Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Adam, Eve and Huckabee


Mike Huckabee walks the walk of his religious convictions. (AP).

Mike Huckabee has emerged as perhaps the most fascinating figure on the campaign trail this side of Elizabeth Kucinich. He's affable, funny, plays rock guitar, pardoned Keith Richards (name ONE thing that any other candidate has done that's as cool as that), has completely cornered the Jenny Craig/Weight Watchers vote, and is running as a rock-solid conservative even as his governing record leads some folks call him a liberal.

He's also a Southern Baptist preacher, and believes, he says, in Adam and Eve.

Huckabee's literal reading of the Book of Genesis came up yet again the other night on Bill O'Reilly's show. O'Reilly pressed him to explain why he has said, in various forums, that he doesn't believe in evolution as taught by modern science (for example, after evolution came up in a debate earlier this year, Huckabee said in a conference call with reporters, "If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, that's fine. I'll accept that. I just don't happen to think that I did").

O'REILLY: Do you believe in Adam and Eve? Do you think Adam and Eve were around?

HUCKABEE: Yes. I think they were a real person, Adam and Eve. I have no reason to doubt that.

O'REILLY: But so you believe that God just said, OK, here is the man, I'm going to take his rib, and there is Eve. And then everybody evolved from there.

HUCKABEE: As I said that night with Wolf Blitzer, I do not know how he did it. Honestly don't know how long it took. Wasn't there. I could not give you the details. But I just believe he did it. And so, you know, if it turns out that I am wrong, I have lost nothing. If it turns out I'm right, it is a good thing.

Huckabee left open the possibility that the six days of Creation were metaphorical, and might have represented six billion years. So he's not literally a biblical literalist. In these theological discussions he often takes a step back and says he doesn't know precisely what happened. His central argument is that evolutionary theory describes human beings as a random, accidental development, whereas he believes that God created humans. He has said that school kids should be taught "that there are views that are different than evolution."

Does any of this matter? Huckabee argues that it doesn't: He has groused about the evolution questions and says he's not going to be writing anyone's 8th grade science curriculum if he's elected president.

One of The Trail's readers posted a comment the other day about the Dennis Kucinich UFO encounter, saying, in essence, why is that any weirder than the supernatural events that are described in the Bible and are central to Christian faith? (The commenter put it more colorfully.) But it's no mystery: Christianity is mainstream in America, whereas atheism or UFOlogy or even Mormonism is not. Christian candidates don't have to explain themselves -- unless, like Huckabee, they get too far into Adam-and-Eve territory.

The Founders, many of whom (Washington and Jefferson come to mind) were deists who didn't think God paid attention to the fall of every sparrow, and who considered themselves very much members of the Enlightenment, might be surprised at the resilience of religious fundamentalism. But for Huckabee, being a Southern Baptist preacher ensures him a solid base of support, which is arguably all he needs at this point and may help explain why, even though he's barely raised two nickels, he's at double-digits in the polls in Iowa.

His biblical literalism would presumably be a harder sell in a general election. I'm guessing that many swing voters have a pagan streak. (And swingers don't like to be told what to believe; preachers have to tread softly.) Huckabee will argue that his public policies are more important than his religious beliefs, but some voters may think along the lines of Bill Maher:

"But why shouldn't it be part of a political discussion," Maher said to Huckabee in an interview this summer. "If someone believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old, when every scientist in the world knows it's billions of years old, why shouldn't I take that into account when I'm assessing the rationality of someone I'm going to put in the highest office in the land?"

--Joel Achenbach

By Post Editor  |  November 2, 2007; 9:00 AM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Joel's Two Cents  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Missouri's Bond Backs Giuliani
Next: Don't Forget Your Day Job

Comments

Those interested in science are not afraid to look at information from all sides of an issue, any scientist will tell you that. Science requires much observation, so to anyone who simply denounces ID, I'd challenge you to read Darwins Black Box for starters. Then perhaps really delve into reading some things from www.answersingenesis.com. What have you got to lose? If the findings are clearly faulty, you will have more fuel to your fire. But believing what others tell you without really looking into it yourself is foolish. We may base our entire lives thinking one way when all the time we were being misled. It is a shame. There are many times in our history that what the loudest voices (or seeming majority) were pandering was false or just plain wrong. Look at William Wilberforce for an example.

If the earth were any closer to the sun, we would burn up, if it were any further, we'd freeze. How is it that no 2 snowflakes are the same? Or that every human being has a unique fingerprint? If you leave an apple on the counter left to it's own devices, it will decay. As will anything over time. Time in and of itself does not increase quality. Life decays over time. Evolution was born out of desire to explain the world around us leaving God out. Just take some time to look into the issue reading what some Creation Scientists say--what have you got to lose?

Posted by: jjwolls | December 6, 2007 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Remember, he helped parole a rapist...he increased taxes, he wanted to give scholarships to illegal aliens (which deprives legal US citizens of the same scholarships)...

He would NOT eliminate sales tax on FOOD!

He believes in big government spending. Huck is not the friend of the small government conservative.

Learn the facts.

Posted by: fuhriman | November 30, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Bob,

The April issue of Commentary magazine features the article "A Scientific Scandal" (not available online) by David Berlinski.

Posted by: plthompson1 | November 5, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone have any idea what article plthompson was referring to here:
---
"... David Berlinki's latest in this month's issue of Commentary is a damning indictment of the increasingly shrill and tiresome Richard Dawkins. ..."

plthompson | November 2, 2007 04:48 PM
---

I don't see any indication that David Berlinski (note spelling) has written anything in Commentary since June. Is plthompson referring to someone else?

Posted by: bobsewell | November 5, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

jmiller: right. Intangibles/immaterial concepts cannot come from something purely materialist. So no God means no right/wrong, good/bad, truth/lies.
And then it all falls apart. Even writers who try to make up a world without God end up using "God's stuff" as the driving force for the protagonist (joy, love, etc). So you're right on. And so is Huckabee.:-) He's got a smart head on his shoulders...

-----
Like Mike? Sign the Huckabee Petition!!!
http://www.iwouldvoteforhuckabee.com

Posted by: iwouldvoteforhuckabee | November 5, 2007 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Anyone interested in how Hucakabee is face-to-face (and he's pretty loose) might enjoy this column.

http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/02/title_14

Posted by: lanefiller | November 4, 2007 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Where did feelings come from? Did they evolve? Where did the mind come from? Not the brain, but the mind? What about emotions and thoughts? Are they just biological processes. If that is the case then love is actually nothing and romance is rather non-existent. And what about numbers? Did they evolve. If you believe in numbers then show me the physical evidence for a number. Not as a physical representation either. Numbers cannot be explained unless someone guesses that they came from chance(they just evolved out of nowhere), which has yet to be explained. Anyways, so why do people give Huckabee such a hard time abut his religious beliefs. Have any of you checked out the other candidates. Obama was a Muslim at one point, Romeny-mormon, etc. Huckabee is an honest politician, a rare breed, who firmly beliefs in his convictions. He is open-minded however and will not let his religious convictions interfere with his leadership.

Posted by: jmiller | November 4, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Every President that we have had in recent history has professed faith in God, so why is what Huckabee believes any different. 80% of the American people describe themselves as Christian, so whats the problem?? We really should be taking a look at the religion of Mormonism or examining the other candidates lack of faith..

Posted by: Barry2 | November 4, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Thanks noahkohn,

You apparently know very little except hate.
I guess that's what it will take these days?

Posted by: plthompson1 | November 4, 2007 8:13 AM | Report abuse

freckledace412 provides a nice definition of "theory."
Unfortunately, I think those who support ID require concrete examples, as they clearly show difficulty in grasping abstractions:

George Bush falling on his @ss would be a fine example of the "theory" of gravity at work.

Posted by: noahkohn | November 3, 2007 10:29 PM | Report abuse

People can believe in both 'intelligent design' and evolution. I believe Huckabee has made reference to this.

Posted by: jannylynn | November 3, 2007 10:20 PM | Report abuse

The gain evolutionists made 100 years ago has become outdated. For BILL Maher, that giant of evolutionary understanding to question anyone on science speaks volumes about the rhetoric associated with this discussion. Their has been a view that started with the "victory" at the Scopes Monkey trial that scientist are infallible. To speak against them is ex cathedra. In hindsight we have been able to "dig up" some evidence of our own ALA "the Piltdown man" and may other cases proving that the champions of evotionary science do not come to the table without their own set agendas, preconceived notions, and outright fraudulant activities to support their "scientific" house of cards. The idea of "Macro evolution" change from one species to another(as opposed to micro-evolution-changes WITHIN a species) causes futher confusion in the discussion. The former remains unsubstantiated and it is why we talk about the "MISSING" link. The THEORY of evolution then requires just as much faith as intelligent design and they should BOTH be given airtime (or not) to our Public school students.The Evolutionists seem more afraid of this than the people who originally opposed evolution before the original Scopes Monkey trial. Why I wonder? Could it be that evolution is a sacred bedrock to the Atheistic faith's idea that there is no God or higher power. We know now that there were discoveries resulting from digs in the 19th century that were used as to bring about new religions. Evolution is one..ask Mitt Romney about the other.

Posted by: timkklly747 | November 3, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Actually, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena" (WordNet Search - 3.0), such as evolution. It's not just some random idea that somebody thought up that might explain how something works.
A hypothesis is "a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena" (same citation), which upon extensive peer-reviewed scientific testing MAY become accepted as a theory.
In casual use, "theory" is often used in place of "hypothesis" but they are really two very different things.

Posted by: freckleface412 | November 3, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lanefiller | November 3, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

False Statements About Genesis

No one else, presently walking on this Earth, is an expert on Genesis. There is no "close second". Do not even listen to anyone else trying to expound what Genesis is saying, or what "creationism" is, for they do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance. Anyone else speaking about "what Genesis says", or comparing it to evolution should be considered unqualified to speak on the subject, no matter how many credentials it seems they have. There is no "creation account" in Genesis. There is no such thing as a "creation/evolution" contest. It is "evolution" verses the "Observations of Moses", shown to him by God in 1598 BC, in biblical order, as revealed by the Living Word in the Gospels.

The world of theology (and creationism) has never understood Genesis, so of course they would not have told us the truth, since they never did their "homework". Each day in Genesis, from Gen. 1:2 thru 2:3 was a 24-hr day , shown to Moses, taken from seven different weeks (1 day from Creation Week, 6 days from 6 restoration weeks), and each (first) week was from a different geologic age. The seven days conveyed to Moses were not linear.

Genesis chapter two covers about a 200 yr period, starting in about 7200 BC, and has nothing to do with chapter one. There was no "evolution". The 600+ million year fossil record shows that there was Creation, followed by escalating extinction, then six periods of restorations, with five more extinction events in between, ending each era of life. With the third era of mankind (the second restoration), God "redesigned" mankind to be in His image, after His likeness, in about 64 Million BC.

If you have comments, issues, or questions, direct them to me (ephraim7@aol.com), or read the book "Moses Didn't Write About Creation!", now in print. Have I made myself clear?

Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
Ephraim7@aol.com

Posted by: ephraim7 | November 3, 2007 5:02 AM | Report abuse

If Mike Huckabee was voted in the top five governors by Time magazine, it shows his faith and his politics complement his results in governing. He has the most experience for being a president, and it appears God's favor to be able to go so far on so little!

Posted by: cyancie | November 2, 2007 8:17 PM | Report abuse

First of all, Huckabee has said clearly several times that his views on evolution/creation have nothing to do with how he will govern. Was that an issue in Arkansas?? It is a red herring.

Regarding, the issues origins, evolution/intelligent design/creation fall under origins science. None of them can be proven conclusively. Saying evolution is scientific fact doesn't make it so.

What can be shown to be scientific fact, are things that are: 1) observable, 2) testable, and 3) repeatable. Gravity, silicon chips, etc are all examples of operational science and the Christian faith is not at odds with operational science. Saying that the Bible is contrary to science doesn't make it so. Newton, Faraday, and many others are examples of creationists who have contributed significantly to science.

The real conflict is between belief systems - naturalism (the foundation of evolution) and Christianity. Those that believe in evolution don't want to admit that their belief is not based on science alone but has at its foundation naturalism, which is a presupposition that is unproven and unprovable.

Posted by: keneikirk | November 2, 2007 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I like Mike Huckbee as an individule. I think he an honest, well-meaning patriot. He may even make a decent politician. I do have a big problem with him if he chooses to inflick his religious beliefs into the government that affects my life. I'm sick to death of people representing beliefs as facts. Keep them in your church and home where they belong. There are enough humanistic and moral reasons to do the right things for the well-being of all in this country without bringing a "god" into the equation. I promise will not be hostile to your religion if you promise to keep it "your" religion.

Posted by: tjfrmla | November 2, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Also...in regards to your proof...I found this.....

Guilty of intellectual dishonesty? David Berlinki's latest in this month's issue of Commentary is a damning indictment of the increasingly shrill and tiresome Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins has made a great show of claiming that a 1994 paper by biologists Suzanne Pelger and Dan-Erik Nilsson used a computer simulation to reveal how purely natural selection could account for the evolution of the eye.

According to Berlinski, a mathematician and author of several excellent science books, no such simulation was ever conducted. The authors' paper cites none, Nilsson actually said so to Berlinksi, and yet their paper has been mentioned repeatedly over the years as a "defining" proof of Darwin's theory.


Posted by: plthompson1 | November 2, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,

In my opinion, anyone without atheist blinders on wouldn't act as if science is the only source for understanding ourselves. From what I've studied there are many problems and the "Unknowable" is vastly increasing. Look at Bell's Theorem in what appears as a conciousness in space or virtual particles that appear to go into other dimensions. Again, evolution is a failed theory...there have been many others in 'science', it and it's atheist ideology doesn't have long before the sham is up.

Posted by: plthompson1 | November 2, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

There's no such thing as irreducible complexity. That's the argument from incredulity: "I can't imagine how this could have evolved, so it must not have evolved!" Just because you can't believe it, based on what you personally know, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The eye was regularly given as evidence against evolution. What use is half an eye? As it turns out, half an eye is far better than no eye at all. Evolutionary biologists have determined how the eye evolved. Most notably, Dan-Erik Nilsson and Susanne Pelger built a simulator in which an eye evolved within a million years, using very conservative rates of mutation and natural selection. It's not an issue.

But if it makes you feel better, assume that the problem is solved by magic, like every other aspect of life on Earth.

Posted by: Blarg | November 2, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,

There is lots of problems with evolution, irreducible complexity is just one. We also have trees and entire forests that have been perserved in vertical positions in geological stratas, etc, etc. Evolution is a failed theory that if it weren't to inconvenience the atheist, would have been scraped by true science along time ago. But since you know how evolution doesn't require faith,t I'd just like your take on
how irreducible complexity is so easily answered in the evolutionist ideology.

Posted by: plthompson1 | November 2, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Could you phrase that in the form of a question? I'm not sure what I'm answering.

Posted by: Blarg | November 2, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Blarg...irreducible complexity...answer please?

Posted by: plthompson1 | November 2, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Really, Jenny? Evolution requires more faith than belief in Biblical creationism?

On one side, you have the "theory" that all life on Earth suddenly magically appeared, out of nowhere, because a supernatural being willed it to. There is no evidence that supports creationism. And it has no explanatory power; things are the way they are because that's how God wanted it, end of story.

On the other side, you have the theory that life originated as a competition between self-replicating molecules, which gradually grew more complex using the well-understood and well-demonstrated principle of survival of the fittest. Evolution can be used to explain the variety of life on Earth, the strange and often sub-optimal structure of that life, and the interactions between it.

Which one of those requires more faith again?

Posted by: Blarg | November 2, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

This, for me, is a very interesting discussion. Since we are speaking of facts, the FACT is that both camps (ID and Evolutionists) require faith to believe what they do. Evolution requires the same if not a greater amount of faith as does the belief that God created our Universe. The FACT is that according to a scientific definition, there is NO scientific data to support either one. That's why Evolution is called a Theory...because it can't be scientifically proven over and over.

So as to not "dance on the head of a pin"...

This debate between Evolution and Creation will continue until the end of time. So what I believe is paramount and at the heart of this discussion are the underlying implications a President has in order to accept either Evolution or Creation. While the belief in evolution or creation may not directly impact the President's ability to lead the country effectively, I would ascertain that his underlying assumptions about mankind do! How do the acceptance and/or rejection of either view affect one's beliefs and world view? Well, for starters, if you believe in creation as told in the Bibe, you believe in a God who created the Heavens and the Earth, in morality defined in God's Word and willingly subject yourself to His laws of good and evil. Most importantly, you have purpose, a plan, and love! Without God, you have none of that. You have matter & species that have evolved over millions of years, and truly, life is about survival. There is no sanctity of life, and certainly no morality (as evidenced by the animal kingdom). If all this has just evolved, then why should it matter whether one lives or dies? Life and death just become part of the evolution process.

Therefore, because Gov. Huckabee has put his faith in the God of the Bible who created human beings (yes, even Adam & Eve), he will be able to offer leadership that promotes the goodwill and prosperity of mankind for America and the world.

I will vote for Mike Huckabee because I believe I can trust him to put the interests and needs of we the people before himself. He values all of our lives...not just the existence of himself as a "dominate species".

Posted by: jlolo | November 2, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

It seems the big problem is that government is in the teaching business. Religous people want their views taught and nonreligious want science taught. Get the government out of teaching. Let the people teach their own kids and you can save billions of dollars getting out of the teaching business. Sell off all the school properties and drop all taxes. Then all the kids would have something in common with George Bush, they would talk and think like a dummy too!

Posted by: info4 | November 2, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Why does the conversation about Mike Huckabee sometimes get off track - like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of pin?

He has a track record. You can see how he governed in Arkansas. He doesn't want to be Governor so he can convert you to his belief. But if you are looking for a reason not to support him, I guess you can use his faith as a reason as well as any other.

By the way, you might be surprised how many professional people you encounter - including doctors, lawyers, physicists, etc. believe in Intelligent Design. They live their faith. They don't beat you over the head with it or deny you service because you don't.

Posted by: Nanellen | November 2, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I have the utmost respect for Mike Huckabee, for being truthful about his beliefs. I highly doubt that any of the other candidates who claim to be Christian (actually, they all do) would have answered the questions so honestly. I think there would've been some major pandering/eluding in response to the questions. I would've much rather O'Reilly focused on real issues, however, as I think Huckabee is right on the money on several issues concerning us in the working class of America.

Posted by: eludeu | November 2, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

To CapHillResident - 'facts'???

Posted by: plthompson1 | November 2, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Using Ben Franklin as an example of the religious foundations of this country is hilarious. Franklin was devoutly anti-religion until the very end of his life.

I think Mike Huckabee is the most likable Republican candidate, but his belief in intelligent design is an absolute deal-breaker for me. We've had six years of a faith-based administration and it has been disastorous. I can't vote for someone who puts faith over facts, there's too much at stake.

Posted by: CapHillResident | November 2, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

And the rest of us....suffer the fools!

Posted by: plthompson1 | November 2, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Evolution is not full-proof or finely tuned, but it is a much more logical explanation than any sort of intelligent design theory based on religion and not science.

So while I may not be able to prove to you that evolution exists or existed, I believe the science behind it is much more legit than any ID theory.

Posted by: thegribbler1 | November 2, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

thegribbler1 said, "While I think anyone who believes in 'intelligent design' over evolution doesn't have their head on straight..."

So evolution randomly put your head on straight? What are the chances of that (literally)?

Given your submission that people that believe in ID are "backwards" what is your explanation of a universe that is so extremely fine tuned?

Posted by: xian.sc | November 2, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Franklin wasn't a diest...his quote says that he is more convinced "That God governs in the affairs of men"....besides...even diest acknowledge God...what's the big deal with everyone trying to convince others that everyone is a diest? If you look at all 50 states Constitutions...they refer to God. Early education used Scripture and we didn't remove it until recently when prayer was removed from public education.

There is to be no 'State' religion...but we are to 'Secure the Blessing of Liberty' and none of the framers thought that that Blessing was going to come from a document.

Posted by: plthompson1 | November 2, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

nice quote mining rmelchert.

Given that Franklin was a Deist and a vociferous critic of organize religion, who denied the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity, we can be rest assured that if today's brand of fundamentalist Christians existed back then, they would have denounced Franklin as anti-Christian, immoral (he was a notorious adulterer and sired a number of bastards) and protested high-and-low his inclusion the Continental Congress, his ambassadorship to France, and his participation in the Constitutional Convention.

Had Democrats existed back then, they would have sacked him for fear of offending "religious" voters.

Posted by: djmagaro | November 2, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I am sorry, I apparently forgot to add the link in my last post

http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_creationsci/

Posted by: stephenmurray | November 2, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps Bill Maher and those agreeing with his estimation "every scientist in the world knows it's billions of years old" should go to for two extensive lists of P.HD.s in both physical & biological sciences who disagree with that theory.

Posted by: stephenmurray | November 2, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

To my horror we have allowed a State Church, The Church of the Human Secularist to dictate to us what we are allowed to believe. Bigoted Science is their tool of choice and a 'proven' 'fossil record' is their 'fact'. It is a shame, beyond words of the dangerous 'experiment' those that don't believe in God are playing with the potential of other humans. I pray that individuals will look at all the evidence for themselves and make up their own minds of what is the way to Truth.

The arrogant, highbrow, elitist antitheist only have a little bit of time left to pull their sham on others....please don't be fooled much longer...look for yourselves.

I'm glad that Huckabee has brought this to the forefront....Go Huck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: plthompson1 | November 2, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

"I've lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: That God governs in the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We've been assured in the sacred writings that unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Posted by: rmelchert | November 2, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

There was a time in this country that standing up for your beliefs was considered important. Governor Huckabee could take the easy way out and tell everyone what they want to hear. However, the Governor will not compromise his beliefs and good for him.
We need a honest man in the White House after eight years of being lied to by this administration. Governor Huckabee would make a very good President and the most honest candidate in the Republican field along with Ron Paul. If the governor cannot win the administration, then the GOP nominee needs to take a good, hard look at the positives Huckabee brings to the ticktet as a VP.

Posted by: rogden71 | November 2, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

While I think anyone who believes in 'intelligent design' over evolution doesn't have their head on straight, I can at least respect Huckabee for trying to keep it exactly what it is: a personal belief. I can live with Huckabee believing his somewhat literal interpretation of the bible, so long as he's not trying to replace his ideas in the science books.

Posted by: thegribbler1 | November 2, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company