedom of belief out of one side of the mouth, while saying it's only about the science out of the other.

Flint said: This is, as far as I can tell, regarded as a regrettable tactical requirement, kind of like the lies you have to tell girls to trick them into bed. You wish it weren't necessary, but, you know, whatever works. But fortunately, once the fundies control the civil authority of the State, this will no longer be necessary. They can use their power to redefine both freedom and science and Truth as God intended.

Scott F said:

Flint said: This is, as far as I can tell, regarded as a regrettable tactical requirement, kind of like the lies you have to tell girls to trick them into bed. You wish it weren't necessary, but, you know, whatever works. But fortunately, once the fundies control the civil authority of the State, this will no longer be necessary. They can use their power to redefine both freedom and science and Truth as God intended.

There. Fixed that for you. :-)

Stuart Weinstein said:

DavidK said: FL has taken text from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States, which is the law of the land. There is a big difference. If we wished to declare our independence and were requiring some figurehead authority to support our cause, we could not ask the King of England, which clearly he already rejected. And since royalty is based on their direct bloodline descent from God and heaven, we had to do the God route to justify our splitting with England, thus appealing to the same power the King did. Take that old King of England! But as bold as these words were, they were just words meant to appeal to some perceived uber-authority. We could have appealed to the Tsar of Russia or the King of Sweden, but they were on par with the King of England - hence no good and we went the traditional route. What FL, and many fundies think, is that the D of I translates to the U.S. Constitution, which it does not. The signers were well aware of the strife that religion caused throughout history and sought, successfully, to create the grand experiment, the separation of church and state, the power of the state would not rely on a pope or other likewise "self-proclaimed religious cult leader." Unfortunately we see that experiment being eroded day after day with the fundies demand for creationism, prayers in school, etc. Funny how they don't thank their God for tornadoes, hurricanes, epidemics, e-coli, etc., as well as for special treatment above non-Christians, or non-fundies for that matter.

Of course the Declaration of Indepedence was penned by Jefferson. Jefferson tried to rationalize Christianity. Yup the author of the DOI also penned this in a letter to Adams " And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter." Really FL? Jefferson is your hero? LOL

Robert Byers said: ...the people are after all free to decide about origin subjects and sources of evidence and criticisms. Tear down these walls of censorship and let the truth fight it out.

Robert Byers said: ...the people are after all free to decide about origin subjects and sources of evidence and criticisms. Tear down these walls of censorship and let the truth fight it out.

When you know beyond any doubt that your convictions are the only truth, permitting freedom is both evil and cruel. Theocracies tend to be ruthless for this reason.

It seems simple to me that, contrary to misunderstanding the dates involved, Barton is intentionally equivocating on evolution. While he is correct that the 'general idea' of evolution, i.e. change over time, has been around for millennia, the scientific Theory of Evolution was first identified/discovered and explained by Darwin in 1859.

Nonimus said: It seems simple to me that, contrary to misunderstanding the dates involved, Barton is intentionally equivocating on evolution.

Flint said: I think you misunderstand.

harold said: Barton is closely associated with one of the leading Republican candidates for president, who is, within the Republican Party, considered by some to be too "moderate". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mwGYr0OWzw I don't care how conservative you are. The United States Republican Party is now grounded in outright denial of physical and historical reality, and that's a fact. They are also limit testers. It's impossible to tell how far they will go. And they are to a large degree negatively motivated. That is, although some of their policy is based on naked self-interest, a lot of it is based on demonizing everyone else and reflexively attacking anything that is remotely associated with those they hate and resent. It is axiomatic that policy decisions that are not grounded in actual thought or concern, but are merely oppositional defiant disorder type contradictions of everything that "outsiders" seem to support, will tend to be very bad. (Even signs of hope can be deceptive. For example, some current Republicans express anti-war views. Unfortunately, this is probably only because they "oppose everything Obama supports", not a consistent position.) It borders on being a national emergency that one of our major parties has taken on these characteristics. The track record of extremist reality denying political parties is not a good one. This is especially true when such a party has a very slick propaganda operation and is good at riling up mobs. And this is very especially true when a population is feeling "humiliated" by bad military outcomes and a bad economy, and willing to listen to demagogues. "Only" 30% or so of Americans are hard core say-anything-and-do-anything-to-support-the-Republicans-no-matter-what cult members (there is a near perfect overlap between these and hard core creationism supporters). However, many Americans just aren't sophisticated enough to see what is going on, which may not be surprising given that most print and television media outlets, with some exceptions, push the message that any Republican policy is "respectable" and "serious".

Stuart Weinstein said:

DavidK said: FL has taken text from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States, which is the law of the land. There is a big difference. If we wished to declare our independence and were requiring some figurehead authority to support our cause, we could not ask the King of England, which clearly he already rejected. And since royalty is based on their direct bloodline descent from God and heaven, we had to do the God route to justify our splitting with England, thus appealing to the same power the King did. Take that old King of England! But as bold as these words were, they were just words meant to appeal to some perceived uber-authority. We could have appealed to the Tsar of Russia or the King of Sweden, but they were on par with the King of England - hence no good and we went the traditional route. What FL, and many fundies think, is that the D of I translates to the U.S. Constitution, which it does not. The signers were well aware of the strife that religion caused throughout history and sought, successfully, to create the grand experiment, the separation of church and state, the power of the state would not rely on a pope or other likewise "self-proclaimed religious cult leader." Unfortunately we see that experiment being eroded day after day with the fundies demand for creationism, prayers in school, etc. Funny how they don't thank their God for tornadoes, hurricanes, epidemics, e-coli, etc., as well as for special treatment above non-Christians, or non-fundies for that matter.

Of course the Declaration of Indepedence was penned by Jefferson. Jefferson tried to rationalize Christianity. Yup the author of the DOI also penned this in a letter to Adams " And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter." Really FL? Jefferson is your hero? LOL

SLC said: Former Governor Huckabee has decided not to run in 2012.

KL said:

Robert Byers said: ...the people are after all free to decide about origin subjects and sources of evidence and criticisms. Tear down these walls of censorship and let the truth fight it out.

As a teacher I'd love to be able to show the evidence against young earth and creationism. Bobby Byers, people are free to believe what they want, even though it isn't true. However, if you remove the barriers to discussing religion you can't complain when students are shown that their fundy ideas are crap.

mrg said:

SLC said: Former Governor Huckabee has decided not to run in 2012.

No way he could win. Basically, he would wrap up the fundy vote, and automatically lose the vote of everyone who regards fundies as enemies -- that is, everyone who isn't a fundy.

harold said: Before he officially dropped out of the formal race for president, he was treated as a highly respectable candidate by the media.

I want to know how the founding fathers could possibly reject a theory that didn't exist at the time. The US Constitution 1787, Darwin's theory 1859, did they have some kind of time machine to read The Origin of The Species in 1787?

William Young said: I want to know how the founding fathers could possibly reject a theory that didn't exist at the time. The US Constitution 1787, Darwin's theory 1859, did they have some kind of time machine to read The Origin of The Species in 1787?

The point appears to be that "natural theology", the idea that one could acquire knowledge of god through the study of nature, along with the denial of revelation as a source of knowledge, was popular in the 1700s. This is known as "deism", and several of the intellectuals known as "founding fathers", including Paine, were deists.

mrg said:

SLC said: Former Governor Huckabee has decided not to run in 2012.

No way he could win. Basically, he would wrap up the fundy vote, and automatically lose the vote of everyone who regards fundies as enemies -- that is, everyone who isn't a fundy.

TomS said: The point appears to be that "natural theology", the idea that one could acquire knowledge of god through the study of nature, along with the denial of revelation as a source of knowledge, was popular in the 1700s. This is known as "deism", and several of the intellectuals known as "founding fathers", including Paine, were deists.

The meaning of the word "deist" has changed. What I was trying to point out was that the 18th century deists tended to accept arguments like the "clockmaker" analogy, so it wouldn't be surprising if today's creationists could find something quotable in the writings of the deists. I do not mean to suggest that deists, whether of the 18th century or of the 21st century, would be pleased with their use by creationists.

TomS said: The meaning of the word "deist" has changed. What I was trying to point out was that the 18th century deists tended to accept arguments like the "clockmaker" analogy, so it wouldn't be surprising if today's creationists could find something quotable in the writings of the deists. I do not mean to suggest that deists, whether of the 18th century or of the 21st century, would be pleased with their use by creationists.

John Kwok said:

TomS said: The meaning of the word "deist" has changed. What I was trying to point out was that the 18th century deists tended to accept arguments like the "clockmaker" analogy, so it wouldn't be surprising if today's creationists could find something quotable in the writings of the deists. I do not mean to suggest that deists, whether of the 18th century or of the 21st century, would be pleased with their use by creationists.

No TomS, the meaning of Deism has not changed. The only definition I know that HAS changed is Atheism - as determined by some militant New Atheists who insist that an Atheist is one who doesn't believe in a GOD(s) - and is a definition that is so sweeping in its generalization that one could conclude mistakenly that Agnostics - those who don't know whether GOD(s) exist - are therefore Atheists too. Those who accepted "Natural Theology" included true "scientific creationists" like Protestant Christian ministers - and geologists - William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick (who was Darwin's geology professor at Cambridge) - who accepted creationism since they viewed it as the only Newtownian alternative to Intelligent Design - as it was conceived originally by William Paley - or a literal Book of Genesis-derived Young Earth Creationism, but even then, their view of Creationism was more consistent with a perception GOD as a divine entity that operated solely via natural law, not by some capricious whim as the GOD of the Old Testament seemed all too willing to do.

SLC said:

John Kwok said:

TomS said: The meaning of the word "deist" has changed. What I was trying to point out was that the 18th century deists tended to accept arguments like the "clockmaker" analogy, so it wouldn't be surprising if today's creationists could find something quotable in the writings of the deists. I do not mean to suggest that deists, whether of the 18th century or of the 21st century, would be pleased with their use by creationists.

No TomS, the meaning of Deism has not changed. The only definition I know that HAS changed is Atheism - as determined by some militant New Atheists who insist that an Atheist is one who doesn't believe in a GOD(s) - and is a definition that is so sweeping in its generalization that one could conclude mistakenly that Agnostics - those who don't know whether GOD(s) exist - are therefore Atheists too. Those who accepted "Natural Theology" included true "scientific creationists" like Protestant Christian ministers - and geologists - William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick (who was Darwin's geology professor at Cambridge) - who accepted creationism since they viewed it as the only Newtownian alternative to Intelligent Design - as it was conceived originally by William Paley - or a literal Book of Genesis-derived Young Earth Creationism, but even then, their view of Creationism was more consistent with a perception GOD as a divine entity that operated solely via natural law, not by some capricious whim as the GOD of the Old Testament seemed all too willing to do.

Actually, Robert Grant, a professor at the University of Edinburgh where Darwin had enrolled as a medical student who introduced Darwin to the writings of Lamarck, was probably a greater influence on Darwin then Sedgwick.

SLC said: Actually, Robert Grant, a professor at the University of Edinburgh where Darwin had enrolled as a medical student who introduced Darwin to the writings of Lamarck, was probably a greater influence on Darwin then Sedgwick.

Do I misread you? You seem to be taking exception to something I wrote. What do you disagree with?

Since I was trained as a philosopher, my instinct when confronted with a problem is to make a distinction; but in this case it really does look like distinctions are very much in order. Barton's nonsense is based on collapsing everything together into a brown mass. Of course the Founding Fathers could hardly have had a position on Darwin's version of evolution, but they were very generally on the side of "Creationism" if and only if the creationism in question is the very generic notion that living things came to be in time through the action of a mind. If you use creationism in this sense, it makes perfectly good sense to speak about creationism before Darwin, indeed to talk about creationism among the old Greeks as David Sedley does in his recent book Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity. Thing is, though, this sense of creationism has very little to do with what might be called Creationism™, the 19th and 20th Century social movement that is more akin to the Ghost Dance religion or a New Guinea Cargo Cult that a serious intellectual position. The same equivocation obtains when people move back and forth between "atheism" simply meaning a lack of belief in God and "atheism™" meaning adherence to a social movement with all kinds of ideological baggage.

Jim Harrison said: Barton's nonsense is based on collapsing everything together into a brown mass.

The same equivocation obtains when people move back and forth between "atheism" simply meaning a lack of belief in God and "atheism™" meaning adherence to a social movement with all kinds of ideological baggage.

What's a little thing like FACTS to these guys?

According to ChristianAnswers.net Martin Luther took a stand in favour of creationism. I have always admired him for his courage but I never realised that he had been blessed with prophetic powers as well. Imagine, standing up to Darwin centuries before the latter was even born!

Don Luigi said: According to ChristianAnswers.net Martin Luther took a stand in favour of creationism. I have always admired him for his courage but I never realised that he had been blessed with prophetic powers as well. Imagine, standing up to Darwin centuries before the latter was even born!

Stanton said: Martin Luther opposed the Heliocentric Model of the Universe because it contradicted the Bible.

mrg said:

Stanton said: Martin Luther opposed the Heliocentric Model of the Universe because it contradicted the Bible.

Yeah, I wonder what kind of a case Barton could make for Ge0centr1c1sm?

Y'know ... looking at Barton, doesn't he remind you a bit of Hovind? Oh please please please, I hope Barton's a tax resister, too.

Stanton said: I would pay money to see that verbal trainwreck.

TomS said: Do I misread you? You seem to be taking exception to something I wrote. What do you disagree with?

Ahem. This thread is about David Barton, not John Kwok. Those not playing well with others will find themselves scrawling on the old bathroom wall soon. Nuff said?

'if so he is so full of it he exhales flies'

This may be taken as 'proof' (in the creationist mode of logic) that David Barton is Satan, in the guise of Beelzebub--Lord of the Flies.

Dave Thomas said: Ahem. This thread is about David Barton, not John Kwok. Those not playing well with others will find themselves scrawling on the old bathroom wall soon. Nuff said?

Stanton said:

Dave Thomas said: Ahem. This thread is about David Barton, not John Kwok. Those not playing well with others will find themselves scrawling on the old bathroom wall soon. Nuff said?

Will this apply to kk's nonsensical rants, too?

Dave Thomas said: Who or what is "kk"?

mrg said:

Dave Thomas said: Who or what is "kk"?

That is a very good question. See the "Fulton County" thread for elucidation. Wear hip boots.

Dave Thomas said: The Fulton thread is Hoppe's, and Richard is handling those comments.

Dave Thomas said:

Stanton said:

Dave Thomas said: Ahem. This thread is about David Barton, not John Kwok. Those not playing well with others will find themselves scrawling on the old bathroom wall soon. Nuff said?

Will this apply to kk's nonsensical rants, too?

Who or what is "kk"?

mrg said:

Dave Thomas said: The Fulton thread is Hoppe's, and Richard is handling those comments.

So far he has been far more tolerant than justified on any reasonable basis.

Dave Thomas said: In others words, "KK" is hereby added to "KWOK" in the official list of topics this thread is not about.

hey wait a minute, Barton is a Christian, he wouldn't lie would he.
he would, OK!

John Kwok said:

SLC said:

John Kwok said:

TomS said: The meaning of the word "deist" has changed. What I was trying to point out was that the 18th century deists tended to accept arguments like the "clockmaker" analogy, so it wouldn't be surprising if today's creationists could find something quotable in the writings of the deists. I do not mean to suggest that deists, whether of the 18th century or of the 21st century, would be pleased with their use by creationists.

No TomS, the meaning of Deism has not changed. The only definition I know that HAS changed is Atheism - as determined by some militant New Atheists who insist that an Atheist is one who doesn't believe in a GOD(s) - and is a definition that is so sweeping in its generalization that one could conclude mistakenly that Agnostics - those who don't know whether GOD(s) exist - are therefore Atheists too. Those who accepted "Natural Theology" included true "scientific creationists" like Protestant Christian ministers - and geologists - William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick (who was Darwin's geology professor at Cambridge) - who accepted creationism since they viewed it as the only Newtownian alternative to Intelligent Design - as it was conceived originally by William Paley - or a literal Book of Genesis-derived Young Earth Creationism, but even then, their view of Creationism was more consistent with a perception GOD as a divine entity that operated solely via natural law, not by some capricious whim as the GOD of the Old Testament seemed all too willing to do.

Actually, Robert Grant, a professor at the University of Edinburgh where Darwin had enrolled as a medical student who introduced Darwin to the writings of Lamarck, was probably a greater influence on Darwin then Sedgwick.

I said that Sedgwick was Darwin's geology professor at Cambridge; I DIDN'T SAY THAT HE WAS A GREATER INFLUENCE. As for Grant, he's more influential in the sense that he taught Darwin how to become a field naturalist, not because he had introduced him to Lamarck's writings (By the time he began his voyage on HMS Beagle, Darwin had been persuaded by Paley's writings that Intelligent Design, not a Lamarckian view of evolution, was probably the best explanation for the history and current composition of Earth's biodiversity. Instead, he changed his mind via paleontological field work in Argentina, and, of course, his now legendary work as a field naturalist in the Galapagos.).

Why was mrg's comment BW'd, but not SLC's?

Because SLC at least mentioned influences on Darwin, and this is somewhat related to the thread topic (Barton's comments on founding fathers and Darwin).

Work with me here, K?

Dave Thomas said: Why was mrg's comment BW'd, but not SLC's?

richCares said: hey wait a minute, Barton is a Christian, he wouldn't lie would he. he would, OK!

this very thread inspired me to read "Liars for Jesus" (free download somewhere link on PT?) anyway it seems that the particular pathology these folks (I'll call them wackadoos) have allows/requires them to redefine words to suit their ends. For example when a biologist hears "evolution" he/she most likely thinks of MET or perhaps natural selection or perhaps a related concept. To a whackadoo Evolution= Darwinism = Materialism= Atheism = any criticism of anything 'scientific' in the Bible (and therefore evil/ satanic)
(kind of Orwellian, no?)

so (according to whackadoo 'logic')Martin Luther DID defend creationism from Darwinism when he was critical of heliocentrism, the Founding Fathers were Christians because the were not atheists (and therefore were anti-evolution)

where it gets sinister is when whakadoos use this technique for words that are not jargon, but common i.e. "Christian/ity" to a whakadoo (when it suits them) a Christian is a born again fundamentalist type of christian, and everyone else ISN'T - so when they claim the USA was founded as a "Christian Nation" or based on "Christian Ideals" they DON'T mean that the demographic profiles of the founding fathers were presbyterian or whatever version of prodestant - they are claiming that the founding fathers were fundametalist whakadoos! scary stuff

Apparently this is the essay of Paine's that was referred to:

The Existence of God

SLC said:

John Kwok said:

SLC said:

John Kwok said:

TomS said: The meaning of the word "deist" has changed. What I was trying to point out was that the 18th century deists tended to accept arguments like the "clockmaker" analogy, so it wouldn't be surprising if today's creationists could find something quotable in the writings of the deists. I do not mean to suggest that deists, whether of the 18th century or of the 21st century, would be pleased with their use by creationists.

No TomS, the meaning of Deism has not changed. The only definition I know that HAS changed is Atheism - as determined by some militant New Atheists who insist that an Atheist is one who doesn't believe in a GOD(s) - and is a definition that is so sweeping in its generalization that one could conclude mistakenly that Agnostics - those who don't know whether GOD(s) exist - are therefore Atheists too. Those who accepted "Natural Theology" included true "scientific creationists" like Protestant Christian ministers - and geologists - William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick (who was Darwin's geology professor at Cambridge) - who accepted creationism since they viewed it as the only Newtownian alternative to Intelligent Design - as it was conceived originally by William Paley - or a literal Book of Genesis-derived Young Earth Creationism, but even then, their view of Creationism was more consistent with a perception GOD as a divine entity that operated solely via natural law, not by some capricious whim as the GOD of the Old Testament seemed all too willing to do.

Actually, Robert Grant, a professor at the University of Edinburgh where Darwin had enrolled as a medical student who introduced Darwin to the writings of Lamarck, was probably a greater influence on Darwin then Sedgwick.

I said that Sedgwick was Darwin's geology professor at Cambridge; I DIDN'T SAY THAT HE WAS A GREATER INFLUENCE. As for Grant, he's more influential in the sense that he taught Darwin how to become a field naturalist, not because he had introduced him to Lamarck's writings (By the time he began his voyage on HMS Beagle, Darwin had been persuaded by Paley's writings that Intelligent Design, not a Lamarckian view of evolution, was probably the best explanation for the history and current composition of Earth's biodiversity. Instead, he changed his mind via paleontological field work in Argentina, and, of course, his now legendary work as a field naturalist in the Galapagos.).

Mr. Kwok really does become rather tiresome at times. How does the statement that Grant was a bigger influence on Darwin then Sedgewick in any way, shape, form, or regard contradict anything that Mr. Kwok has stated. Actually, IMHO, the biggest influence on Darwin was probably Charles Lyell, whose volume on geology was one of the books that the former brought with him on the Beagle.

Barton as usual garbles what was actually happening, the social and historical context and what Paine actually meant in this address. For information on Paine's true beliefs in general and what this document truly displays:
http://www.enotes.com/topic/The_Age_of_Reason
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/existence_of_god.html

Mother Jones totally misreported what Barton actually said. It's a good thing that the clip in question was posted so somebody who cared to view it can judge for himself.

Barton said the debate between creation and evolution wasn't new in the 60's, it wasn't new during Darwin, and the Founding Fathers settled the debate before Darwin.

Say, is a killfile mechanism in the works?

mrg said: Say, is a killfile mechanism in the works?

Henry said: How many times did you view the video clip?

Dave Thomas said:

Flint said: Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda's book. ...

As mentioned earlier here on PT, Rodda's book Liars for Jesus is now available in its entirety online.

Henry said:

Dave Thomas said:

Flint said: Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda's book. ...

As mentioned earlier here on PT, Rodda's book Liars for Jesus is now available in its entirety online.

Did you watch the 31 second video? The Mother Jones article is misleading because Barton did not say the Founding Fathers rejected Darwin.

Henry said:

Dave Thomas said:

Flint said: Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda's book. ...

As mentioned earlier here on PT, Rodda's book Liars for Jesus is now available in its entirety online.

Did you watch the 31 second video? The Mother Jones article is misleading because Barton did not say the Founding Fathers rejected Darwin.

As far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, they’d already had the entire debate over creation and evolution, and you get Thomas Paine, who is the least religious Founding Father, saying you’ve got to teach Creation science in the public school classroom. Scientific method demands that!”

Dave Thomas said:

Henry said:

Dave Thomas said:

Flint said: Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda's book. ...

As mentioned earlier here on PT, Rodda's book Liars for Jesus is now available in its entirety online.

Did you watch the 31 second video? The Mother Jones article is misleading because Barton did not say the Founding Fathers rejected Darwin.

Did you watch the 31-second video?

As far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, they’d already had the entire debate over creation and evolution, and you get Thomas Paine, who is the least religious Founding Father, saying you’ve got to teach Creation science in the public school classroom. Scientific method demands that!”

Ah yes. The FFs would have no more understood what "creation science" meant than understood who "Darwin" was supposed to be.

It's not a question of whether Barton is being silly or not. The only question is exactly the kind of silliness he's up to.

Why isn't creationism acceptable in public school science classes? Because it's not science by modern standards. Was it science by 18th century standards? Well, we don't need to answer that question, because it's pretty obvious that in the 18th century they had a lot of ideas that we don't regard as scientific any more. The medical science of the time would generally rate as the worst sort of quackery now. One might as well invoke the FFs to discuss policy planning for NASA and the US space program.

Given as Creation Science can be boiled down to either "GODDIDIT" or "Our enemies can never be trusted because they are also God's enemies," I would think that the FF's or any other intellectual from the 18th century would be able to identify religious propaganda when they encountered it.

Indeed. I really don't think if the marvelous Mr. Franklin, by 18th-century standards an outstanding scientist, was around today to be brought up to speed on what we've learned since his time, he'd have much respect for "Creation Science".

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Dave Thomas said:

Flint said: Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda's book. ...

As mentioned earlier here on PT, Rodda's book Liars for Jesus is now available in its entirety online.

Did you watch the 31 second video? The Mother Jones article is misleading because Barton did not say the Founding Fathers rejected Darwin.

Even if what you were saying is true (and you're a creationist, so you're most likely a pathological liar), how does it change the fact that Barton is a shameless fraud? He makes his living by bearing false witness! How is that acceptable behavior for a christian? Why does your cult not merely tolerate this dishonesty, but celebrate it? Why do creationists need to lie constantly?

Henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Dave Thomas said:

Flint said: Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda's book. ...

As mentioned earlier here on PT, Rodda's book Liars for Jesus is now available in its entirety online.

Did you watch the 31 second video? The Mother Jones article is misleading because Barton did not say the Founding Fathers rejected Darwin.

Even if what you were saying is true (and you're a creationist, so you're most likely a pathological liar), how does it change the fact that Barton is a shameless fraud? He makes his living by bearing false witness! How is that acceptable behavior for a christian? Why does your cult not merely tolerate this dishonesty, but celebrate it? Why do creationists need to lie constantly?

This is what rightwingwatch.org posted as the headline, "Barton: Founding Fathers Were Against Teaching Evolution..." This is what Mother Jones' headline said, "The Right's Favorite Historian: Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin" At least, PT's headline had question marks, but it's still misleading. The words in question are within the first 10 seconds of the video clip. Somehow, that shouldn't be difficult to verify, especially since you don't trust my words.

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Dave Thomas said:

Flint said: Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda's book. ...

As mentioned earlier here on PT, Rodda's book Liars for Jesus is now available in its entirety online.

Did you watch the 31 second video? The Mother Jones article is misleading because Barton did not say the Founding Fathers rejected Darwin.

Even if what you were saying is true (and you're a creationist, so you're most likely a pathological liar), how does it change the fact that Barton is a shameless fraud? He makes his living by bearing false witness! How is that acceptable behavior for a christian? Why does your cult not merely tolerate this dishonesty, but celebrate it? Why do creationists need to lie constantly?

This is what rightwingwatch.org posted as the headline, "Barton: Founding Fathers Were Against Teaching Evolution..." This is what Mother Jones' headline said, "The Right's Favorite Historian: Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin" At least, PT's headline had question marks, but it's still misleading. The words in question are within the first 10 seconds of the video clip. Somehow, that shouldn't be difficult to verify, especially since you don't trust my words.

So, Henry, you see something wrong with Mother Jones allegedly exaggerating something Barton was recorded saying, but you can't bring yourself to object to Barton making up quotes out of whole cloth and blatantly, publicly LYING by claiming them to be from the founding fathers, even after being repeatedly informed that what he was saying was not true. Now, I could maybe see someone with no capacity for comprehending nuance equally condemning both those actions. But to screech and whine about the former, while treating the latter as perfectly okay, even praiseworthy? Face it, Henry, you don't give a flying fuck what really happened, all you care about is defending one of your fellow Liars For Jesus. Actually, I don't think Barton is really a Liar For Jesus. He's just lying for money, and knowing that gullible, brainwashed death cultists like you will keep paying him as long as you find his lies convenient.

Henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Dave Thomas said:

Flint said: Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda's book. ...

As mentioned earlier here on PT, Rodda's book Liars for Jesus is now available in its entirety online.

Did you watch the 31 second video? The Mother Jones article is misleading because Barton did not say the Founding Fathers rejected Darwin.

Even if what you were saying is true (and you're a creationist, so you're most likely a pathological liar), how does it change the fact that Barton is a shameless fraud? He makes his living by bearing false witness! How is that acceptable behavior for a christian? Why does your cult not merely tolerate this dishonesty, but celebrate it? Why do creationists need to lie constantly?

This is what rightwingwatch.org posted as the headline, "Barton: Founding Fathers Were Against Teaching Evolution..." This is what Mother Jones' headline said, "The Right's Favorite Historian: Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin" At least, PT's headline had question marks, but it's still misleading. The words in question are within the first 10 seconds of the video clip. Somehow, that shouldn't be difficult to verify, especially since you don't trust my words.

So, Henry, you see something wrong with Mother Jones allegedly exaggerating something Barton was recorded saying, but you can't bring yourself to object to Barton making up quotes out of whole cloth and blatantly, publicly LYING by claiming them to be from the founding fathers, even after being repeatedly informed that what he was saying was not true. Now, I could maybe see someone with no capacity for comprehending nuance equally condemning both those actions. But to screech and whine about the former, while treating the latter as perfectly okay, even praiseworthy? Face it, Henry, you don't give a flying fuck what really happened, all you care about is defending one of your fellow Liars For Jesus. Actually, I don't think Barton is really a Liar For Jesus. He's just lying for money, and knowing that gullible, brainwashed death cultists like you will keep paying him as long as you find his lies convenient.

I wonder, how much value do you place on Mother Jones? If this is an example of the quality of it's journalism, then the journalists can be called Liars Against Jesus.

phantomreader42 said: Barton lied, Henry. And you love him for it. Mother Jones told the truth, and you despise them for it.

apokryltaros said:

phantomreader42 said: Barton lied, Henry. And you love him for it. Mother Jones told the truth, and you despise them for it.

It's not that Henry loves and admires Barton specifically because he Lies For Jesus, or that he hates Mother Jones for exposing the truth. Henry loves and admires Barton because Barton is reaffirming party dogma, and Henry attacks Mother Jones because because he perceives Mother Jones as attacking party dogma. That Barton can only reaffirm party dogma through lying, and that Mother Jones is pointing out that Barton is a liar are irrelevant to Henry.

While you, Henry, are merely tired.

Henry said: You guys are beyond funny.

Seversky said: From the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the US Senate on 7 June 1797 and signed into law by President John Adams on 10 June 1797:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Seems clear enough. Any questions?

Henry said:

Seversky said: From the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the US Senate on 7 June 1797 and signed into law by President John Adams on 10 June 1797:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Seems clear enough. Any questions?

This was only in the first treaty--subsequent ones omitted this article. Apparently, it wasn't relevant later in the later versions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Seversky said: From the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the US Senate on 7 June 1797 and signed into law by President John Adams on 10 June 1797:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Seems clear enough. Any questions?

This was only in the first treaty--subsequent ones omitted this article. Apparently, it wasn't relevant later in the later versions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

So, Henry, are you saying that the later versions, by removing that clause (which you admit was there, for the record, though I'm sure you'll deny it was ever there the instant it becomes inconvenient for you), somehow magically converted this country into a theocracy under your delusional death cult? Why do you hate freedom and the truth so much, Henry? Why can't you and your fellow cultists stop lying? Why are you so desperate to hijack the government and force your idiotic dogma on other people's children? Is christianity really so pitifully weak that it can't survive any other way?

Actually, what I'm saying is the Tripoli treaty of 1797 is a very weak argument for proving that the United States was not a Christian nation since Article 11 was later dropped, showing that it wasn't important enough to retain in the later treaties or even true.

America's been a Christian theocracy since it's founding.

It obviously doesn't resemble a Islamic theocracy which some tends to confuse the two.

Henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Seversky said: From the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the US Senate on 7 June 1797 and signed into law by President John Adams on 10 June 1797:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Seems clear enough. Any questions?

This was only in the first treaty--subsequent ones omitted this article. Apparently, it wasn't relevant later in the later versions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

So, Henry, are you saying that the later versions, by removing that clause (which you admit was there, for the record, though I'm sure you'll deny it was ever there the instant it becomes inconvenient for you), somehow magically converted this country into a theocracy under your delusional death cult? Why do you hate freedom and the truth so much, Henry? Why can't you and your fellow cultists stop lying? Why are you so desperate to hijack the government and force your idiotic dogma on other people's children? Is christianity really so pitifully weak that it can't survive any other way?

Actually, what I'm saying is the Tripoli treaty of 1797 is a very weak argument for proving that the United States was not a Christian nation since Article 11 was later dropped, showing that it wasn't important enough to retain in the later treaties or even true. America's been a Christian theocracy since it's founding. It obviously doesn't resemble a Islamic theocracy which some tends to confuse the two.

John Kwok said:

mrg said:

SLC said: Former Governor Huckabee has decided not to run in 2012.

No way he could win. Basically, he would wrap up the fundy vote, and automatically lose the vote of everyone who regards fundies as enemies -- that is, everyone who isn't a fundy.

Not necessarily so, since he has come across as far more reasonable than others of his ilk (e. g. Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin). However, even I, a Republican, would not support him as the 2012 Republican party Presidential candidate for reasons that have been mentioned alreadly here and elsewhere.

Remember the Republican landslide of 2010? Look for another one in 2012.