Will Albert Mohler Be Tapped by Sarah Palin as One of Her Science Advisors?

With regard to the universe’s appearance of vast age, Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, offers this curious argument:

The universe looks old because the creator made it whole. When he made Adam,  Adam was not a fetus; Adam was a man; he had the appearance of a man. By our understanding that would’ve required time for Adam to get old but not by the sovereign creative power of God. He put Adam in the garden. The garden was not merely seeds; it was a fertile, fecund, mature garden. The Genesis account clearly claims that God creates and makes things whole.

Yes, and the dinosaurs were put in the ground with the appearance of age as well. And the moon has meteor impact craters with rock fragments in them that date to billions of years because they, well, eh, . . . hmm.

Think about what Albert Mohler, as a phenomenon, means. He made it to the top of his organization—the Presidency—in spite of the fact that he believes ludicrous things.

Now think about Sarah Palin. If you think that Sarah Palin can’t take over the Republican Party, and win the presidential nomination, take note. Does anybody really believe that the Republican Party, as currently construed, is more rational than Louisville’s Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?

What makes you think that the Republican Party won’t do this (elect Sarah Palin as its Presidential nominee)? And what makes you think that Sarah Palin won’t then tap people with views like Albert Mohler’s as her science advisors?

As the economy fails to turn around, and the Republican Party becomes ever more beholden to its Albert Mohlers and Sarah Palins, a Sarah Palin presidency with young earth creationist science advisors is becoming ever more plausible, isn’t it?

About Santi Tafarella

I teach writing and literature at Antelope Valley College in California.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Will Albert Mohler Be Tapped by Sarah Palin as One of Her Science Advisors?

  1. andrewclunn says:

    You know, that video really does capture the essence of Sarah Palin. It’s plain spoken, yet rehearsed, attractive, yet intentionally and almost artificially so, and conveys a vague message that could either be interpreted as plain truths or veiled threats depending on your perspective. Uncanny.

  2. santitafarella says:

    Andrew:

    My uncle, in the 1960s, actually starred in a movie with Nancy Sinatra. (A very bad movie: The Last of the Secret Agents. My uncle is Steve Rossi.)

    Anyway, that’s why I’ve followed Nancy Sinatra a bit and picked up on her uncanny resemblance to Palin. I’m kind of surprised nobody in the larger media has made much of it. It seems to me, for example, like Andrew Sullivan bait.

    —Santi

  3. Ed George says:

    And they tell us the Muslims are a threat to national security.

  4. TomH says:

    Is this a troll post or what?

    • santitafarella says:

      TomH:

      Just two degrees of separation, dude: MOHLER + stupid on science + president = PALIN.

      I’m just making links between things in the same way that you hear everyday on talk radio.

      Another example: Karl Marx was a German + Barack Obama ate pizza in Germany recently + Germany is next to France + France has a southern part + that southern part borders Italy + Napoleon grew up along the border of Italy.

      Conclusion: Barack Obama is a commie Napoleon.

      Okay, that one didn’t work very well.

      —Santi

      • andrewclunn says:

        Ooo Ooo, let me try!

        Okay so Donald Berwick thinks that wealth redistribution is a moral imperative. Socialists thinks that wealth redistribution is a moral imperative. Obama just appointed Dr. Berwick to serve as the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Therefore, Obama is a socialist.

        Or am I doing this wrong?

      • santitafarella says:

        Andrew,

        Eh, I think you’ve got the idea.

        —Santi

      • WAAAAAA! Stopstopstop pleeeeaase. I’m about to pee on my pants! :-D:-D:-D:-D:-D

      • Hey, it just have occured to me. This guys who yell “SOCIALISM!” to anything aren’t the same ones who say that darwinism is bad because it is about the survival of the fitest, and that that is not nice? Or have I missed something?

      • andrewclunn says:

        Sorry, didn’t mean to hijack the comments here. But yes Gato, the irony is brain numbing. For some reason the (majority of) the right likes emergence in economics, but not in biology, and the (majority of) the left like central planning in their economics but not in their biology.

        And further more, for being the party that’s supposedly against overreaching government the Republicans sure are united when it comes to voting themselves more power, and despite continuously pushing for more government intervention the Democrats can’t agree enough to get anything passed but half-assed hack jobs even when they have the numbers to do things unilaterally. Don’t try to pretend that US politics makes any sense. It doesn’t.

      • santitafarella says:

        Andrew:

        The irony of dispersed biological wisdom in evolution and the embrace of it in economics by the right (and the opposite on the left) is interesting.

        If anybody has a psychological theory accounting for the curiosity, I’d like to hear it.

        —Santi

      • Andrew

        I don’t know enough about US politics to comment on specifics but I think the irony on the right wing side is bigger, as they (or part of) are the ones claiming that darwinism = social-darwinism = bad thing, without realizing that, well..capitalism is as social-darwinist in itself as possible.
        At left, I think, people oppose capitalism and social-darwinism equaly, they just don’t think you have to be a social-darwinist if you think evolution is true. Anti-evolutionists claim that SD is a consequence of Darwinism, and that’s a reasen to reject evolution. The irony is way much bigger.

        P.S.: I’m not going on the merits of left and/or right wing here

      • andrewclunn says:

        Gato,

        I don’t see capitalism as the realization of social darwinism. Constant war and tribalism is the pure embodiment of social darwinism in my mind, as it’s what we are pretty much evolved for.

  5. andrewclunn says:

    No, this is a troll post:

  6. Ed George says:

    I’m not much of a fan of Obama, primarily because of his post election shape-shifting regarding discriminatory practices withinh the government funded faith-based organizations. Still, I am a bit confused about socialism. Maybe I use the term inaccurately, but are not our public schools, social security, and public welfare systems all basically socialistic?

  7. sirrahc says:

    Re the original post:

    Speaking as a political conservative and an evangelical Christian who generally likes both Palin and Mohler, on this particular issue let me say, “God forbid!”

  8. Gunlord says:

    Genuinely not trollin’ here, but I’m curious, Santi:

    Yes, and the dinosaurs were put in the ground with the appearance of age as well. And the moon has meteor impact craters with rock fragments in them that date to billions of years because they, well, eh, . . . hmm.

    Why, exactly, is this ‘ludicrous?’ It’s essentially the Omphalos hypothesis, if I recall correctly. The belief that the world was created x amount of time ago (whether 6000 years ago or last Thursday) but looks older. In this case, moon craters and dino fossils would just help the verisimilitude.

    I might be worried if a president of a scientific organization (rather than a religious organization) held such beliefs, but I wouldn’t call the proposition ludicrous in and of itself. I mean, the same basic idea has provided the inspiration for a lot of classic sci-fi stories–the Matrix, for instance (the world we live in was created with the appearance of being in the 20th century, we’re actually living in the 23rd). Of all the stupid things a religious person could believe, at least the Omphalos hypothesis is a little imaginative.

    • santitafarella says:

      Gunlord:

      Simply because something is logically possible, does that give it (to your mind) the status of being “not ludicrous”?

      It is logically possible, for example, that some human being over, say, the past 70 thousand years, grew to the height of 13 feet, but it is certainly ludicrous to think that one ever has, or to express any certainty about it ever having occurred.

      Likewise, I think that the Bible literalist’s version of the Omphalos hypothesis—a universe created with the appearance of age—though logically possible, is a ludicrous thing to actually believe, or to base one’s life on (which is what some young earth creationists do with their appearance of age hypothesis).

      For the Omphalos hypothesis to be reasonable to me, and not ludicrous, I would have to have more good reasons for believing it than that it is logically possible. I would ask, for example, for some evidence that God or an outside intelligence had created the world that I am inhabiting, and some coherent reason for why an intelligent being would make such a world as we collectively experience. I would also ask for reasons to doubt the appearance of the earth’s antique age (of which I know of none).

      Also, one’s response to a piece of data can make one ludicrous. For example, it is not ludicrous to believe that there is life on Mars (there may be), but it is ludicrous to devote one’s life to a religion that requires, as one of its central premises, that life exists on Mars, for it may well not. In other words, a disproportionate response of certainty with regard to a hypothesis may also render one’s beliefs (as well as one’s self) ludicrous.

      —Santi

  9. Gunlord says:

    Simply because something is logically possible, does that give it (to your mind) the status of being “not ludicrous”?

    Pretty much, yeah.

    grew to the height of 13 feet, but it is certainly ludicrous to think that one ever has, or to express any certainty about it ever having occurred.

    I wouldn’t express such certainty about it m’self, but lookin at guys like Yao Ming, if someone were to tell me “I am absolutely sure some guy out there in history is or was 13 feet in height,” I wouldn’t call them ludicrous, I’d just shrug my shoulders and say, “Maybe you’re right.”

    For example, it is not ludicrous to believe that there is life on Mars (there may be), but it is ludicrous to devote one’s life to a religion that requires, as one of its central premises, that life exists on Mars, for it may well not. In other words, a disproportionate response of certainty with regard to a hypothesis may also render one’s beliefs (as well as one’s self) ludicrous.

    Again, I wouldn’t devote myself to such a religion, but I wouldn’t call anyone who did ‘ludicrous.’ If the .1 percent chance that life exists on Mars is enough for them, good for them, let them devote as much as they want to it or act as certain as they want about it. No skin off either of our backs, IMO.

  10. santitafarella says:

    Andrew:

    Of course capitalism is social Darwinism. Darwin got to his idea of natural selection via thinking about Malthus and economics! Capitalism is about the accumulation, use and multiplication of capital and resources for the benefit of selfish Genes (and Toms and Marys). It is wisely cooperative at times, and wisely competitive at other times. I wonder if you know of the book, Bionomics. It was written in the 1980s or early 90s and is very good, and makes the biology/economics parallel arguments.

    —Santi

    • andrewclunn says:

      I disagree. Capitalism places unnatural restrictions on the use of force and violence toward the acquisition of one’s goals and desires. Capitalism even requires the idea of ‘contract’ which requires courts and laws against fraud. These are quite artificial institutions that separate Capitalism from s pure social darwinism. I assure you that I am not lacking in time devoted to reading or thought on this topic.

      • Andrew

        It’s not Capitalism that “places unnatural restrictions on the use of force and violence toward the acquisition of one’s goals and desires”. Human societies does. Those “unnatural restrictions” are just the result of human beens trying along History to make the frankin mess that Capitalism a little less massy and more manageable.
        In fact “restrictions on the use of force and viloence toward the acquisition of one’s goals and desires” is a pre-requisite for any stable society, capitalist or not.

      • andrewclunn says:

        Bah, I am not here to try and argue the merits of capitalism! But the more people try to define capitalism as only a complete absence of governance, the more they betray a very obvious left-leaning bias coloring their perspective.

      • I don’t deny my left-leaning bias coloring my perspective, it would be intelectually disonest to do so. To have a left-leaning bias is not a felony here down south anymore you know?
        As well I’m sure you don’t deny your libertarian-leaning coloring your perspective would you? Altough from where I came from I used to associate the word libertarian with extreme-left-wing-anachism, so to read/hear how the word is used in US political context is quite funny. Anyway we also have different meanings for the word ‘liberal’. In Brazil ‘liberals’ are the guys that would be called ‘conservative’ in US, I mean, when economy is concerned. Funny too isn’t it?

  11. santitafarella says:

    Andrew:

    You are presenting capitalism in an idealized and unmessy form. There is nothing, in principle, that requires the practitioners of capitalism to have the moral scruples of Ayn Rand (in terms of respect for contract and decency in dealing). It’s often good for them to do, but there’s a lot that can (and does) go wrong.

    Unregulated capitalism does not always do the right things. The banking crisis, for example, was a crisis of capitalism. It wasn’t a crisis of “we didn’t practice capitalism purely enough.” And it wasn’t that government regulators were watching too closely. There was a crisis because the system was rewarding unethical and fraudulent loans, moving money around without anybody minding the store. The problem was that government regulators were not watching at all, and there was no place for central accountabiity. Capitalism is a Leviathan that will poison the commons if it doesn’t have another Leviathan—government—to keep it honest.

    —Santi

    • andrewclunn says:

      Read my comments again. I think you’re arguing against a straw man here. but regardless, I am not here to defend Capitalism. I am merely attempting to state that a world view founded firmly in social darwinism would lead one to an outlook much more cutthroat than that of Wall Street bankers.

  12. santitafarella says:

    Andrew:

    More cutthroat?

    Oh, you mean like this? (see the 2:00 mark):

    —Santi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s