Why Women Can’t Be Allowed to Drive »« Ryan Promises to Be Anti-Equality

Barton Finds More Non-Existent Parallels

Right Wing Watch is going through David Barton’s new Founder’s Bible, which contains many more of the kind of claims he makes constantly — taking a Bible verse and distorting the hell out of it to make some tenuous connection to something we now know to be true. Did you know that the Bible foretells the use of DNA evidence in criminal cases?

Biblically, the death penalty could not be applied unless there were at least two eyewitnesses to the incident. Circumstantial evidence, even when strong, is not the equivalent of multiple eyewitnesses and therefore does not meet the Biblical standard. Interestingly, however, the Bible long ago acknowledged a specific eyewitness that only in recent decades has become recognized in Americans courts.

Recall the account of Cain’s murder of his brother Abel from Genesis 4:8-10. When God asked Cain where his brother was and Cain lied, God specifically confronted him with the declaration: “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground” (v. 10). Blood cries out? Blood has a voice? How can that be? We now know that DNA has a voice – that it serves as an eyewitness to specific crimes, just as when it cried out to God about Abel’s death. This voice therefore Biblically qualifies as one of the “two or three eyewitnesses” needed to secure the death penalty in a capital crime.

Wow. Seriously, just wow. This man is so utterly dishonest and incapable of clear thinking that it’s just staggering. But remember, this isn’t some obscure preacher saying stupid things — he’s a huge figure on the religious right and a major power broker in the Republican party.

Comments

  1. =8)-DX says

    DNA =/= blood. Picking up a nose-hair and extracting nucleic acid polymers in the lab somehow doesn’t have the same poetic beauty to it as bloodspots ominously shouting from the drenched soil. IMHO.

  2. says

    Barton is right. Because one can examine blood DNA and determine if a death was accidental or malicious, right? Surely, that is determined by the genes!

  3. oranje says

    He’s doing what I used to do in algebra: Finding something like the answer and fudging the equations until there’s something resembling a path there. He already knows the “right” answer, and he’s going to find anything figurative that will fit his literal interpretation.

    And then toss in the word “verbatim” for added fun.

  4. D. C. Sessions says

    he’s a huge figure on the religious right and a major power broker in the Republican party.

    You’re repeating yourself, Ed.

  5. imrryr says

    When there are only two people on the Earth and one dies a bloody death, you don’t exactly need Columbo to come and tell you who the murderer is. Plus, you know, God’s like omnipotent n’ stuff. He can see everything, including the future. He knew Cain was going to kill Abel before He even created the universe.

    “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground” (v. 10). Blood cries out? Blood has a voice? How can that be?

    So, what is a metaphor? Why, it’s a lie from Satan to distract us from the literal truth of the Bible, of course!

  6. hunter says

    oranje @ 3: That’s called “faith-based science” — you start with your conclusion and dig around until you find some evidence that supports it. If you can’t find it, you make it up.

    Notice that he’s doing a little bit (? OK, a lot) of CYA: “We now know that DNA has a voice – that it serves as an eyewitness to specific crimes. . . .” Specific crimes that he doesn’t specify — you have to be prepared to parse his comments like a medieval theologian.

  7. Randomfactor says

    Circumstantial evidence, even when strong, is not the equivalent of multiple eyewitnesses

    No, it isn’t. It’s better and more reliable than eyewitnesses.

  8. Sastra says

    Interesting. This form of apologetic — finding scientific predictions in a holy text — is usually a Muslim specialty. Has Barton been modeling himself after the ‘terrorists?’

  9. thisisaturingtest says

    Barton’s wrong on so many levels here; he can dress up his fancy in figures of speech as much as he wants to (and I think he needs to; if his Bible says eyewitness testimony is stronger, then that’s what he has to see DNA evidence as); but the fact is, DNA, however obtained, is still “only” circumstantial evidence- it requires inference. I put “only” in scare quotes because, regardless of what Barton thinks per his Bible, circumstantial evidence, when properly interpreted, is still much stronger than eyewitness testimony. I’ll take Gil Grissom over David Barton any day.

  10. raven says

    taking a Bible verse and distorting the hell out of it to make some tenuous connection to something we now know to be true.

    This is biblical exegenesis.

    Making the bible say what you want it to say.

    Which is why the bible is just one giant Rorschach inkblot that says anything and everything. It fits in well with the xian god, everyone’s very own sockpuppet.

  11. abear says

    Reading the first bit of the post I was wondering whether Barton’s example would be Yahweh’s forensic angel unit tracking down Onan for the seed spilled on the ground caper.

  12. Chiroptera says

    Circumstantial evidence, even when strong, is not the equivalent of multiple eyewitnesses….

    Actually, even multiple eyewitnesses can kind of suck as evidence goes, too. Strong circumstantial evidence can even contradict the eyewitnesses.

  13. Aliasalpha says

    @imrryr

    When there are only two people on the Earth and one dies a bloody death, you don’t exactly need Columbo to come and tell you who the murderer is.

    Well if there’s only 2 people, one murder victim & colombo is there, chances are he’s the one who did it. If nothing else he’d have to not take the case because of a conflict of interest.

  14. Chiroptera says

    We now know that DNA has a voice….

    Yeah, remember that episode of NCIS when Abby dropped acid* and the DNA spoke to her? Man, that was a great one!

    *Not a real episode.

  15. plutosdad says

    I thought most conservatives were against using DNA in cases? oh wait, that is only when the DNA would clear the name of a black man, in those cases the DNA is not conclusive and the eye witnesses need to be coached to stop saying the man they saw was smaller and of a different race.

  16. plutosdad says

    I think what is actually more significant, is they require multiple witnesses in capital cases, since even thousands of years ago lawmakers realized eye witnesses suck as a source of evidence.

  17. TGAP Dad says

    When are we going to stop paying attention to this obviously fraudulent hack? He continually manufactures assertions to fit an xtian world view and points to his gigantic library of original documents, none of which support his claims. For FSM’s sake, what will it take for the media giants to see that there’s no truth there, and ignore him?

  18. says

    This voice therefore Biblically qualifies as one of the “two or three eyewitnesses” needed to secure the death penalty in a capital crime.

    Wait a minute. Is he saying that we cannot convict anyone of a capital crime without at least two eyewitnesses? I don’t believe this has ever been the case in American jurisprudence. You can be sentenced to death without any eyewitnesses.

    What the heck is he even trying to say here? All the other nonsense aside, it’s not even relevant to American law.

  19. Michael Heath says

    TGAP writes:

    When are we going to stop paying attention to this obviously fraudulent hack? He continually manufactures assertions to fit an xtian world view and points to his gigantic library of original documents, none of which support his claims. For FSM’s sake, what will it take for the media giants to see that there’s no truth there, and ignore him?

    We need the ‘media giants’ to keep him in the spotlight, at least until his work stops having relevance in conservative Christian churches. There’s a whole supply chain focused on this market niche, plus “word of mouth” and other more informal channels can be a very effective method to move propaganda around the country’s churches. His work, the Stein creationist video, and John Hagee’s work are all examples of propaganda moving through these informal marketing channels in a way even more sophisticated than the methods which made Hal Lindsey a star in the 1970s.

  20. josephmccauley says

    Sounds like retro-fitting Nostradamus. If it sells books, then what the heck? Even the History Channel lets this crap slide.

  21. stubby says

    I was flipping through the channels when I came upon Barton on local access. It turned out to be a local church advertising for his awful series.

    “Attend the American Heritage Series by David Barton, Wednesdays at the Community Building in Elbow Lake.Retrace America’s true foundations, discuss the history of today, and recount the root of America’s birth as a free nation.”

Leave a Reply