Ben Carson says Darwin was ‘encouraged’ by [satan] and that evolution is a fairy tale
Posted by John Reed on
I endorsed Ben Carson recently, which I never do. But I just heard Richard Dawkins speak yesterday. He debated Carson on God once. He said that Carson believes the universe is 5,000 or 6,000 years old and that Satan affected Darwin when he wrote Origin of the Species.
I tried to confirm that Carson said those things on the Net. The web sites saying that generally seemed to be liberal. Although some had his own words in YouTubes.
He scoffed at the Big Bang Theory. I don’t believe he used the word Satan. Rather, he said “adversary,” which may be a Seventh Day Adventist word for Satan. I don’t know.
Arguably, all political candidates in the U.S. are creationists because they all claim to be Christians. But I think most are actually atheists who just claim to be Christians to get votes or avoid losing votes. But one of the attractions of Carson was he seemed NOT to be a politician. Another was that he as a scientist. If he truly believes in talking snakes and that the age of the universe is only 5,000 or 6,000 years, that’s scary. I am surprised he was not asked about it when he spoke in San Francisco.
I said my endorsement of Carson was not in concrete. Pending clarification of his views on the age of the earth and whether Darwin was affected by Satan, I withdraw the endorsement.
I think creationism versus evolution should be a question for each candidate in both the Republican and Democrat debates. It would be humorous to see every single one of them take a loyalty oath to the talking-snake theory, and it would sort of blunt these attacks on Carson. But my God, there’s one guy up there on the stage who is not lying—Carson. His really believing such aboriginal explanations of the universe and life, if he does, is appalling.
A former Seventh Day Adventist reader on Facebook says “adversary” is, indeed, a word for Satan in that religion.
Facebook friend Seth Grenald says,
Most Jewish sects, as well as a bunch of Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church agree with the scientific theories around the Big Bang and evolution, and acknowledge that the first part of Genesis is myth or allegory. Huckabee and Carson are probably the only Young Earth Creationists on the Republican presidential stage.
I think “myth or allegory” are what Carson is saying about evolution. Dawkins, who is a highly regarded scientist, said that evolution is not a mere scientific theory. Rather, it is one of the most well-tested and proven scientific explanations in all of science. One reason is there is all sorts of evidence lying all around on and under the earth’s surface.
Carson says the evolutionists do not understand probability. He said evolution says that if enough hurricanes blow through a junkyard, one will produce a 747 fully loaded with passengers, crew, and fuel ready for takeoff.
Plants and animals reproduce. Each time that happens, the offspring varies slightly from the parents. That’s because if evolution does not change the locks, so to speak, enemies of the species in question like diseases or predatory animals would get better and better at killing the species in question and render them extinct. That is one of the ethical issues with cloning. It can be done, but it does’t change the locks. So a line of clones would die out form lack of resistance to always improving germs.
There are something like seven billion humans on earth. That means hundreds of millions of new babies each year. Each is unique and different from any that came before. Some are better some are worse. When you do that over millions of years, and the better versions displace the worse ones, the species gets stronger and stronger. That is where the probability that Carson dismisses comes in.
Hurricanes do not make 747s. Humans do, the same way monkeys leaned to use stones to break open nuts. Extreme trial and error and recording success and disseminating knowledge—by humans, not monkeys—produces 747s.
Share this post
4 comments
Trump is wrong on trade. Otherwise, he might be a good president.
America seems to think the Constitution says thou shallt not disrespect anything that another person labels as their religion.
Nazi s hate Jews and wanted them all dead. They were condemned and shunned for that.
Muslims hate Jews and want them all dead, but that’s okay because they say it’s their religion.
Someone needs to point out that religions cannot espouse things that are known not to be true and expect the rest of us to all remain silent or to ignore their incorrect beliefs in jobs where the subject matter of the job is covered by their incorrect beliefs.
For example, Muslims can believe that if you die tying to kill non-Muslim residents of say, Peoria, IL, you go to paradise and get 72 virgins—because we cannot prove it’s not true. Dead Muslims tell no tales. Although encouraging murder for any reason is immoral and illegal.
Furthermore, the fact that a few outlier religions interpret the Bible literally like the Muslims with their Koran does not change the fact that certain questions are not open to fairy tale-ization.
Religionists can describe heaven or their relationship with God and other things that have no earthly manifestation, but when they start saying things that are utterly disproven by scientific evidence, intelligent people should say, claiming this is your religious belief does not give you a pass. There was no six-day creation we know because the way the earth reached its present status is well explained by geology, carbon dating, biology, evolution.
Fundamentally, religion must not be allowed to intrude into the real world of non-religious people. The rule is don’t hurt other people or take their stuff and religions do not trump that rule. If Seventh Day Adventists want to say we are all descendants of a woman named Eve who violated a mindless rule set by God (don”t eat that apple) because a talking snake persuaded her to do it, that’s fine for them. But we need to say to those not in that religion that those people believe something that is not true. And we should not put such people in positions of authority where their job descriptions requires that they rely on the best scientific evidence regarding human life.
The law in the U.S. is NOT that we respect all religions including the really stupid ones. It is only that we tolerate their private practices that do not affect us. Another part of the first amendment—free speech—permits us to say to Seventh Day Adventists regarding the “Adversary’s” existence, “You’re an idiot.” When the education of minors or supervision of science-based endeavors is involved, we have a duty to call the kooks out for what they are and to prevent them from taking actions affecting others that are based on disproven “science” of the most backward religions.
Dear John,
Many thanks for the clear endorsement withdrawal. One would think that Dr. Carson, being a Medical Doctor, would subscribe to evolutionary evidence. Oh well, such is the nomination process. Hopefully, another Great Red Hope will arise to put an end to the Reality TV show that is Donald Trump’s Magical Carpet Ride.
There’s a misconception about Ben Carson that he’s a scientist. He’s not. A neurosurgeon is just a type of surgeon specializing in the nervous system. A surgeon is just a type of doctor. They’re mechanics for the body. Diagnosing is the closest they come acting like scientists, but they are not strictly following the scientific method. They are most typically applying known principles to identify known problems. Scientists try to substantiate unproven hypotheses with standard or sometimes new scientific methods.
The media often refers to Carson as a scientist. I believe the confusion lies in similarity of the word “neurosurgery” to “neuroscience,” which is the scientific study of the nervous system; i.e. another ball of wax. Actually, I think neurosurgeons sometimes intentionally ride the linguistic coattails of neuroscience. Carson is not the first to pretend (by not disabusing people of the notion) that he has scientific authority. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon who claims he died and came back from heaven, makes numerous neuro-scientific mistakes in explaining his experience. Sam Harris, who is a neuroscientist, breaks down those mistakes here: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven
Francis Collins, in the debate you mentioned (Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins vs Ben Carson, Francis Collins), is a good example of a real scientist who can compartmentalize his religious belief from the scientific endeavor. Carson, even if he were a scientist, is not.
In my previous comment in your article about the 7 Pillars of Prosperity I said you were borderline atheist. I rest confirmed now. Well problem to me is that atheism ends with an “ism” and if ends in an “ism” chances are it’s a Fanaticism.
That aside; SDA’s are Not Christians; they’re more of a Legalism (“ism” again) Cult. Neither are the JW’s and the Mormons. All 3 groups arise in the US ca. the XIX century, and according to some articles I read years ago, all 3 arise out of a belief in a XVI century Theory called Anglo-Israelism. This one is a long story, but many British are aware of it, I’ve able to confirm that myself with Britons.
The Roman church in which you and I grew up, is a Religion, but Not Christian. The RCC is a Politico-religious Organization with many Financial Interests in this world. All of their practices, everything they do, their Hierarchical system, Dogmas, teachings, etc. fall in what the Scriptures call Idolatry. Idolatry is also called in Scriptures the worship of Demons.
True Christianity on the other hand is all about What and Who Christ is, how and why that affects all He did for us and the World.
As for the 6,000 years ago of Creation, though I believe God Created, I’m sure it was more than 6 or 7 thousands years ago, but NOT “millions”, maybe 12 thousand. See if God is powerful to Create he can do it in one day or in a thousand years. As far as the so called “Evolution” which pretends among other things that thing about the Billions of years. Again if God is powerful enough to Create, he is Powerful enough to “Accelerate” any and all Necessary processes of Created Creation. And Acceleration in Economics, Physics and other Sciences is a well known Fact.
As for man evolving of some ape, the way I see it if “evolutionists” want to believe that, then that’s their “faith” and religion. But by all we see going on in the world, it appears to me a least that is the other way around sometimes. But that would be insulting to all apes. I guess Evolutionists who follow Evolutionism will have to eliminated from their Dictionaries and Vocabulary the word Creature.
Best regards! Thanks again for the Free lessons in Economics and Politics.