Kirk Cameron Anti-Separation Of Church And State

Kirk Cameron violates the separation of church and state by spreading anti-evolution material and Fundamentalist Christian propaganda around while proselytizing on public school grounds. So what's new? Here is part of the article about it:

Kirk Cameron Defends Attack on 'Species'

Posted Friday 25 September 12:30 PM By: PopEater Staff


Former teen idol Kirk Cameron has it out for Charles Darwin, and is making no apologies for his controversial (and mocked, see below) plan to distribute thousands of altered copies of 'The Origin of Species' to college students.

The 'Growing Pains' alum released a video last week announcing that on Nov. 19, he and other Creationist activists will distribute a special 'Species' with a 50-page intro that slams evolution and paints Darwin as both racist and misogynist and explicitly highlights "Adolph Hitler's undeniable connection to the theory." Nov. 21 is the 150th anniversary of the book's original publication.

Cameron tells PEOPLE he is "proud to bring this to people's attention" and hopes his plan will curb the rise of Atheism among college kids. Watch the actor's video, left, and a critics reaction to it, after the jump.

"Atheism has been on the rise for years now, and the Bible of the atheists is 'The Origin of Species'," Cameron says. "We have a situation in our country where young people are entering college with a belief in God and exiting with that faith being stripped and shredded. What we want to do is have student make an informed, educated decision before they chuck their faith."

He backs his beliefs by citing a study that found that in the nation's top schools, a clear majority of Psychology and Biology professors describe themselves as Atheist or Agnostic.

"No wonder Atheism has doubled in the last 20 years among 19-25 year olds," he explains in the video. "An entire generation is being brainwashed by Atheistic Evolution!"

The 50-page intro, written by evangelist author Ray Comfort, will present a "balanced view of Creationism with information from scientists who actually believe God created the universe." Those scientists include Albert Einstein and a host of thinkers whose lives predated 'The Origin of Species,' such as Isaac Newton and Nicolaus Copernicus.

His plan has quickly ruffled feathers among academics, who blast his claims that evolutionary theory is not compatible with Christianity. Cameron's campaign has also been met with spoof videos galore, including a popular rebuttal by YouTube user ZOMGitsCriss, who splices up the original video with counterpoint-by-point arguments. Her 'Origin of Stupidity' has recieved over 4 times more views than Cameron's.

(Read on: Here).

Here is the video in question:

And here is a parody of it:

Stuff Todd Friel Hates

1. The Girls Scouts Of America:

I just caught the tail end of Todd Friel's Wretched on FamilyNet while channel surfing. I only saw maybe 10 minutes of it, but that was enough to last me a whole year.

On this episode, Friel was bitching because The Girl Scouts of America is run by liberals and that they want to teach girls how to be leaders and not the footstools for men. Friel's monolouge sounds condescending, dismissive, and just plain rude.

2. VeggieTales:

On the show, Todd tied this in with VeggieTales. He made the case that:

Sunday school tries to present sanitized Bible stories for kids, so they learn them as cutesy fairy tales rather than stories of an angry and vengeful God, by whom we need to be saved from sin.

The cartoon offers cute little morality plays, also presenting of tidied up versions of Old Testament stories but never really inserting a Veggie Jesus into the action. Instead of salvation through grace, they emphasize things like responsible behavior and doing the right things for good reasons, rather than because the Bible said so.

---The Atheist Experience: Todd Friel does not like VeggieTales

3. Rick Warren:


4. Contemplative Prayer:

5. Rob Bell: blah blah blah: Rob Bell and Todd Friel

6. Glenn Beck:


7. Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton recently proclaimed to Holy Flame Pentecostal Church in Little Rock, "As you know, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, really a Christian conservative." Really? a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage conservative evangelical? Did you know there was such a thing? There is now.

8. Atheists:


9. Non-Fundamentalist Calvinist Christians: “Are You Really a Christian?” by Todd Friel

10. Basically anyone that does not agree with his narrow view of the world: http://www.worldviewtimes.com/bio.php/authorid-2/Todd-Friel, todd friel, Wretched

11. There are plenty of other things---care to add to the ever-growing list?

12. Oh yeah...I almost forgot Todd Friel hates The Shack:

Fundamentalists Never Cease To Be Laughable

Here is a post from Bruce Prescott: on the subject: Mainstream Baptist: Mohler Contemptuous of Islam:

Thursday, May 14, 2009
Mohler Contemptuous of Islam

While the Pope makes a visit to the Middle East trying to defuse conflict between Christians and Muslims, Southern Seminary President Al Mohler fans the flames of conflict with a religiously arrogant and contemptous blog that denounces extending any respect to Islam.

After the arrogant and contemptuous way Mohler and other fundamentalist takeover leaders treated the Mainstream and moderate Baptists in their own denomination, I have exceedingly low expectations for civility from any of them. But, lives are at stake in the Middle East and around the world when people like Mohler persist in fomenting a clash of civilizations.

Mohler would not consider it respectful to him as a person if an Imam had said:

"We can respect Christian people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Christian scholarship in the Roman era and the wonders of Christian art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies that Mohammad was a prophet, insists that he was a demon-possessed pedophile, and encourages soldiers to evangelize millions in occupied lands." (Note: This is a hypothetical quotation, not an actual quotation)

Why would he think that any Muslim feels respected when he says:

We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God's Son, and takes millions of souls captive. (Note: This is an actual quotation)

Frankly, in my experience, I find Muslims more respectful of Christianity than I find Evangelical Christians respectful of Islam. When will Evangelicals learn that it is possible to respectfully disagree?

Posted by Dr. Bruce Prescott at 10:20 AM

I have to agree with Tauratinzwe's comment:

Tauratinzwe said...
What do you expect of Mohler? He's contemptuous of committed christians also if they don't bow down to him.

I must add too that Mohler must also be jealous of Islam's hold on the Middle East via fear and theocracies in certain countries---after all that is Mohler and his cronies' goal to Christianize America by fear and establishing a Calvinazi theocracy here in America. No thanks, I'll pass on a theocratic police state---for we saw how well it worked out in Geneva especially for the Anabaptists and in the Puritan colonies. I'd rather keep America a secular nation where we have the freedom to choose our religious expressions or non-religious expressions without fear of being put to death. I'm not sure if it would get that bad if Mohler and the Religious Right did succeed in establishing a fundamentalist theocracy but some of their statements scarily allude to it especially in their defense of Calvin's atrocities such as:

Calvin’s Persecution

I think the scariest thing Todd says is this about Calvin’s role in the execution of Michael Servetus:

Now, putting the execution aside, which of us has it right, and which of us has it wrong here? Whose attitude — forget the execution — whose attitude is more biblical and more correct? … one is tolerant, the other one is intolerant of heresy. Period. It’s that black and white. So were they wrong or are we wrong?

This is like saying, “Except for the part that is wrong, who is right or wrong?” The issue at point is not whether we should hate heresy. It is whether people should be killed for it. You can’t put that aside. It’s not rational only to discuss the attitude about heresy, since people on both sides are against it. Same with the abortion issue — all of us know that some babies are unwanted, and they’re expensive — but the issue isn’t the reasons for it, it’s the murder part!

Todd also says:

… the government was designed and put in place to make sure that people kept in line. And according to the Bible in Romans 13, God puts governments in place to protect people and to make sure that people follow the rules. So if the government happens to be so closely linked with the church, like it was in Geneva — if one of the rules was blasphemy or correct theology on the Trinity, they must have understood that crime in a much deeper way than we do to have somebody executed for not understanding the Trinity (or for theology).

So time and culture determine what is right and wrong. This is a slippery point to make in this argument. Todd is unwilling to view our current culture through this lens, and especially unwilling to look at the Islamic states this way. If he’s going to defend the Reformers’ persecutions by saying it’s the government’s responsibility to enforce the rules, then I have a new rule for Todd. You’re not allowed to play the Paul Washer clip about the young boy who was shot by the Muslims for refusing to deny Jesus. You can’t have that both ways — either religious persecution is right or it’s wrong. It’s that black and white.

See also: WOTM Transcription 2008-08-22, Hour 1, Defense of Reformers and listen to the clip of Al Mohler's disciple, Todd Friel: here. Imagine the arrogance if this came about today.

Issues With The Talibangelicals

Satire Of Talibangelicals

Here is a picture I first spotted on Exploring Our Matrix: God Hates Figs:
---originally from Street Prophets: Coffee Hour With Pastor Dan.

Here are the verses in total:

Matthew 21:18-20 (New King James Version)

The Fig Tree Withered

18 Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, “Let no fruit grow on you ever again.” Immediately the fig tree withered away.
The Lesson of the Withered Fig Tree

20 And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither away so soon?”

Mark 11:12-14 (New King James Version)

The Fig Tree Withered

12 Now the next day, when they had come out from Bethany, He was hungry. 13 And seeing from afar a fig tree having leaves, He went to see if perhaps He would find something on it. When He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 In response Jesus said to it, “Let no one eat fruit from you ever again.”
And His disciples heard it.

Jeremiah 29:17 (New King James Version)

17 thus says the LORD of hosts: Behold, I will send on them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like rotten figs that cannot be eaten, they are so bad.

There use to be a website that satirizes Fred Phelps' site called God Hates Figs. Here are some other satirical sites: The Burning Taper: God Hates Figs! God Hates Rags! God Hates Shrimp!---

God Hates Shrimp, God Hates Rags and Fred Phelp's other site: God Hates The World.

Talibangelical Bibliolatry

Here is another picture that says it all about fundamentalists' bibliolatry: ---this picture comes by way of Ray Comfort's Blog. First of all, we are not called in the scriptures to believe in the bible (a manmade invention) but the one of whom the scriptures bear witness to.

John 17:19-21 (New International Version)
19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

Jesus Prays for All Believers
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Secondly, given that fact---Jesus should be the center of all things not a Council of Nicaea sanctioned book which wasn't formalized in Protestant form until the Council of Trent and beyond and that by man's approval not God's.

Tony Jones And The Talibangelicals

See:

Why I'm Often Embarrassed to be a Christian

Wednesday March 11, 2009
Categories: Bible, Blogging, Church, GLBT, same sex marriage
Because Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins can go on TV and, with smiles on their faces, lie about our president, mis-interpret the Bible, and promote their latest farce book. To see what I'm talking about, read "Is Obama Satan's Warm-Up Act?" at Religion Dispatches, then watch the video at the bottom.

Well, at least I was invited, then uninvited, to write for a big preaching website today. Why the disinvitation? Because of my pro-gay marriage blog posts.

Comments (12)
Filed Under: gay issues, glbt, jerry jenkins, left behind, msnbc, news, politics, politics video, rachel maddow, religion dispatches, tim lahaye

And see:

Talking Original Sin with Todd Friel



Monday February 2, 2009
Categories: Theology
I'll be on Todd Friel's "Wretched Radio" program today at 3pm EST to talk about my recent posts on Original Sin. His show is on Sirius Radio and online.

Call in!

UPDATE: Not going on the show today. Todd and I just spoke on the phone. He didn't really want to talk about Original Sin but use that as a jumping off point to justification and soteriology. He made it clear that he thinks I am "knocking on the door" of heresy. He fears for my eternal salvation.

So, we chatted at length and decided not to have the radio interview today. Too much at stake. We're going to reschedule it for a couple of weeks from now.
Comments (34)
Filed Under: doctrine, original sin, theology, todd friel, wretched radio

Cold And Fireproof

Sorry for the lack of updates for a while, but I was getting over a cold the past few weeks. A few weeks ago we rented the movie Fireproof and I must concur with Christian Beyer's post on the movie in that I liked it as well even-though I'm single. I believe if Kirk Cameron uses his acting skills in projects such as this to share his faith instead of telling everyone that doesn't vote straight ticket Republican, believe in bible literalism and calvinazism that they are going to hell that he might actually plant a seed in someone to follow Christ.

Fundamentalist Radio Station Changes Name

Way Of The Master radio changes it's name to Wretched radio. The name change seems to befit the underlying material of the radio show, which is indeed wretched with fundamentalist drivel and ultra-conservative right wing nutcases. Now you can pay $5.95 a month for extra brainwashing.

Todd Friel's Absurd Comments About Brian MacLaren

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Commentary:

At 0:54 Brian says that he is a plethora of denominations as truly Jesus is not limited to our denominational identity---I don't see why Todd thinks that's so wacky.

At 1:45 Brian explains that Jesus and truth aren't limited to Christianity as Jesus is truly Lord of all regardless of their beliefs. (See John 4:1-15 and TheoPoetic Musings: Intensive Gospel Study: John 4)--also, see this video:

---apparently Todd doesn't agree that Jesus is Lord of all. Also in 2:19 Brian believes in the orthodox view of holistic truth---apparently Todd heretical-ly rejects holistic truth.

At 2:46 Todd once again fixated on judging others' beliefs brings up hell---though I can agree with Todd that hell is a real theological concept---we still mustn't judge others beliefs just as Jesus didn't tell the Samaritan woman that she was going to hell for not believing as the Judean Jews did.

At 3:33 once again Todd speaks nonsense---dominioninism and Kingdom theology are not one in the same. Kingdom theology is putting the Lord's Prayer in action. Todd and his cohorts at Way Of The Master are dominionists trying to coerce people into buying into their conservative political views such as their anti-evolution/anti-abortion in all cases ideologies by setting guilt traps---see http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast/2008/10/14/october-14-2008-hour-2/ for example. Brian is not a dominionist and he is correct Jesus spoke more about life here on earth rather than an afterlife.

Todd at 3:36-4:10 misconstrues the Gospel as being about 3 propositions only, which he says scripture states---but he is wrong of course---scripture states that Jesus alone is the Gospel. Preaching, repentance and faith are means to viewing the Gospel (Jesus) but not the only means---Todd left out love, service, prayer, etc. Also---Luke 4.18-19, quoting from Isaiah 61 states:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”

Brian in 4:12-5:56 raises the issue of redemptive violence in the act of crucifixion which is a valid assessment---even if I don't entirely agree with his conclusions as Jesus willing sacrificed Himself in the face of evil and the world's violence. Todd however arrogantly chastises Brian by saying atonement by blood is the only way which eventhough I believe in blood atonement---I believe people are free to question the necessity of such a violent act of forgiveness. However, Todd's beef is not that but Brian's support of the Christus Victor view of the atonement (which is what the Early Church believed and is supported by scripture ie. I Corinthians 15: 53-58) rather than the Penal Substitutionary view of atonement, which Todd idolizes, because John Calvin first formulated the theory in it's present day form (by reading in legal terms into the bible---because Calvin was trained first as a lawyer before becoming a Magisterial Reformer).

In 6:46-7:31, Todd as usual appealing to Charles Spurgeon (who believed in the Calvinist heresy of individual predestination) to try to somehow prove that Brian is a heretic. It's interesting considering Todd's heretical fungelical teachings such as: that all sins are sins of the flesh fighting against the spirit/the flesh is evil, which is nothing short of Neo-Manichaeism and semi-Docetism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are your thoughts?

Todd Friel's Arrogance About Ray Boltz and Clay Aiken

http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast/2008/09/29/september-29-2008-hour-2/

--------Todd Friel at his most arrogant.

Coldplay's Revolutionary Christianity

On the heels of Justin's excellent post from---Wednesday, August 20, 2008---Cartoon Of The Day. I'd like to share this interesting bit from a Wikipedia article:

The magazine Q asked Chris Martin about the line "I know Saint Peter won't call my name" sung in "Viva la Vida". Martin replied: "It's about… You're not on the list. I was a naughty boy. It's always fascinated me that idea of finishing your life and then being analyzed on it. And this idea runs throughout most religions. That's why people blow up buildings. Because they think they're going to get lots of virgins. I always feel like saying, just join a band (laughs). That is the most frightening thing you could possibly say to somebody. Eternal damnation. I know about this stuff because I studied it. I was into it all. I know it. It's still mildly terrifying to me. And this is serious."[1] When asked about the song, bass guitarist Guy Berryman said, "It’s a story about a king who’s lost his kingdom, and all the album’s artwork is based on the idea of revolutionaries and guerrillas."[2]

This seems to tie in nicely with some of Doug Pagitt's thoughts from his Way Of The Master radio interview:

---(Part 1)


---(Part 2)


And for those of you who have yet to hear Coldplay's new song here are the full lyrics:

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own

I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy's eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing
"Now the old king is dead, long live the king"

One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand

I hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing
Roman cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
Once you'd gone there was never
Never an honest word
That was when I ruled the world

It was a wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn't believe what I'd become

Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh, who would ever want to be king?

I hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing
Roman cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
I know St. Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

Ohh...

Hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing
Roman cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
I know St. Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

Ooh...

You can also watch the music video:



Coldplay's new song also reminds me of John Lennon's "Imagine." So here is a thought that came to my mind: the question is although, eternal life and the afterlife are important to our Christian beliefs, shouldn't we as Christians focus on living the life of Christ in the here and now rather than turning Christianity into one more punishment and rewards religion among the many others?

Fundie Nuts Vs. Harry Emerson Fosdick

Steven J. said on Ray Comfort's Blog ...

(Shiver)Curtis quoted John MacArthur saying:

"The result is that over the past couple of decades, large numbers of evangelicals have shown a surprising willingness to take a completely non-evangelical approach to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. More and more are embracing the view known as “old-earth creationism,” which blends some of the principles of biblical creationism with naturalistic and evolutionary theories, seeking to reconcile two opposing world-views. And in order to accomplish this, old-earth creationists end up explaining away rather than honestly exegeting the biblical creation account."-------Fundie Nut

Valid Response: Please note that an old Earth is not part of evolutionary theory: that the Earth was much older than 10,000 years was realized before evolutionary theory was proposed, and was not inspired by the need of evolution for large amounts of time to work with. Old-earth creationists are, after all, creationists.

The biblical creation account mentions the canopy of the sky, with "windows" in it (these are opened to let in the rain for Noah's Flood). This view of the sky as a solid artifact is repeated throughout the Old Testament, from further references to the "windows of heaven" in Malachi to Isaiah's reference to the sky being set up like a tent over the (presumably flat disk of the) Earth. John MacArthur, to be more consistent, should complain about all those ministers who explain away, rather than honestly exegete, the biblical passages that teach a geocentric, flat-earth cosmology. Or, conversely, he could take the approach of "Verandoug" and recognize that he has allowed his interpretation of the Bible to be shaped by scientific discoveries, and be less disdainful of those who carry this process further than he does, to acknowledge that the Earth is, in fact, immensely older than the human species (which is itself older than 10,000 or so years). I suppose it is too much to ask him to go so far as to allow his interpretation of Genesis 1 to be shaped by the evidence in favor of common ancestry of humans and other species, but he could make a start down the road to self-consistency and respect for evidence.

June 27, 2008 12:28 AM

---------------------------------------------------

Harry Emerson Fosdick long ago said:

The Real Situation

When, therefore, Mr. Bryan says, "Neither Darwin nor his supporters have been able to find a fact in the universe to support their hypothesis," it would be difficult to imagine a statement more obviously and demonstrably mistaken. The real situation is that every fact on which investigation has been able to lay its hands helps to confirm the hypothesis of evolution. There is no known fact which stands out against it. Each newly discovered fact fits into an appropriate place in it. So far as the general outlines of it are concerned, the Copernican astronomy itself is hardly established more solidly.

My reply, however, is particularly concerned with the theological aspects of Mr. Bryan's statement. There seems to be no doubt about what his position is. He proposes to take his science from the Bible. He proposes certainly, to take no science that is contradicted by the Bible. He says, "Is it not strange that a Christian will accept Darwinism as a substitute for the Bible when the Bible not only does not support Darwin's hypothesis, but directly and expressly contradicts it?" What other interpretation of such a statement is possible except this: that the Bible is for Mr. Bryan an authoritative textbook in biology--and if in biology, why not in astronomy, cosmogony, chemistry, or any other science, art, concern of man whatever? One who is acquainted with the history of theological thought gasps as he reads this. At the close of the sixteenth century a Protestant theologian set down the importance of the book of Genesis as he understood it. He said that the text of Genesis "must be received strictly"; that "it contains all knowledge, human and divine"; that "twenty-eight articles of the Augsburg Confession are to be found in it"; that "it is an arsenal of arguments against all sects and sorts of atheists, pagans, Jews, Turks, Tartars, Papists, Calvinists, Socinians, and Baptists"; that it is "the source of all science and arts, including law, medicine, philosophy, and rhetoric," "the source and essence of all histories and of all professions, trades, and works," "an exhibition of all virtues and vices," and "the origin of all consolation."

Luther and Bryan

One has supposed that the days when such wild anachronisms could pass muster as good theology were past, but Mr. Bryan is regalvanizing into life that same outmoded idea of what the Bible is, and proposes in the twentieth century that we shall use Genesis, which reflects the prescientific view of the Hebrew people centuries before Christ, as an authoritative textbook in science, beyond whose conclusions we dare not go.

Why, then, should Mr. Bryan complain because his attitude toward evolution is compared repeatedly, as he says it is, with the attitude of the theological opponents of Copernicus and Galileo? On his own statement, the parallelism is complete. Martin Luther attacked Copernicus with the same appeal which Mr. Bryan uses. He appealed to the Bible. He said: "People gave ear to an upstart astrology who strove to show that the earth revolves , not the heavens or the firmament, and the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, whic of all systems is, of course, the very best, This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy,but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

Nor was Martin Luther wrong if the Bible is indeed an authoritative textbook in science. The denial of the Copernican astronomy with its moving earth can unquestionable be found in the Bible if one starts out to use the Bible that way--"The world also is established, that in cannot be moved" (Psalm 91:I); "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved forever" (Psalm 104:5). Moreover, in those bygone days, the people who were then using Mr. Bryan's method of argument did quote these passages as proof, and Father Inchofer felt so confident that he cried, "The opinion of the earth's motion is of all heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; argument against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarnation should be tolerated sooner that the argument to prove that the earth moves."

The Hebrew Universe

Indeed, as everybody knows who has seriously studied the Bible, that book represents in its cosmology and cosmogony the view of the physical universe which everywhere obtained in the ancient Semitic world. The earth was flat and was founded on an underlying sea (Psalm 136:6; Psalm 24:1-2; Genesis 7:11); it was stationary; the heavens, like an upturned bowl, "strong as a molten mirror" (Job 37:18; Genesis I:6-8;Isaiah 40:22; Psalm 104:2), rested on the earth beneath (Amos 9:6); Job 26:11); the sun, moon, stars moved within this firmament of special purpose to illumine man (Genesis 1:14-19); there was a sea above the sky, "the waters which were above the firmament." (Genesis 1:7; Psalm 148:4) and through "the windows of heaven" the rain came down (Genesis 7:11; Psalm 78:23); beneath the earth was mysterious Sheol where dwelt the shadowy dead (Isaiah 14:9-11); and all this had been made in six days, each of which had had a morning and an evening, a short and measurable time before (Genesis I).

Are we to understand that this is Mr. Bryan's science, that we must teach this science in our schools, that we are stopped by divine revelation from ever going beyond this science? Yet this is exactly what Mr. Bryan would force us to do if with intellectualconsistency he should carry out the implications of his appeal to the Bible against the scientific hypothesis of evolution in biology.

---Courtesy of: http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/fosdick2.html