• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ben Carson is a Creationist

Crossbow

Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Joined
Oct 23, 2001
Messages
14,596
Location
Charleston, WV
Ben Carson is a Creationist

During the last debate, I actually developed a bit of respect for Ben Carson after he corrected Trump about how vaccines cause autism. He was one of the few national Republicans that I had seen lately who at least has some public respect for the scientific process.

But alas, Ben Carson has now shown himself to be nothing more than another stupid, idiotic, lying Republican by toting the creationist line.

Our very own ‘Bad Astronomer’ wrote this quite excellent piece about the topic:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/24/ben_carson_anti_science.html

Ben Carson: Evolution Is Satanic and the Big Bang Is a Fairy Tale



I mean that literally. He said, “I personally believe that this theory that Darwin came up with was something that was encouraged by the adversary.” The Adversary is a nickname for the devil; it’s the actual translation of the word “Satan.” So there’s that.

He also dismissed the Big Bang, calling it a “fairy tale.” The irony of this is palpable. When recently called on this claim, he dug in, saying (about people who think the Big Bang is true), “Here’s the key, I then say to them look, ‘I’m not gonna criticize you, you have a lot more faith then I have.’ I couldn’t, I don’t have enough faith to believe that.”

 
Maybe insult comic Donald Trump was right when he called Carson just an OK doctor.
 
My wife (who likes Carson) said "so what? What difference does it make if a President believes in the Big Bang and the theory of evolution or not?" To me, it matters, not because of the questions themselves, but because of what it indicates about someone's approach to answering them. Carson is clearly an intelligent man, capable of reasonable and rational thinking- he is a neurosurgeon, after all. But he's completely walled off that rational, intelligent part of himself on these issues because of his religious faith, since both ideas involve uncomfortable implications for that faith. Do we want a man as President who will simply refuse to think when it's an issue that challenges what he wants to believe?
 
Carson is a loon. He also thinks the country was founded on christianity and we need to go back to our Christian roots. Oh he also made some comment linking healthcare to slavery.

It only took hearing him speak once to dismiss him completely.
 
There's a few game breakers I consider when I go to vote.
One of them is belief in creationism.

Dr. Carson is now off of my list.

Creationism is kind of a litmus test for me too- as I said, not so much for the belief itself, but for what it says about the thought process of someone who's going to be making potentially life-and-death decisions for million of people. Carson's whole selling point is "the guy must be smart! He's a brain surgeon!" What good is that if he's gonna just switch his own brain off when his faith demands it? Then he's no better than your average dumb cluck; you might as well elect Sarah Palin and be done with it.
 
It's a short distance from being a Young Earth Creationist to working for a theocracy. Ted Cruz for one has advocated for this.

I agree that such beliefs in and of themselves do not disqualify one necessarily, because all religious dogma about creation and man's origins is pretty much nonsense. But this view of the world informed by beliefs that are accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted can lead to dismissal of problems such as climate change and to an eventual doomsday view of world affairs, i.e. dominion theology.

I have always viewed so-called "smart" people as either being good at memorization or good at deductive reasoning. Good example of a good memory is Ben Stein. But where logic is concerned, dumb as a box of rocks.
 
Last edited:
Here's an older (2014) interview with him:
In a “Faith & Liberty” interview posted last week, potential GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson discussed his rejection of the theory of evolution, arguing that the science of evolution is a sign of humankind’s arrogance and belief “that they are so smart that if they can’t explain how God did something, then it didn’t happen, which of course means that they’re God. You don’t need a God if you consider yourself capable of explaining everything.”

I would say that, on the contrary, it's arrogance to posit a god and use him to consider yourself capable of explaining everything. And any dummy can do it- how hard is it to say "goddidit"? Such arrogance and deliberate ignorance go ill together.
 
He sounds like a presupposionalist, the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.. First they assume the existence and divinity of a god, then they solve for X. No need to prove god. Almost as goofy as solipsism, but more dangerous. No thanks, Dr. Carson.
 
I'm finding myself quite surprised that any of you didn't know this already. Of course, I read FTB and RightWingWatch, so that probably clued me in. He's not the only one, either.

Soft-spoken loons are perhaps the most dangerous kind.
 
Obama says he is Christian and Christians believe in creation. In fact almost every politician in Congress claims to be Christian, left and right. Don't they all believe in creation?

How many politicians live their lives "as Jesus would"? Zero? Obama believes making this Iran deal is a good idea - now that is scary.
 
Whatever happened to not judging qualifications by religious beliefs? :D
 
Whatever happened to not judging qualifications by religious beliefs? :D

Who said that? Beliefs religious and secular are critical to selection of an elected official. For example, I don't think it would be a good idea to re-elect someone like Kim Davis with her belief that she gets to enforce only those laws she deems worthy of God. She is not being judged on the basis of her being a Baptist or a Pentecostal, just her inability to function in the post.

I think I and others have made the point that governmental law based exclusion of someone based on the simple fact that they are Jewish, Lutheran, Muslim or atheist is what is not allowed by the Constitution. Some have tried to conflate this view with having "a love affair with Islam," which is just sophistry and puerile nonsense in an attempt to deflect the mainstream point of view in favor of an oppressive theocratic agenda.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom