home
RSS
October 10th, 2012
12:01 PM ET

Congressman draws fire for calling evolution, Big Bang ‘lies from the pit of hell’

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

Washington (CNN) – A U.S. congressman is attracting attention and criticism for an online video that shows him blasting evolution and the Big Bang theory as “lies from the pit of hell” in a recent speech at a church event in his home state of Georgia.

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” U.S Rep. Paul Broun said in an address last month at a banquet organized by Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Broun, a medical doctor by training, serves on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Speaking at Liberty Baptist Church’s Sportsman’s Banquet on September 27, he said that “a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth.”

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

“I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old,” Broun said in the speech, which Liberty Baptist Church posted on its website via YouTube.  “I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says."

Scientists say that the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and that the universe dates back 13.7 billion years.

In his speech to the church group, Broun called the Bible the “the manufacturer’s handbook. … It teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in our society.”

“That’s the reason, as your congressman, I hold the holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that,” he said.

A spokeswoman for the congressman, Meredith Griffanti, said that Broun was not available for comment on Wednesday and that the video showed him “speaking off the record to a large church group about his personal beliefs regarding religious issues.”

The congressman’s remarks about science have drawn attention online, with critics taking aim at his role on the science committee.

Bill Nye, the popular science personality, told the Huffington Post in an e-mail that "Since the economic future of the United States depends on our tradition of technological innovation, Representative Broun's views are not in the national interest."

"For example, the Earth is simply not 9,000 years old," said Nye, a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program "Bill Nye the Science Guy." Broun "is, by any measure, unqualified to make decisions about science, space, and technology."

Talking Points Memo reported on the church video over the weekend after being tipped off by the Bridge Project, a progressive group that tracks conservative activity.

Most creationists believe in the account of the origins of the world as told in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

In the creation account, God creates Adam and Eve, the world and everything in it in six days.

For Christians who read the Genesis account literally, or authoritatively as they would say, the six days in the account are literal 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution.  Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.

The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for 30 years.  In June, it released its latest findings, which showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.

– CNN's Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Evolution • Politics • Science

soundoff (5,886 Responses)
  1. Gary

    hehehe

    October 26, 2012 at 12:40 am |
  2. JC

    @that guy: The transitional fossils are there. Only the willingly blind do not see. From fish to amphibians: lung-fish and lobe-finned fish. The lobe-finned fish were fish whose fins had developed bones similar to those that currently exist in amphibians. From reptiles to mammals: therapsids. Therapsids looked very much like reptiles, but they walked in a more upright position (their legs were under them, rather than out to the side), their jaws and teeth were mammalian, not repitilian, and it was thought they lactated and were warm-blooded (since many skeletal remains have been found curled up into a ball, which is what mammals do to retain heat in their bodies).

    October 25, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • tonykeywest

      God created this world, and His will is done in it – Science is merely an observation of the grand work of our Creator.
      When it comes to such things as the “Big Bang”, and “Evolution” (at least on a macro scale),
      it is not accurate to even use the term “science” – those goofy theories are contrary to the very definition of science,
      since they are neither observable nor repeatable.
      #1 Life has never been observed to come from non-life
      #2 there is no known observable process by which new genetic information
      can be added to the genetic code of an organism

      November 2, 2012 at 2:15 am |
    • sam stone

      Tony: How do you make the logical leap from a creator to a "God"?

      November 6, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
  3. glyph7

    one word: "dinosaurs"

    October 24, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
  4. that guy

    Sorry, that last comment was for "itsallaloadof..."

    October 24, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
  5. that guy

    Sorry, that last comment was for "itsaloadof" etc.

    October 24, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
  6. that guy

    @GOP... "Current thinking" is not science. Scientists do not "think" they know what happened. Scientists experiment, observe, and demonstrate what happened.

    October 24, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
  7. that guy

    I don't see what the big deal is. There is plenty of evidence that refutes evolution that has been admitted by evolutionists. So, its clear that scientists need to go back to the drawing board.

    October 24, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • Spencer

      Citation needed.

      October 24, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • that guy

      I don't need a citation, I'm not writing an editorial. However, if you would like to find out the information for yourself, you're more than welcome to research it like I did.

      October 24, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
    • that guy

      But just for fun...

      http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

      October 24, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • that guy

      I'll even take it a step further... You give me a "fact" about evolution that is believed to be true, and I'll give you scientific evidence as to why it's not.

      October 24, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
    • == o ==

      The link that "that guy" supplied is from a creationism propaganda page with a "scientific case" against evolution written by this old civil engineer – lol.

      October 24, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    • that guy

      So, let's see if I got this right. If a scientists believes in God, then they're not a real scientist? Furthermore, if you scroll down you can find an ample amount of references. BTW, no one has taken me up on my offer.

      October 24, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
    • Spencer

      Oooooh, Lets start at the basics then. Inherited traits due to reproductive success rates of the parent organisms.

      October 24, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • that guy

      If you're going to start with the basics, then you need to back further than microevolution. All the way back... To cosmic evolution. Shall we start there?

      October 24, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • Spencer

      the only difference between macro and micro evolution is how much time you let take place between measurements.

      October 24, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @that guy,

      plenty of real scientists believe in God. Most of those that do believe in God see that evolution is God's mechanism for creation.

      Any 'scientist' that believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old is compartmentalizing his or her thinking to sustain the cognitive dissonance they are forced to adopt. (Either that or they are delusional.)

      Scientists are much more likely not to believe in God than the population average. By as much as ten times more likely.

      October 24, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • Spencer

      also, eagerly waiting on inherited traits to be disproved through science.

      October 24, 2012 at 7:52 pm |
    • Spencer

      I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV: Fun thing, evolution has nothing to do with whether or not there are deities in the universe. It just describes whats happened to life since it started on this tiny chunk of rock in the vastness of space.

      It makes no comment on how it started, just what its done since then.

      October 24, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Creationism and (so-called) 'intelligent' design is nothing but Christian fundamentalism.

      Muslim fundamentalism including the ideas of Al-Ghazali that emerged in the 12th century, like the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present Will of God, destroyed sciences in the Islamic world.

      The rise of Christian fundamentalism could be just as destructive to western science.

      Neil De Grasse Tyson makes this warning in the following lecture:

      It is worth watching.

      October 24, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Spencer,

      yes – that's the whole point. Evolution and theism can happily co-exist and 32% of Americans accept this.

      I don't subscribe to that idea, but the biggest threat to science is not theism, but fundamentalism.

      October 24, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
    • AdvBergism source of filthy RainerBraendleinism©

      and while everyone is waiting, check out these guys -most of them are a bit more than a civil engineer:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

      Oh, almost forgot – and NO DOGS! lol

      October 24, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
    • that guy

      There's a problem with thinking that the earth is billions of years old. The methods used to date objects (eg. Carbon-14 and potassium-argon) have about a 500% margin of error and are highly unreliable. One cannot start the argument with macro/micro evolution. There are four other levels(cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic) that also need addressing, none of which have been observed or demonstrated in a science laboratory of any kind. Therefore, it cannot be called science.

      October 24, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @that guy,

      Carbon 14 is only used to date organic materials, not the age of the earth.

      Even with "500%" accuracy the earth would be in the range of 22.5 billion years to 900 million years old.

      Still a lot more than 10,000!

      We estimate the universe to be around 13.8 billion years old. This is computed based on the speed of light. Or are you telling us that the theory of relativity is off by 500% too!

      October 24, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @that guy,

      by the way, 'evolution' does not address how life began. That is abiogenesis. Do you understand the distinction?

      October 24, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • that guy

      Halos of specific radioactive materials (which have a half-life of anywhere from 30sec to 2 min) have been found in rocks like granite (which supposedly takes millions of years to form). Suggests rapid formation. Every year, the moon moves 3 inches further away from the earth, which would mean, if the earth was 4.6 billion years old, that they were touching at some point in the past. Forgive me, I don't know the exact dates.

      October 24, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
    • that guy

      Fine... Where's the evidence of transitional species?

      October 24, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Another desperate creationist nut.

      October 24, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @that guy,

      current thinking is that the moon and the earth were touching. The moon was formed by a massive collision very early in the earth's formation while it was still molten (about 4.5 billion years ago and only 30-50 million years after the solar system). After the collision a hot mass of molten rock was thrown back out into space and it has orbited ever since as the moon.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

      October 24, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
    • the AnViL

      ID has already been debated, beaten down and destroyed. these retards are a cancer. they work overtime to secularize their theological vomit. their efforts not only seek to restrict liberty and equal rights for others – but also extend ignorance on into the next generation and beyond.

      tolerance of religious idiocy has to end.

      enough is enough.

      October 24, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
    • that guy

      And you KNOW this because...??? It most certainly has not been observed or demonstrated. That's what science is. Knowledge gained through experimentation, observation, and demonstration. The rest is called religion. And if I'm such a nut, then show me fossil records of organisms in transitional forms. Show me an organism that has a beneficial mutation. Show me an organism that has become a different species. Be wise anything other than what has been observed or demonstrated is pure speculation.

      P.S. I know what abiogenesis (aka organic evolution: life from nonliving material) is. I mentioned it in an earlier post.

      October 24, 2012 at 9:27 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @that guy,

      in your opinion, how old is the earth?

      October 24, 2012 at 9:30 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @that guy,

      you said: "@GOP... "Current thinking" is not science. Scientists do not "think" they know what happened. Scientists experiment, observe, and demonstrate what happened."

      Of course it is. You create a hypothesis. You either experiment or use a combination of 'laws' and measured observations to determine if the hypothesis is valid. "Currency" is relevant. Sometimes better data becomes available and a new hypothesis is presented and accepted. Science is our best explanation of the world around us based on the data we have.

      It does not rely on magic or sacred absolutist texts.

      October 24, 2012 at 9:36 pm |
    • that guy

      @GOP... I don't know how old the earth is because I wasn't here. With our current technology, anything other than the answer I just gave is a guess. Granted, it may be the most resourcfuly accurate and highly educated guess and on the planet. But still a guess.

      October 24, 2012 at 9:36 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      No, it's not a guess.

      It is the result of logic, reason and mathmatics. It may involve extrapolation based on laws that are assumed to be axiomatic.

      Sometimes wrong (like aether) or incomplete conclusions are made – but usually the model just gets more complex.

      Newtonian physics works perfectly well for calculating a cannon ball trajectory for 10,000m. Not quite as well for light travelling from a distant star.

      October 24, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
    • itsallaloadofbollocks

      that guy, if your get-out is I wasn't there so I don't know- why do you believe the bible?

      October 24, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
    • that guy

      @Gop...You should probably get to know someone before you automatically assume things about them. I could be someone who believes in neither evolution nor creation. But to answer your question in one word... Faith.

      October 24, 2012 at 10:05 pm |
    • Spencer

      "Fine... Where's the evidence of transitional species?"

      Every generation is an example of a transitional species.

      October 24, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
    • Spencer

      that guy :@Spencer... That's not evolution. It's different variations of the same kind. You cannot give me an example of beneficial mutations which would lead to an organism to cross into a different species because there are none. And since it has never been observed it demonstrated, it is not science.

      I'm going to assume that this post is in regards to my post of "Every generation is an example of a transitional species."

      Clearly you do not understand the process, you appear to be expecting big jumps from generation to generation, like a dog having a littler that has wings or a plant that develops vision. These things are not what is described in evolution, they are the arguments made by people that have not been bothered to actually study the process.

      October 25, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • redzoa

      "And if I'm such a nut, then show me fossil records of organisms in transitional forms."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

      Pay particular attention to the dates. Even if you reject the accuracy of the dating, the relative positions above and below in the geologic strata indicate a progressive relationship where intervening forms are present in the correct morphological and temporal/geological context. As strong as this conceded data is by itself (whence the need for various fantastical creationist models to account for the order), perhaps more informative is the absence of fossils in the wrong context, that is, no humans alongside dinosaurs, no rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, etc. Add to this the real time observations of phylogenetic relationships among extant organisms (and in some cases, even extinct organisms) which are concordant with relationships indicated by the fossil record. If you are requesting evidence of a true chimeric organism (some variant of the flawed "appear fully form" misrepresentation requiring a "croco-duck"), of course they do not exist. But again, this is evidence for evolution, and such a request only betrays an ignorance of what the scientific theory predicts should be observed.

      " Show me an organism that has a beneficial mutation."

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

      " Show me an organism that has become a different species."

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

      "Be wise anything other than what has been observed or demonstrated is pure speculation."

      There is a difference between pure speculation and rational inferences based on observed, demonstrable and predictive mechanisms. Science does not need to observe a particular event in real time to apply the scientific method. Science can use events observed in real time to infer causal mechanisms for a past event. Forensic science is the typical example. In isolation, such inferences are certainly subject to criticism; however, when the inferences are repeatedly validated and allow for successful predictions of future observations, they are no longer mere speculation. To deny such predictive power out of hand is to effectively concede one's doubt is not a reasonable doubt.

      October 27, 2012 at 12:36 am |
    • tonykeywest

      God created this world, and His will is done in it – Science is merely an observation of the grand work of our Creator.
      When it comes to such things as the “Big Bang”, and “Evolution” (at least on a macro scale),
      it is not accurate to even use the term “science” – those goofy theories are contrary to the very definition of science,
      since they are neither observable nor repeatable.
      #1 Life has never been observed to come from non-life
      #2 there is no known observable process by which new genetic information
      can be added to the genetic code of an organism

      November 2, 2012 at 2:17 am |
  8. DavidvsGoliath

    By reading some of these posts and the craziness in them, it's not hard to see how the number of people whom the devil has deceived and bound for the lake easily outnumber the people who are saved on this earth by at least 100 to 1 – if not more…

    By reading some of these posts, it's also easy to see how only 8 souls were saved in the days of Noah out of the whole population of the earth. Imagine that. Only 8 souls were saved. Everybody else on the entire planet died and went to hell…

    It's also easy to see how only 4 souls were saved out of the entire city of Sodom and Gomorrah when God rained down fire and brimstone and destroyed it. Imagine that. A whole city of people, full of men women and children, they all died and went to hell on that day. God only saw 4 souls he felt worthy to be saved. This illustrates God is not looking for numbers. He's only looking for those who love him...

    And in the same like manner, when Judgment Day arrives (and it is indeed coming whether you believe it or not) you're going to be surprised at just how few people are going be saved vs those who shall be cast into the lake. The very people you have admired and believed in all your life and whom you thought had it all figured out – people like Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, and Stephen Hawkings, etc – you're going to get to see them being cast into the lake while they're hollering and screaming and pleading with God. And if they're being thrown into the lake, then what makes you think you won't be? What makes you think God is going to spare you? The fear that you will feel on that day will be beyond comprehension. Because you will know you are going to the lake. A firery lake of fire and brimstone, a lake that's hotter than the surface of the sun. And that is where you shall spend eternity. You will be there forever, with no chance of getting out. A billion years from now, you'll still be there, and eternity will just be beginning. Why? All because you refused to believe. Therefore, for a person to loose their soul and go to hell and the lake all because you refused to believe – now that is silly indeed…

    And before some of you say you don't believe in hell, or God, or the lake, and choose to bury you head in the sand while pretending it doesn't exist, just know this… Belief is not a requirement to go to hell. When you die, you're still going there whether you believe in it or not. Belief is only a requirement to get to heaven…

    1 Peter 4:7 – …what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?…

    Psalms 37:30 – The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment. 32 The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him…

    October 23, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • Spencer

      sorry, I'm going to have to side with the Hindus on this one. The whole warship me or else dogma of your god Is a bit petty.

      October 24, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • sam stone

      "And in the same like manner, when Judgment Day arrives (and it is indeed coming whether you believe it or not)"

      No it isn't. Believe it if you wish.

      " you're going to be surprised at just how few people are going be saved vs those who shall be cast into the lake."

      it is interesting how people seek eternity with a being from which they have to be saved.

      i guess if you're a petty, vindictive pr1ck, you will find comfort in a petty, vindictive pr1ck god

      October 24, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • sam stone

      "And before some of you say you don't believe in hell, or God, or the lake, and choose to bury you head in the sand while pretending it doesn't exist, just know this… Belief is not a requirement to go to hell."

      How do you expect that people can fear retaliation from a being in which they do not believe? Skipped logic class, did you?

      "When you die, you're still going there whether you believe in it or not. Belief is only a requirement to get to heaven"

      You have some gall bloviating on who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. I thought that was god's call. Does posting like that make you feel all god-like, punk?

      October 24, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • that guy

      @Spencer... That's not evolution. It's different variations of the same kind. You cannot give me an example of beneficial mutations which would lead to an organism to cross into a different species because there are none. And since it has never been observed it demonstrated, it is not science.

      October 24, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
    • itsallaloadofbollocks

      that guy, your posts have no scientific merit. they're tired old creationist wordplay which has been refuted hundreds of times.

      October 24, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
    • DavidvsGoliath

      If right now at this moment, the eternal God were to do a survey of all who responded to my post, and then save those who believed, and cast the rest into hell and the lake, based on your comments and the content of your post, how many who responded do you think God would save? Answer: Zero. Nada. I don't see a single person whom God would save. All of you would end up in the lake…

      Which only illustrates my point. That God created a flood which wiped man from the face of the earth. Every living human being on the planet died and went to hell and only 8 were saved. He did it again with Sodom and Gomorrah. And so shall it be in the last days. God is not looking for numbers. He's looking for those who love him...

      October 25, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • Vader

      "Imagine that"

      Those are the operative words. Biblical stories are allegories... parables... fantasy... but not reality.

      As a thinking person, do you believe that the entire word was flooded, and only 8 persons survived? Out of the entire world? Really? Perhaps, at some time in the past, a major flood DID occur and many lives WERE lost, but the ENTIRE world? Based on what evidence (besides a story in a book)?

      Yeesh...

      November 1, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • tonykeywest

      Well said. Believe or perish.

      November 2, 2012 at 2:20 am |
    • sam stone

      "God is not looking for numbers. He's looking for those who love him"

      He is a vindictive, petty pr!ck

      November 6, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
  9. Barry

    "In 6 days God made the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them...." Exodus 20 The word for "day" here is Yom, the same Hebrew word used for day throughout the Old covenant, or Old Testement. The same word used in this context concerning the seventh days rest. God did it in 6 days, any other interpretation is just compromise to bring in godless evolution.

    October 23, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • sam stone

      "godless evolution"?

      are you daft, man?

      November 6, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
  10. MCR

    In a democracy we pretty much get the government we deserve. The idiots who voted this guy in deserve the same level of criticism.

    October 23, 2012 at 10:57 am |
  11. the AnViL

    steveutaz

    "It's troubling to see that people at the highest levels of our government cling to bronze age myths and ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence."

    it is, i agree – but more specifically – it's troubling that these people who cling to bronze age myths make decisions for the general public based on their ideals of morality. they work overtime to legislate their most ignorant and bigoted ideals onto the rest of humanity. they spend money to find new and interesting ways to secularize their theological vomit.

    conservative xians are demonstrably insidious, devious and conniving.

    tolerance of religious idiocy has to end.
    enough is enough.

    October 23, 2012 at 1:50 am |
  12. ElmerGantry

    Bringing a very good post back to the very top! In addition to the original post I included the list of all members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Lets hold every one who is like Broun and Akins on this committee accountable.

    the AnViL
    hey everyone! hope your weekend's great...

    just wanted to take a moment to encourage everyone – even if you do not live in the united states, to take a few minutes of your time and visit the website for the committee on science, space and technology (science.house.gov) to demand that congressman paul broun be removed from this committee. if you want to go the extra mile – go ahead and post this story to all your friends on facebook or any other media outlet you can think of.

    don't let repugnant ignorance like this ride.

    enough is enough.

    tolerance for religious ignorance has got to end.

    October 12, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Report abuse | Reply

    Rufus T. Firefly
    Here is the link:

    http://science.house.gov/contact-us/email-us

    October 12, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Report abuse |
    a reasonable atheist
    Thanks for the link – message submitted:

    "Subject: Rep. Broun's place on the committee is an embarrassment

    Message:
    To whom it may concern,
    I was astonished to read of the public views expressed by Rep. Broun regarding evolution, modern cosmology, and other forms of scientific endeavor. If he truly believes what he espouses, his total ignorance of the scientific method demonstrates that he should be immediately removed from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Perhaps there is a Committee on Superst.ition and Ignorance that his expertise would be better suited to? If, on the other hand, he was merely pandering to a church-going audience, he has amply demonstrated his lack of moral fort.itude through his disingenuous public proclamations. In this case, he should not only be removed from the committee but also from the House. We cannot afford to have our leadership espousing this superst.itious garbage. The United States needs to lead in Science, not wallow in ignorance while other countries pass us by."

    October 13, 2012 at 8:06 am | Report abuse |
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________

    P.S. Other members of this committee are as follows. They should also be check out and if they also display the same illiteracy in science, they should also be held accountable.

    Members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
    Look up their records and hold Broun, Akin, and their ilk accountable.
    http://science.house.gov/contact-us/email-us

    Republican Members (23)

    Ralph M. Hall, Texas
    F. James Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin
    Lamar S. Smith, Texas
    Dana Rohrabacher, California
    Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland
    Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma
    Judy Biggert, Illinois
    W. Todd Akin, Missouri
    Randy Neugebauer, Texas
    Michael T. McCaul, Texas
    Paul Broun, Georgia
    Sandy Adams, Florida
    Benjamin Quayle, Arizona
    Charles J. "Chuck" Fleischmann, Tennessee
    Scott Rigell, Virginia
    Steven Palazzo, Mississippi
    Mo Brooks, Alabama
    Andy Harris, M.D., Maryland
    Randy Hultgren, Illinois
    Chip Cravaack, Minnesota
    Larry Bucshon, Indiana
    Dan Benishek, Michigan
    VACANCY
    Democrat Members (17)

    Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas
    Jerry F. Costello, Illinois
    Lynn Woolsey, California
    Zoe Lofgren, California
    Brad Miller, North Carolina
    Daniel Lipinski, Illinois
    Donna Edwards, Maryland
    Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico
    Paul Tonko, New York
    Jerry McNerney, California
    Terri Sewell, Alabama
    Frederica Wilson, Florida
    Hansen Clarke, Michigan
    Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
    VACANCY
    VACANCY
    VACANCY

    October 23, 2012 at 12:12 am |
    • Stephen

      Elmer. It is you who are repugnant. It is not enough that you hold your delusions in your own mind but you wish to not only share them with others, but force them on others while removing those who do not agree with your godless delusions. You are EVIL! You will be held into greater acount for your actions then those who simply listen to lies and may even believe them, but to not try to impose them upon others. May God take note of your post. And may He deal with you in a way that seems good to Him.

      October 27, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Stephen, just a gently hint:

      YOU'RE A FU**IN AZZHOLE!

      October 27, 2012 at 9:36 pm |
    • Psst's understudy

      Stephen, try to use "then" and "than'" correctly. Thanks.

      October 27, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
  13. the AnViL

    it has been shown that as IQ increases, religiosity decreases.

    October 22, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
  14. steveutaz

    It's troubling to see that people at the highest levels of our government cling to bronze age myths and ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence.

    October 22, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  15. iminim

    I challenge Dr Broun to accept only penicillin for his next bacterial infection. If evolution is a truly lie, then there is no way modern bacteria could have reponded to the effects of antibiotics, gone through the process of "survival of the fittest", and become resistant to medications. There could have been no natural selection of the most resistant strains leading to the "superbugs" we hear about like MRSA and VRE. If evolution does not happen, then bacterial infections should be just as responsive to simple penicillin as they were in the 1940s.

    Evolution happens all around us every day. You just have to know where to look.

    October 22, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
  16. john

    I think the saddest part is that 46% of the population still deny evolution.

    October 22, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
  17. Serious Truth

    The saddest part of this story is that people actually voted this fool into office.

    October 22, 2012 at 10:51 am |
  18. Serious Truth

    Stupid is as stupid does. I wonder if he would have came up with the same conclusions if he was not brainwashed by organized religion? p.s Paul Broun, please switch over to being a Democrat. You, and the rest of the crazy religious people, are ruining the Republican name.

    October 22, 2012 at 10:49 am |
    • ElmerGantry

      No you republicans keep him. He is helping the the democrats nicely right were he is.

      October 23, 2012 at 12:16 am |
  19. Johnny 5

    The congressman's comment is from the "pit of ignorance". It's hard to deny evolution when you have fossils to prove it's existence. We are primates and that's a fact.

    October 22, 2012 at 10:36 am |
  20. Norm

    It is unbelievable to hear such rubbish in this day and age.... this nut is an MD by training....but worse yet....make you wonder about those that elected him!

    October 22, 2012 at 10:28 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team.