Orac on Pat Robertson’s threat to Dover, PA. “This sort of absolutist thinking is a hallmark of fundamentalists. There’s no room for rational disagreement. If you don’t agree with the religious position, you have “rejected God,” and are therefore shunned by believers. And just what was it that Michael Behe and all the Discovery Institute drones are always saying that the “intelligent designer”is not necessarily God, that “intelligent design” is not creationism, not a religious concept? Perhaps they had better have a little talk with Pat Roberts [sic]. It would appear that he hasn’t gotten the memo. He’s wandering off the talking points.”


Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

  • SarahW

    Shoot. Well I’m sure you can all figure out the proper subject/verb agreement.



    I am glad they (the voters) did what they did. The whole idea of “ID” in schools are wrong. I have no problem with the teaching of this concept (ID) as long as it is being done in the right place, like a religous place. Our Constitution says we have to have a seperation between the two. It gives everyone in public schools not to have pressure of one type of a religion. I am a open thinker. I believe in Americans United against Church and State.


    I want to see what prople are thinking?

  • athanasiusP

    Dear K,MD, I had to laugh at your rant against “Fundamentalists” and their closed-mindedness when I saw how laden with close-minded, stereotypical bigotry and juvenile name-calling it was. I frankly don’t find ID “drones” any more tiresome than Darwinian atheist “drones”.

  • A Christian Prophet

    Pat Robertson seems stuck in some kind of weird Old Testament belief and does not seem to understand the teaching of Jesus. This does not make him an example of Christian fundamentalists, but simply an example of a man teaching himself not to be foolish … like all of us.

  • Anonymous

    “Our Constitution says we have to have a seperation between the two.”

    Care you cite your source? Actually, don’t bother because there is no such thing in the Constitution. What the Constitution says is:

    ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    The first amendment was intended to keep gov’t out of religion, the other way around.

  • Anonymous

    Three important notes:
    1) Darwinian evolution is not an atheistic stance, it is a scientific fact, based on evidence. Hope you never go to trial in a place where faith is seen as more valid than evidence. “True, we have videotape showing the defendant was in another state, but I believe God told me that he committed the crime.”
    2) Many mainstream Christians are equally disgusted with Intelligent Design, for the same reason s. gave.
    3) If you don’t think church-state separation is a good idea, read up on European history.

  • Anonymous

    Athanasius is right on the money: some of the worst narrow-minded bigotry comes from the supposedly enlightened liberal types. Tolerance is for everyone who agrees with them.

  • Epicurus

    The problem of evil arises from the supposition that a perfectly good god would not have created a world containing evil, or would not permit its continued existence in the world, and that an omniscient and omnipotent god should be able to arrange the world according to his intentions. Since evil manifestly exists, it would seem that a god intends it to exist. Therefore such a god is either not perfectly good, not omniscient, or not omnipotent. With the further premise that if a god exists, it must be perfectly good, omniscient, and omnipotent, one can conclude from the existence of evil that no god exists

  • Anonymous

    To Epicurus:
    But maybe “there’s nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.” If it’s only the human mind that creates good or bad,and therefore does not necessarily exist, your logic won’t hold. If there’s no human mind in the universe will there be evil?
    The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by mere logic. It requires faith to believe in God.

  • Anonymous


    Your theory rest on a fundamentally flawed supposition. According to your theory mankind had/has no responsibility for his own condition. I suggest add in mankinds free will and rework your theory and then see what results you get.

Most Popular