Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » WARNING!

WARNING!

Filed at 6:47 am under by dcobranchi

Don’t visit Dover, PA in the near future as religious broadcaster Right-wing wacko Pat Robertson seems to be convinced that a disaster is coming:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city,” Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, “The 700 Club.”

“And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there,” he said.

How can anyone listen to him anymore? From praying away hurricanes to Chavez and now ID, every time he opens his mouth he appears to be a raving lunatic.

UPDATE: It gets better:

Pat Robertson responds to media requests regarding previous statements made.

“I was simply stating that our spiritual actions have consequences and it’s high time we started recognizing it. God is tolerant and loving, but we can’t keep sticking our finger in His eye forever. If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin…maybe he can help them.”

And finally, I almost fell for this. I wish I still lived up that way so I could go spend some time and money in Dover in thanks for booting out the 8 board members.

2 Responses to “WARNING!”


Comment by
traci
November 11th, 2005
at 11:31 am

I saw this story on the Fox news ticker but someone had it listed as “ALTERNATIVE” Design.
hahahaha


Comment by
Randy
November 17th, 2005
at 11:16 pm

Yeah – he’s a goofball, isn’t he? But, what about the dogma and hand waving from the church of Darwin? Even the NY Times is starting to catch on… from today’s edition: (Even though the intro re intelligent design is off-base)

“Perhaps in reaction to the various attempts to get notions of “intelligent design” taken seriously in science classrooms the exhibition ends up minimizing scientific questions about the theory as well. “For 150 years,” the wall text states, “the theory of evolution by natural selection has not been seriously challenged by any other scientific explanation.”

But the point would have been even stronger had the museum acknowledged that Darwin’s theory has indeed been subject to scientific modification, and still is. The exhibition does not draw attention to these issues, though Mr. Eldredge’s own biography on the museum’s Web site points out that he was one of the scientists (including Stephen Jay Gould) “challenging Darwin’s premise that evolution occurs gradually,” asserting instead that it occurs in spurts with long periods of stasis. Doesn’t this modify the idea of the “survival of the fittest” in an important way? It would have been worth pointing out, too, why this modification was proposed: the fossil record doesn’t provide the plentiful examples of continuous evolution that Darwin’s theory predicts.

If examples like that – about the evolution of Evolution – had been included with more discussion, one of the crucial aspects of a scientific theory would have been illustrated: that it is subject to change and modification, that the pressures of ever-increasing knowledge have the power to kill off some ideas while permitting others to flourish. Such a theory is continually evolving, rather than eternally comforting – which can itself induce vertigo. ”