Jesus Needs New PR

Jesus Needs New PR


Stephen Baldwin talks evolution on UK's 'Big Brother'

And then somebody posted it with Richard Dawkins’ answer. Dawkins wasn’t responding directly to Baldwin, somebody just merged the two clips.

But seriously, is there any reality TV show that Baldwin wont do?



Advertisement
Comments read comments(34)
post a comment
LRA

posted February 2, 2011 at 2:48 pm


Baldwin 0, Dawkins 1, indeed.

Like a D-list actor fundie with no college education has anything productive to say about science.



report abuse
 

sam

posted February 2, 2011 at 4:00 pm


I believe every word of the bible. People may call me and Mr Stephen a fundy, I don’t mind, rather that than a cousin of an ape.



report abuse
 

    LRA

    posted February 2, 2011 at 4:17 pm


    You are, in fact, a cousin of the ape whether you believe it or not. You are welcome to your own opinions, but you are not welcome to your own facts.



    report abuse
     

    KatR

    posted February 2, 2011 at 4:46 pm


    Yeah, I’d rather be a cousin of the ape.



    report abuse
     

joel k

posted February 2, 2011 at 4:33 pm


Not really fair to pit Baldwin against Dawkins. But, I have looked high and low to find an articulate YEC scientist who can even raise even a reasonable doubt about the validity of evolutionary theory. And, I have yet to find one.



report abuse
 

    LRA

    posted February 2, 2011 at 4:38 pm


    True and true.

    All of the creationists have been pwned repeatedly to the point that all they have left is a campaign of misinformation and lies. They are a laughing stock in the scientific community, and I would think that the theology crowd wouldn’t want them either.



    report abuse
     

      Samuel C

      posted February 2, 2011 at 6:31 pm


      I don’t think that that’s true. One of the tenets of Christianity is that God created the Earth and everything in it. The “Young Earth” debate is a trivial one, but that doesn’t devalue the people themselves. I think that Science is a help to Christianity and the validity of a creator.



      report abuse
       

        LRA

        posted February 2, 2011 at 6:53 pm


        I’m sorry, but science has shown over and over again that special creation is bunk.

        You might be able to say that some Deist god is behind it all, but the evidence from physics, biology, and chemistry points to a random universe with pockets of emergent complexity due to thermodynamically driven processes.



        report abuse
         

        Green Eggs and Ham

        posted February 2, 2011 at 7:01 pm


        It may be trivial to theology (which I doubt), but it is not trivial to science. It is easier to believe in the virgin birth than that god put dinosaur fossils in the ground to test faith. The former only strains credulity; the later makes all sensory evidence and deductive reasoning completely untrustworthy, which, ironically, would make the bible unreliable too.



        report abuse
         

          LRA

          posted February 2, 2011 at 7:56 pm


          “the later makes all sensory evidence and deductive reasoning completely untrustworthy, which, ironically, would make the bible unreliable too.”

          Yes, I’ve tried to make this point several times before. People who reject science in favor of religion do not realize that their radical skepticism of empiricism creates even bigger problems for their religion than it does for science. It is absurd to reject claims supported by sensory evidence (which are published in scientific journals every day) and then turn around and accept claims supported by indirect “evidence” from 2000 year old supposed eye-witness reports.



          report abuse
           

          Green Eggs and Ham

          posted February 3, 2011 at 7:53 pm


          Absolutely. If I must be radically skeptical of empirical evidence, then that radical skepticism should be turned on creationism too.

          The logic that denies evolution also denies a young earth creationism, because there is nothing in this system falsifying that the earth wasn’t created last Thursday.

          If I can reject empirical evidence in favour of evolution as suspicious, then I can reject my memory that I was alive last Wednesday, because it too is empirical evidence.

          Because if god can be sneaky and make the earth appear to be billions of years old, then he can be sneaky and make it appear to be 6000 years old.

          Here are some links:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

          and

          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism



          report abuse
           

    sbuxjosh

    posted February 2, 2011 at 5:54 pm


    Stephen C. Meyer is the best I have found. Still, his ideas unbelievably lacking.



    report abuse
     

LRA

posted February 2, 2011 at 8:18 pm


Besides, what will proponents of special creation do when (not if) we discover life on other planets.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/feb/HQ_11-030_Kepler_Update.html



report abuse
 

    Justin B.

    posted February 2, 2011 at 8:59 pm


    Frankly, I don’t see why the two concepts would be exclusive.



    report abuse
     

      LRA

      posted February 2, 2011 at 9:06 pm


      Well, I would think that the most obvious question would be why the Biblical account of “creation” didn’t bother to mention it.



      report abuse
       

        Samuel C

        posted February 2, 2011 at 9:49 pm


        The Bible doesn’t mention computers, yet they exist. I myself don’t believe in a Young Earth concept, but I do believe that God himself created the universe.



        report abuse
         

          LRA

          posted February 2, 2011 at 9:55 pm


          Yes, but the Bible doesn’t give the story of people living now. However, it gives the story of “creation” and no where mentions life on other planets and certainly not intelligent life on other planets, but mentions things that people knew about at the time… like planets, stars, the sun, the moon, etc.

          Likewise the Bible does not mention black holes, dark matter/ energy, or any of the other things that bronze age people wouldn’t have known about.

          Suspiciously, it looks like a limited story written by humans…



          report abuse
           

Maeve

posted February 2, 2011 at 8:42 pm


I don’t know why creationism and evolution can’t peacefully coinside, in all honesty.



report abuse
 

    LRA

    posted February 2, 2011 at 8:51 pm


    I guess it’s because science and religion have a long and antagonistic history… mainly of religious folks antagonizing science folks.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/



    report abuse
     

      Maeve

      posted February 3, 2011 at 1:20 am


      I’m a history major, so I’m well aware of the history behind the disagreements. But I think they have both antagonized especially, especially in the modern period.



      report abuse
       

        LRA

        posted February 3, 2011 at 8:18 am


        By modern do you mean contemporary? Modernism started with the Renaissance, and it hasn’t been until the last century (following the many revolutions in Europe that caused the Catholic Church to lose power to persecute people like scientists) that science could really get established and then move forward unimpeded by religion.

        Further, many of the early Western scientists *were* Christians and despite their deep personal biases and the cultural context in which they lived, found the facts to be contrary to any kind of literal interpretation of the Genesis creation or flood story. I think that speaks to the strength of science to contribute to epistemology despite people’s expectations.



        report abuse
         

    sbuxjosh

    posted February 3, 2011 at 12:17 am


    They can. If they don’t make mutually exclusive truth claims. Other wise they would be violating LNC.



    report abuse
     

      LRA

      posted February 3, 2011 at 8:20 am


      LNC?



      report abuse
       

        LRA

        posted February 3, 2011 at 9:20 am


        D’oh! Law of non-contradiction. Got it.



        report abuse
         

    joel k

    posted February 3, 2011 at 8:19 am


    Each makes claims that cannot be true if the other is true. There is no reason that one cannot believe in evolution AND believe that God is Creator. The problem comes when you evaluate the specific claims of creationism as opposed to the specific claims of evolutionism.



    report abuse
     

bryan

posted February 3, 2011 at 10:25 am


I think it’s funny that when Dawkins points to the common ancestor, he is pointing to a blue line that splits into two blue lines.

we don’t know what that was that used to exist 6 million years ago that split into us and chimps, but for sure there was something there! for now, we’ll just point to this blue line that divides.



report abuse
 

    LRA

    posted February 3, 2011 at 10:55 am


    So your complaint is about the simplified graphic or the science? Because the science does have quite a few human ancestors figured out, FYI.



    report abuse
     

    Sbuxjosh

    posted February 3, 2011 at 11:59 am


    If your are implying that the science behind the common ancestor is only speculative. Then you are unbelievably ignorant. Go do some research for gods sake.



    report abuse
     

      bryan

      posted February 3, 2011 at 6:33 pm


      haha. hey josh, maybe cut back on the starbucks a bit. good grief.



      report abuse
       

        sbuxjosh

        posted February 4, 2011 at 12:05 am


        I’m sorry man. I can’t be kind about this. Teachers are having a hard enough time teaching evolution in schools because of religious dogma. We need to combat this ignorance not perpetuate it.



        report abuse
         

Tim

posted February 3, 2011 at 11:09 am


But my question is: Where does the cartoon classic “Grape Ape” come into play? In my opinion, he is one of the greatest apes ever!!



report abuse
 

Ian

posted February 4, 2011 at 9:04 am


The funniest thing, in my opinion, is just looking at the chart and seeing how humans stick out like a sore thumb haha



report abuse
 

JamesW

posted February 5, 2011 at 10:57 pm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukEFBly4UKE

Evolutionary theory says the dumb ones don’t live to reproduce, but that would mean our population would just get smarter, no?

Note that i don’t give a flip about evolution; just looking for an excuse to post this clip.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Needs New PR. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 10:19:20am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

A Baptist mom meets the Black Eyed Peas…
Aw… my mom dances like that, too. A Baptist mom meets the Black Eyed Peas… is a post from: Jesus Needs New PR

posted 11:21:43am Dec. 30, 2011 | read full post »

Pat Robertson blasts SNL over Jesus, Tebow skit!
Hmm. SNL has poked fun with Jesus before… Chances are, Pat wouldn’t have said anything about this skit had it not been poking fun at Tebow… SNL has used “Jesus” in skits many many times. There seems to be a double standard among some Christians when the religious sati

posted 9:16:03am Dec. 22, 2011 | read full post »

Pirates, bubbles, and Jesus
Merry Christmas… Pirates, bubbles, and Jesus is a post from: Jesus Needs New PR

posted 9:02:42am Dec. 22, 2011 | read full post »

Bad nativity…
@gveitinger Bad nativity… is a post from: Jesus Needs New PR

posted 8:18:59pm Dec. 21, 2011 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.