Huckabee Bristles at Creationism Query

Associated Press ^ | LIZ SIDOTI and LIBBY QUAID

[Plutarch]

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist preacher who has surged in Iowa with evangelical Christian support, bristled Tuesday when asked if creationism should be taught in public schools.

Huckabee — who raised his hand at a debate last May when asked which candidates disbelieved the theory of evolution — asked this time why there is such a fascination with his beliefs.

"I believe God created the heavens and the Earth," he said at a news conference with Iowa pastors who murmured, "Amen."

"I wasn't there when he did it, so how he did it, I don't know," Huckabee said.

But he expressed frustration that he is asked about it so often, arguing with the questioner that it ultimately doesn't matter what his personal views are.

"That's an irrelevant question to ask me — I'm happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states," Huckabee said. "Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are."

The former Arkansas governor pointed out he has advocated for broad public school course lists that include the creative arts and math and science. Why, then, he asked, is evolution such a fascination?

In fact, religion seems to be more of an issue in the GOP Iowa caucuses with one month left before the voting.

In recent weeks, Huckabee has moved from the back of the pack in the state to challenge longtime leader Mitt Romney, who would be the first Mormon president.... Christian evangelicals, by many estimates, make up anywhere from 30 percent to 50 percent of Republicans who will attend caucuses...

Earlier Tuesday in Newton, Iowa, Huckabee wouldn't say whether he thought Mormonism — rival Romney's religion — was a cult...

[JohnnyM]

I bookmarked that link, since there was a lot there and will read it when I have time. Thanks for the link.

JM

[AD from SpringBay]

...what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states," Huckabee said. "Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are."

Amen to that.

[Matchett-PI]

When some people think they have it all figured out, wrapped up, and tied with a neat bow, they don’t like to be bothered with questions (or the ramifications) that they (or their gurus) didn’t think of in the first place, so save your breath. :)

[JohnnyM]

It seems I jumped the gun on you and I apologize. Your posts made it seem as if you were criticizing those who believe that the Sun stopped as simpletons who do not know how to read the Bible, but in reality your were critizing those on the other side.

I apologize and hope I did not offend

JM

[Matchett-PI]

You’re welcome. I look forward to your rebuttal.

[Matchett-PI]

Don’t worry, it’s VERY hard to offend me. I still don’t think you understand where I’m coming from, though. I hope you are serious about reading the links in #77 when you get time. (Also my earlier post about inerrancy).

[metmom]

Since it’s within the realm of possibility of what an omnipotent God is capable of doing, I don’t see that it’s unreasonable at all to believe what Scripture states.

And why don’t you believe this?

[JohnnyM]

"I still don’t think you understand where I’m coming from, though"

I think you are right on that.

To clear up my confusion, can you clarify your viewpoint?
Do you view those who do as lacking the tools (i.e. knowledge of languages, etc) to accurately criticize/interpret the text?

I will try and read that link over lunch.

JM

[Non-Sequitur]

Show me the Scripture that states the age of the earth.

Bishop James Ussher wrote what is called the Ussher Chronology which dates the creation as occuring On Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC. In calculating that he used the cronological ages given in Exodus which took him up to Solomon. During the age of Kings from Solomon to the birth of Jesus, Ussher cross-referenced Biblical records with known historical information. He arrived at the Sunday because God rested on the 7th day, and the Jewish Sabbath is Saturday, so creation started on Sunday. He deduced October 23rd because that was the Sunday before the Autumnal Equinox in 4004. Some people claim he also gave 9AM as the beginning of Creation, but in his writings Bishop Ussher never stated a time.

[JohnnyM]

blah... it seems I hacked my post.

It should have read:
To clear up my confusion, can you clarify your viewpoint?
Do you believe those five miracles in your link actually happened or are they allegory?
Do you view those who do as lacking the tools (i.e. knowledge of languages, philosophy, etc) to accurately criticize/interpret the text?

JM

[metmom]

My definition of true can be found in any reputable dictionary. I don’t make up definitions, spam FR with them, pretend that they’re real, and criticize everyone else who doesn’t agree with them.

But since science isn’t about truth anyway, I wouldn’t expect any scientist or evolutionist to recognize it if it hit them over the head, so your confusion is understandable.

[Future Snake Eater]

What is it for nannystaters who wrap themselves in the anointed robe of religion seem to get really upset when you start asking questions?

Because such questions are not intended to allow people to better know the candidate, but simply meant to humiliate or degrade them.

Consider the responses and subsequent spin on them:

"Yes, I believe it should be taught."
"Huckabee is a religious whackjob who wants to create an American Taliban!"

or

"No, I think it should be left to Sunday Schools"
"Huckabee's so-called faith flounders in the election!"

A typical case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." I would get upset, too.

[metmom]

Scripture, chapter and verse, not what some guy thought and calculated based on certain assumptions. I know all about Ussher’s Chronology.

[seekthetruth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP8dBeywqQM :)

[Mariner]

You're absolutely correct.

When a man believes in the power of the state (taxes, spending and morality laws at the Federal level), it's fair to ask just what it IS they believe from a religious perspective.

How would a Baptist preacher do in the general election if he believes in a constitutional ban against abortion and gay marriage...and believes creationism should be taught in the public schools?

Hillary would win in a landslide. Easily 60% of the vote and at least 45 states, possibly all of them.

[Caramelgal]

Thanks for that link. I’m already inclined to vote for Fred as I see him as one of the most consistent and true Conservatives among the current field.

But sadly and very disappointingly, Fred had yet to strike a cord or light a fire among the GOP faithful.

As much as I like and support him, Fred appears tired and not all that committed to the race. I don’t see him as a winner in the long run.

As long as the GOP is dominated by the Evangelical Christians and the so called Value Voters, who disregard the Constitution when it is convenient for their particular theology, all is lost.

What is the difference between a humanistic socialist secularist Nanny Stater and a Christian socialist secularist Nanny Stater?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Millions? You have data or stats to back that up?

Baylor University study: "American Piety in the 21st Century". 15% of Americans identify as Evangelicals. Of those, nearly half (47.8%) believe the Bible is literally true. Then there's the 11% of Catholics and mainline Protestants who believe the Bible is literally true. The study defines literalism as the belief that: "The Bible means exactly what it says; it should be taken literally, word-for-word, on all subjects."

[taxesareforever]

I agree. His answer that he doesn’t know how long it took God to create and how old the earth is, means that he believes in ID and not Creationism. Pretty sad coming from an ordained minister.

[JohnnyM]

ok, I have read that link. I read all the way through the Joshua account. I didnt have time to read the rest, nor are the other events a part of our discussion, so I will focus on that.

The article is mainly about debunking this notion of written, documented evidence that should accompany world changing events/miracles. If the Red Sea parted or the Sun stopped moving, then someone, besides the Israelites, would have written it down. The author does a fantastic job of dealing with this central theme.

So we get to the Joshua account and he seems to believe that these events actually are in reference to the hail storm event. There was a hailstorm, he does not deny that, but he states that the Sun still moved and that the language is most likely referring to the fact that the Sun did not shine as brightly through the overcast clouds and not that it had stopped

"For the sun NOT to be 'energetic' and with 'vigor' would poetically match the scenario quite well; the sun was 'quiet' and subdued as it traversed the sky behind the clouds. In other words, it never broke through the clouds in 'energetic' sunshine until 'the nation had avenged itself on its enemies'"

His argument, like most scholars, hinges on what the definition of 'is' is. In his case, the words damam, amad, and uts. The problem I have with this is how the text is written. If the Sun never actually changed speed or stopped and it was all just an overcast day, why mention the speed of the Sun at all in verse 13. If God simply hid, silenced, or inactivated the Sun, why mention anything about hastening or speed. He uses the cover of poetic language to make up for this discrepancy.

Now, what I dont see is him simply referring to this event as allegory, which was the original discussion. He believes this event happened, but that the language used allows for a more subdued divine intervention, rather than actually stopping/slowing the rotation of the earth.

I dont agree with his assessment and it seems that he is still discounting the stopping of the Sun based on the sheer impossibility and world wide ramifications it would have and has found a convenient "out" in alternate meanings of words.

I go back to the Garden on such things as these. The Serpent's assault on Eve began with "Hath God said...". So when we begin to question what He has said, we can get in big trouble.

Now, I am well aware that this passage was not written in English and is therefore open to the possibility of mis-translation.

But this passage is more consistent using the stop/hasten translation than the inactive/hasten translation.

JM

[JohnnyM]

Couple more things:
1) The writer of the Joshua account treats the event as truly incredible, so much so, that he asks, “Is it not written in the book of Jashar?” as if the story might be too incredible to take at face value. Why would the writer feel the need to corroborate his story if it was just an overcast day? God had assisted many times in Old Testament battles, often by creating hailstorms to rain down on his opponents, but God had never made the sun stand still. The question seems to have been asked because it had never been done before.

2) Also, why insist that the moon be silent/inactive as well. If it was just the Sun being obscured by clouds to help with, as the author suggests, the heat of the day, why ask the moon to do the same. However, it does make perfect sense to ask the moon to stop as well if you do not want the day to progress.

JM