Our local evangelical radio station is about to dump a load of tripe on the Twin Cities. I’m going to be tied up in domestic duties for a while, but if anyone else wants to tune in to KKMS (short for Khristian Krap for Mendacious Scoundrels) in about a half hour, here’s the drivel you’ll get to hear:
5:00 Hour – “Understanding the Science of Creation”
Dick Fischer, Founder and President of the Genesis Proclaimed Association joins us to explain some of the scientific facts that support the creation story found in the book of Genesis.
I’m going to try to catch some of it, but 5-6 is family time today. It’s gotta be ripe, though.
Heh. I caught the first bit — this is turning out to be amusing. The guest started out by completely surrendering science to the scientists, saying that he had no problem with an old earth, and that he wasn’t going to argue with evolution. He’s still a loon, though: he claims that the book of Genesis is historically accurate in a literal sense. The DJs sound nonplussed, since he’s one of them, a biblical literalist, but he’s arguing for a different literal interpretation of the Bible.
You can practically hear the sizzle as their brains melt.
I would wonder about advertizing junk like this, except that it points up the religious nature of anti-evolutionism and promotes the weakest (in the public square, that is) version of it.
Somehow I doubt they’re going to come up with much of anything that “supports” Genesis in any but the most tangential way, and will instead trash evolution and earth science, incompetently.
I’d sure like to hear the “main points” brought up, if anyone will bother to do so. I’m not spending any hour on that tripe.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Er, there are two creation stories found in Genesis, and they contradict each other. To complicate matters, each ‘brand’ of bible has its own version of the contents of Genesis.
I hope someone will clarify which of the two creation stories is the correct one, and in which ‘brand’ of the bible it occurs.
Sorry, that should have been: Somehow I doubt they’re going to come up with much of anything that “supports” Genesis in even the most tangential way.
Since, of course, I have never seen any evidence that is more than marginally supportive of creationism, or for that matter, IDCreationism.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I’m going to be tied up in domestic duties for a while
Kinky!
…Sorry, been reading too much Wonkette.
Dick Fischer, haha
I would tune in from here in Sydney, but the radio reception would be upside down, wouldn’t it?
Isn’t the Science of Creation a perfect example of an oxymoron.
I can’t believe I’m actually listening to this online… que ridiculo!
Bah! That shows what you know. Radio waves turn inside-out when they cross the equator.
Marc, for proper reception, shove your antenna tip-first into the ground.
Come to think of it, that’s good advice for any Xian radio anywhere.
Wow, this guy actually said something important:
“Science is self correcting, theology is stuck in tradition”
Ha ha ha, this guy’s an OEC, I think KKMS got punked.
OMG! OMG! OMG! If you haven’t missed it (East Coast) The Simpsons episode on right now (in FL) is about the evo/creo fight in schools!
Okay, now they’re flabbergasted – this guy just said that the flood was not a global flood, you need to download this later PZ, they can’t even get their own facts straight over there.
When you can make up what you want, it’s pretty easy to write a book. But so far…there were people before Adam & Eve and the flood was local. Why build such a big ark and get all those animals?
Hmmm. This guy ain’t the usual run-of-the-mill, that’s for sure. I’ve been stalking around his website, he actually says some things that make sense. And other totally loony things too…
This caller needs to take his meds…scientists don’t read the Bible, so they don’t have all the tools at their disposal. Took him 12 minutes to say that.
Sorry, it just seemed like 12 minutes.
@#17 GBruno —
Yeah, now he’s going on a rambling exegesis about conjecture and archaeological evidence for Genesis, and the use of the name Adam. Or something. He’s really a little…off.
#14: They can’t get their facts straight? What’s this about facts now? I thought we were dealing with paranoid, egomaniacal delusions about the universe revolving around one’s self and a vast conspiracy of everybody who don’t want you to believe it.
Ha ha. They just told him to butt out. Basically.
Their guest doesn’t seem to be getting much air time — they’re letting the callers run out the clock.
I was the last caller from Memphis…never did that before.
I have anecdotal evidence that OEC is often a transitional state between YEC and evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution for practical purposes). Not quite there, but they’re less dismissive of stuff like evidence.
You did a good job! They were squirming to rationalize their specific beliefs.
well, one caller took them to task pretty well just by pointing out that there isn’t any physical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Thanks…and thanks to you, I’ll do so more often.
It sounds like the hosts do not research their guests or the topics. What is this, fly-by-your-seat radio?
It’s remarkable how quickly christianist self-confidence turns into rhetorical writhing about just so that they can hang up on you and quote a verse about how you’re a fool for not doing the only truly reasonable thing anyone can do.
Is there any record of this talk? Can anyone post a link for it?
Yeah, this sounds good. Does that station usual release podcasts?
usually*
Someone please correct my ignorance if you know:
I had always thought that portions of Genesis were intended to be historical accounts, as accurate as the writers of the time understood them. (Which by modern standards means not very accurate at all, of course.)
I once asked a fundie acquaintance of mine about the two different creation stories in Genesis. She had a whopper of an explanation and answered without hesitation: one story is about the creation of “man” and the other is about the creation of “man’s” soul. I terminated the conversation at that point before I burst a blood vessel in my brain…
he had no problem with an old earth, and … he wasn’t going to argue with evolution [but] he claims that the book of Genesis is historically accurate in a literal sense
I am trying very hard not to snark here; I am genuinely curious, and perhaps somebody who listened to this broadcast can help me. Indeed, I’d welcome the intervention of the no-problem-with-old-earth-having, not-arguing-with-evolution but nonetheless literal-historical-accuracy-of-Genesis-claiming speaker himself to answer the following question: Wha’? I mean, wha’ the feckin wha’????!!!
Look, while OECism is, in its totality, just as stoopid as YECism, I will concede that it doesn’t include a specific subcategory of teh stoopid that YECism does contain. And if this guy accepts evolution, then while I still have my differences with him, the whole “evolution” thing would not seem to be one of them. Bur how on earth can he take a non-OEC position, let alone a position that accepts evolution, and at the same time insist on the literal, historical accuracy of Genesis?
Sherlock Holmes liked to say that, once one had eliminated the impossible, then whatever remained, no matter how improbable, was the truth. I must therefore reject the possibility that this man has neither read nor understood (or even thought about) Genesis, for that could not possibly be true. Instead, I must conclude that I am stupid and unsubtle and he is a postmodern genius, indeed very possibly a Frenchman.
amphiox @33
Some portions certainly seem more credible than others. E.g. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. may well be based on actual early tribal leaders. I think the more serious attempt at history is in Joshua, Judges, 1+2 Samuel, 1+2 Kings, 1+2 Chronicles. The extra-biblical Jewish commentaries and traditions may have something to say along these lines. I’m pretty sure, for example, that “Esther” is considered poetry, not history.
(I learned a lot about Esther from “Isaac Asimov’s guide to the Old Testament”, which I highly recommend.)
I’ve never heard “one creation story is about man, the other one is about man’s soul.” The most common spin seems to be that the second story is simply more detailed. And in a different order. That was one of the first things that got me thinking that the Bible is mostly bullshit. Deeper reading only confirmed it.
Here is a video with a phone interview of Dick Fischer and George Murphy (Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Johns Hopkins and Master of Divinities from Wartburg Seminary) that’s rather interesting as well. Both people being interviewed support old earth and evolution as being compatible with religion.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3649597273579114780
Maybe you can get them to discuss frogs.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080521-frog-fossil.html
Frogs are inherently cool, salamanders are inherently cool, circa-300 myo fossil “no-longer-missing” links are *really* inherently cool. I am always impressed when something this small and delicate gets preserved then FOUND (less impressed with it languishing in the Smithsonian for years but better late than never). It’s not like tripping over a sauropod bone.
Ribbit
My guess for the time until the YECchies complain that this creates two more missing links on either side of this about-to-be published one…. 2 days.
YetAnotherKevin (#36):
Asimov’s book is a good one, but in the years since it was published, the historicity of the Samuel—Kings narrative has also pretty much tanked.
And the case for everything before the monarchy is even worse.
You know, that gives me a certain degree of hope. If Creationists find a way to reconcile their interpretation of the Bible with matters of material fact, that would be a huge improvment.
Blake @40/41
Thanks for the links. Is there a good written version of the latest scholarship / archaeology? Something not too scholarly – along the lines of Asimov? Ditto for the new testament?
– Kevin
YetAnotherKevin,
I think some of Bart Ehrman’s books are generally considered good, semi-layman reports on the new testament. I don’t know which one might best suite what you want however.
Check out Ehrman’s interviews here….notice there are more at the bottom of the webpage.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096131
Special miracle for PZ
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSWEL6922420080521
Damn! I can’t get it. Can someone post a pod cast?
JCE:
Unfortunately creationists can’t tell the difference between a frog and a salamander. Harun Yayha’s glossy and weighty tome “Atlas of Creation’ features this picture of a ‘A 280-MILLION-YEAR-OLD FROG FOSSIL’ saying ‘There exists no difference between this frog, alive 280 million years ago, and those of today.’
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_02.php
Even a cursory glance shows that the ‘frog’ fossil has a tail and short hind legs.
‘No difference’ to a Creationist!
No wonder they can’t grasp evolution
How does anyone get out of grade school without being able to tell frogs and salamanders apart? Bet they don’t catch many!
As for the “atlas” reference – makes me hopping mad!
Bur how on earth can he take a non-OEC position, let alone a position that accepts evolution, and at the same time insist on the literal, historical accuracy of Genesis?
I think what we’re looking at here is another person who simply does not know the meaning of “literal.” You know, like the sort of person who’d say, without a trace of cognitive dissonance, “They were literally killing me in that meeting!” You know, like “literal” means “very much” or something.
YetAnotherKevin (#43),
I’ve heard good things about Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, but I haven’t read it myself. His more recent book, God’s Problem, details the multiple inconsistent stories the Bible tells to explain why people suffer. I picked it up on the way home after I had a root canal; between the pain and the medication which blotted out the pain, I can’t tell you too many details, but what I remember was nice.
Earl Doherty has written The Jesus Puzzle, which makes the case that the earliest Christians believed in a savior who was purely spiritual, and who lived and died on a higher, quasi-Platonic plane. It’s an interesting contention and probably worth learning about, although the limited information we have about that period presents formidable obstacles to finding out what people actually believed.
Hector Avalos has two books of special note, Fighting Words and The End of Biblical Studies. In my judgment, the former is more approachable, although the latter pertains more directly to your question.
I should add that preparing an updated edition of Asimov’s Guide to the Bible or Asimov’s Chronology of Science and Discovery is one of my more pleasurable idle fantasies. I don’t see anybody lining up to pay me for editing them, though.
The DJs sound nonplussed, since he’s one of them, a biblical literalist, but he’s arguing for a different literal interpretation of the Bible.
Yah, I got news for those guys. No matter what somebody would have written, there could be a “literal” interpretion for it that may or may not require the application of a special scientifical type “worldview”. I dunno what’s so bleepin hard to understand about that. Shrug!
Comment #9:
“Bah! That shows what you know. Radio waves turn inside-out when they cross the equator.”
Does that mean that we would be hearing it backwards here in Oz?
@#31 Dennis N —
The recorded hour should be posted here eventually, though it isn’t up yet — I think they generally take two or three days to upload each day. (They have busy lives…all that praying isn’t going to happen by itself!)
“…how on earth can he take a non-OEC position, let alone a position that accepts evolution, and at the same time insist on the literal, historical accuracy of Genesis?”
Strange isn’t it? Just another example of cognitive dissonance, I guess.
I have the same problem with this creationist I know (Bill. He he, no they’re all actually family members. They claim to believe in an old earth because they say that the bible is not specific enough when it comes to the exact age of the earth, so they will go with what ever the scientists say.
They then make the exact same argument for Evolution but arrive at the opposite conclusion, saying that the bible doesn’t mention evolution so we we will have to assume that “God did it”.
How can someone believe in an old earth and in creation? And no they don’t go for the “guided by God” evolution. I am still waiting for them to give me some sort of time line for the history of the world. I am really curious as to how they think that works.
I am pretty sure it will be the same completely unsatisfying response I usually get. Something along the lines of, ” Well, we don’t really know. But god made it possible.” It is the same for Noah’s Ark, for the Virgin Birth, the very accuracy of the Bible, and just about everything else.
It is no wonder that as a child (and an adult) I found solace in books. They seemed to be “solid” while everything at home and church (I went 5+ days a week) was so “foggy” or empty and confusing. It is a wonder how difficult it is to understand things that don’t make sense.
On cognitive dissonance, I remember there was a poll in the US on creationist beliefs a while ago that simultaneously found that 60% of Americans believed that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and 50% believed that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago. So at that time at least, you had something like 10% of the population apparently believing that the world was both old and young.
I think the main thing is that most people just don’t really care. They take as given whatever is said, be it from a news article on a new fossil find or their preacher railing against evolution, and it sort of blows on through because it doesn’t have much relevance to their lives.
YetAnotherKevin @ 36
I just finished a first reading of Who Wrote the Bible by Richard E. Friedman. It’s the most thorough reading that I’ve done regarding the Documentary Hypothesis (first briefly encountered in Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus), which explores the various sources and redactors of Old Testament texts.
I’ve never had much invested in knowing Bible lore before and had always shrugged off the contradictions as “those crazy Christian kids gettin’ all funky with their exotic stories and their rock and roll.” Uh, scratch the rock and roll.
It’s fairly easy reading and is chock full of info – good reference. As far as the conflicting/competing story lines, think rival kingdoms and priesthoods, with each trying to advance their agendas, and invading foreign armies. Good times.
I rate the book 4 1/2 Holy Crackers out of five.
It’s a common problem, unfortunately. I remember a municipal budget meeting where the more expensive of two furnaces was described as “bigger and literally beefier.”
Brains turn inside out when you cross the equator so it all works out.
It’s wireless stations that are located on the equator that are the real problem. Which way are those signals?
They traverse in a corkscrew pattern…
It sounds like the hosts do not research their guests or the topics.
Creationists don’t do research.
Why do these idiots always assume it’s the christian creation myth??? Damn it, we should TEACH THE CONTROVERSY – there’s just as much evidence that the Yoruba creation “theory” – namely that Olokun made the earth by pouring sand from a snail’s shell. Or maybe it was the Tibetan Dorje Gyatram who did it with his sceptre, in the library. There are at least 3 theories, with similar evidence, gosh darn!
Don’t you dare ask where the shell came from or who created Olokun, OK? Let’s just not go there.
I remember there was a poll in the US on creationist beliefs a while ago that simultaneously found that 60% of Americans believed that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and 50% believed that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago. So at that time at least, you had something like 10% of the population apparently believing that the world was both old and young.
Or, perhaps (I’m not saying for sure) it shows that 10% of the poll-taking faithful have a much better sense of humor than we give them credit for.
I have a feeling that these radio hosts are going to start requesting that PZ stop plugging their programs.
They do RE-search. “RE” being “Religion Enhanced”. Or maybe “Restricted Epistemology”. Or maybe “Religious Exegesis”.
But then there are the other creation stories in other books — like the one God tells in Job, which has no Adam, no Eve, no Eden . . .
How can either of the stories in Genesis be literally true, when God tells yet a different story?
Their god is such a joker!
August Berkshire is going to be on with our freinds Jeff and Lee this afternoon!
5:00 Hour – “Understanding and Responding to Atheist’s Beliefs”
August Berkshire, President of Minnesota Atheists stops by to explain why he rejects the Christian faith and will take questions from our listeners.
http://www.mnatheists.org
Can somebody please tell me at what time will 5 hours be?
I live in (GMT+1:00) zone, in what zone is this?