You just can’t make this stuff up! Bill O’Reilly, an educated person, supports the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in our tax payer funded public schools. But then, this is Fox News which plays to those whose seek to impose their Christian theology on those Americans who, like the Founders, don’t believe that religion has any business in the publicly funded square. Obviously, Bill, as a religious person (ROFLMAO!!!), is entitled to his opinion and, based on his interview with atheist Richard Dawkins, it’s a strange one. While the discussion was “fair and balanced” in that O’Reilly took one side of the argument, it was noteworthy in its revelation of O’Reilly’s “Christian” zealotry which, looking at his political views, personal history of unrepentant sexual harassment, lies, voyeurism, and personal attacks, seems hypocritical at best and delusional at worst. Fasten your seatbelts, we’re in for a bumpy ride!!
O’Reilly introduced last week’s interview by describing Richard Dawkins as “a committed atheist whose new book says that evolution should be taught to every child and faith based beliefs, like intelligent design, are hooey.” Bill couldn’t suppress a little sneer at the conclusion of his comment. O’Reilly began by saying how that when they last spoke, he and Dawkins discussed Dawkin’s last book,” The God Delusion” which, according to O’Reilly’s “interpretation,” is based on “atheism is good and those of us who believe are kind of sappy.” Bill showed a part of the interview where he told Dawkins that he “was throwing in with Jesus” because atheists can’t tell him “how it all got here.” After Dawkins said that science is making great progress, O’Reilly said that until they can figure it out, he’s “sticking with Judeo Christian philosophy.” Back to the present with Bill proclaiming that he believes in “creative design” (uh, does he mean “intelligent design?”) and following this up with “I believe in evolution” (are you confused? I was!) “but I think it was overseen by a higher power…because you guys haven’t figured it all out…” (Does Bill realize that “ID” is really repackaged creationism which denies evolution?) Dawkins got in an “oh, snap” moment when he said that is was “a most extraordinary leap of logic to say that because science can’t answer a question, you’re going to throw in your lot with Jesus.” Meanwhile, saccharine and garish pictures of Jesus were played across the screen.) Dawkins said that there is no real evidence “that Jesus did it either while science is actually working on the problem.”Bill claimed that “science doesn’t advance the human condition in any moralistic way and Jesus did” (Oh, really? Polio vaccines and other drugs that alleviate human suffering?) In an astounding and amazing ROFLMAO moment, Bill said that “if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus” (probably not a loofah fan) “that we’d have peace on earth” (pictures of Jesus, including a very Catholic “Sacred Heart” crowned Jesus, in background) “love your brother, everybody love on another…” (WTF? O’Reilly hates his “brother” if he’s liberal, gay, or non-Christian) But then, good Catholic Bill says that he’s “not 100% sure that Jesus is God…” but he “chooses to believe that” (WTF!) After Dawkins referenced Bill’s “muddled” thought process, Bill said he didn’t think his belief system “contradicted science” and that he can point to a “higher power” in his life (more images of Jesus and the cross were shown.) Bill, ever the victim, said that “you guys seem to look down on believers.” (Wonder if Bill has any Jews in his audience and what they think about Jesus’ role in evolution?)
The conversation got really interesting when Dawkins said that the problem “with you guys” is when those who have religious beliefs feel entitled to go into classrooms and tell science teachers what “they can or cannot teach.” He added that a religious belief is defensible it; but it should be left out of the science class. Bill asserted that it’s not fair to leave it out “when the science class is incomplete.” Bill got all excited when he claimed that the gap in theory has to “be explored” and that the Christian view should be “presented.” Dawkins asked Bill to listen and stop shouting. When he said that “just because science has a gap in it, that does not entitle you to turn to any alternatives…” Then, drum roll please, Bill said, “that’s fascism, for you to say that you can’t mention an alternative…men” (no women?) “more brilliant than you believe in a higher power…you insist that you can’t even mention it, that is fascism.” To Dawkins’ protestations, Bill said that the religious angle should be “discussed” in a presentation of “all the alternatives…except for Adam and Eve” (which Bill’s evangelical fans believe in literally)…”there are more believers than non believers.”
Comment: Does Catholic Bill know that the Catholic Church says that intelligent design is “not science and should not be taught in school alongside Darwinism?” Does Bill know that many “men” of science, who believe in evolution, are also believers – one of whom played a major role in the court case which resulted in the defeat of the Dover Pa. ID curriculum? Does Bill know that the director of the Vatican Observatory said this: “Science is and should be seen as “completely neutral” on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results.” Who knows? All I know is that Bill O’Reilly is still a pompous and uninformed ass who talks the talk about loving Jesus – but sure doesn’t walk the walk. Of all the O’Reilly interviews I’ve seen, this one might just be the strangest.
October 19th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Last I checked evolution was a belief and not a fact. Simply because it is the predominate view in the education system doesn't make it right it only mean that this is what they want us to believe. Bill O'reilly is free to state his opinion regardless of his churches view. Above all else the bible teaches the concept of reasoning together not following the norm.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Last I checked, you're probably one of those people who doesn't know what the (scientific) definition of a “theory” is.
Did you know that gravity is a theory? No? I imagine you just think that your imaginary friend is pushing us down with an invisible hand at all times.
As for the bible, if you want to base your life on what a bunch of selectively chosen fictional stories written by random humans hundreds of years ago, please, go ahead. Just don't ask those of us with any intelligence to be forced to listen to your drivel.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Oops. That should be “…hundreds of years ago say,”
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:34 pm
At least you have been brain washed to believe that.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
You know if it wans't for attacks you guys wouldn't know how to respond to another's comment. Ok Here is the definition to the word theory,
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis
now which one do you want to use. .
If you think you can place gravity and evolution on the same definition category then you are sadly mistaken. Gravity is not an unproved assumption, abstract thought or an abstract principles but a well known proven fact in which there is no argument about. Evolution however is absolution not a proven fact buy based on assumptions and theorems, unproven arguments and man made data points to quantify their desired beliefs. This is why there is so much disagreement in the community. There is no written record on the event that the evolutionist claimed happened billions of years ago on theories. For all their arguments and so-called evidence there are some that can counter it with their own findings. Now I know you want believe this because you have fallen for the organized teaching. Why not be an open mind thinker and explore other possibilities. I can appreciate multiple points of view without being threatened.
May peace and blessing be with you.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:42 am
So if there is no evolutions how do Diseases like H1N1 keep getting stronger and stronger? Should'nt they just been the same? how come the strains of flu get stronger then ???
November 10th, 2009 at 1:50 am
It is a little late for this comment, but I cannot help but include it.
1. I live much of what is ascribed to the Nazarene as a personal code of life.
2. But it bothers me when people advocate the teaching of Judeo-Christian doctrine as a science in a school for several reasons, two of which follow below:
a. These two doctrines contradict each other, one tells you to look WITHIN for peace and joy,
while the other tells you to look WITHOUT for peace and joy.
b. No one has yet found a stitch of evidence that a man called Jesus or a man called Moses
ever lived on this earth.
So how are you to teach a doctrine as a science if you cannot even locate it's two main characters in history except inside the doctrine itself.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:52 am
It is a little late for this comment, but I cannot help but include it.
1. I live much of what is ascribed to the Nazarene as a personal code of life.
2. But it bothers me when people advocate the teaching of Judeo-Christian doctrine as a science in a school for several reasons, two of which follow below:
a. These two doctrines contradict each other, one tells you to look WITHIN for peace and joy,
while the other tells you to look WITHOUT for peace and joy.
b. No one has yet found a stitch of evidence that a man called Jesus or a man called Moses
ever lived on this earth.
So how are you to teach a doctrine as a science if you cannot even locate it's two main characters in history except inside the doctrine itself.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:50 am
It is a little late for this comment, but I cannot help but include it.
1. I live much of what is ascribed to the Nazarene as a personal code of life.
2. But it bothers me when people advocate the teaching of Judeo-Christian doctrine as a science in a school for several reasons, two of which follow below:
a. These two doctrines contradict each other, one tells you to look WITHIN for peace and joy,
while the other tells you to look WITHOUT for peace and joy.
b. No one has yet found a stitch of evidence that a man called Jesus or a man called Moses
ever lived on this earth.
So how are you to teach a doctrine as a science if you cannot even locate it's two main characters in history except inside the doctrine itself.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:52 am
It is a little late for this comment, but I cannot help but include it.
1. I live much of what is ascribed to the Nazarene as a personal code of life.
2. But it bothers me when people advocate the teaching of Judeo-Christian doctrine as a science in a school for several reasons, two of which follow below:
a. These two doctrines contradict each other, one tells you to look WITHIN for peace and joy,
while the other tells you to look WITHOUT for peace and joy.
b. No one has yet found a stitch of evidence that a man called Jesus or a man called Moses
ever lived on this earth.
So how are you to teach a doctrine as a science if you cannot even locate it's two main characters in history except inside the doctrine itself.