U.S. Rep Paul Broun calls evolution lie 'from the pit of hell'

Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012 4:07 PM
Last updated 6:50 PM

ATHENS, Ga. — U.S. Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are “lies straight from the pit of hell” meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun  FILE/ASSOCIATED PRESS
FILE/ASSOCIATED PRESS
U.S. Rep. Paul Broun

The Georgia Republican lawmaker made those comments during a speech Sept. 27 at a sportsman’s banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell. Broun, a medical doctor who represents Georgia’s 10th Congressional District, is running for re-election in November unopposed by Democrats.

“God’s Word is true,” Broun said, according to a video posted on the church’s Web site. “I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Broun also said that he believes the Earth is about 9,000 years old and that it was made in six days. Those beliefs are held by fundamentalist Christians who believe the creation accounts in the Bible are literally true.

Broun spokeswoman Meredith Griffanti told the Athens Banner-Herald that the congressman, whose district includes part of Columbia County, was recorded speaking off-the-record to a church group about his religious beliefs. He sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

It seems unlikely that Broun’s remarks were supposed to be private. The banquet was advertised; Broun spoke before an audience; and the video of his remarks was posted on the church’s Web site.

Comments (71) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
myfather15
54389
Points
myfather15 10/07/12 - 09:38 pm
0
2
I do believe God said he

I do believe God said he created MAN and created them in HIS image. Not the image of a Monkey, hominid or any other species. So Yes, God denies evolution with that statement. He didn't say He created "hominids" and caused them to evolve into MAN.

Personally, I don't care if people believe in the tooth fairy, santa clause, aliens or talking monkeys, whatever floats your boat. If you think you are the ancestor of a dumb animal, please do so. I'm also not trying to ban any mention of evolution from the public arena. Liberals ARE trying to ban Christianity from public!!! You're beliefs are a theory, just as you say other's are. If society could prove evolution beyond a shadow of doubt, all scientists would agree on it. BUT THEY DON'T. How is that? Oooh, I'm sure you would just say those opposing it are idiots, or have an agenda.

You stated "Ancestral forms are unlikely to coexist with daughter forms for long periods of time, as the pressures that encourage evolution are the same pressures that make the ancestral form less succesful, and eventually extinct."

Does this make any sense at all, to anyone? Evolution REQUIRES a continous process. So, our "ancestors" to you, couldn't quite survive, so thats why we don't have any other example of the evolution process in existence today? Riiiiight!!!! And you expect people to believe this over the possibility of an intelligent higher being creator?? Good luck with that!! The vast majority of human beings in the ENTIRE WORLD, believe in a creator. But we must ALL be crazy, because atheists are sooooo smart. Burn, don't take this as being aimed at you, it isn't. It towards all the evolution theorists.

myfather15
54389
Points
myfather15 10/07/12 - 09:47 pm
1
2
"I would fully agree that

"I would fully agree that hominids (not monkeys, at least get the facts straight if you are going to argue the truth of something) evolving into the technological ability of humans would seem crazy if the evidence weren't there."

It does sound crazy, because this evidence IS NOT there. To whom is the evidence there for? Some scientist that was already convinced evolution is fact? You can take the same evidence you speak of and get 10 scientists to give their opinions of it and they would be completely split in their opinions. I of cousre would believe the scientists that deny evolution and you would believe the ones who support it. Just don't sit there and act as if there is NO DEBATE about it. It has NOT been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, I've read articles that support and deny evolution. Those articles or books (Just like the Bible) were written by men and give those opinions. Unless YOU are a scientist yourself, then you are researching from other people opinions.

AndrewLafa
27
Points
AndrewLafa 10/07/12 - 10:55 pm
1
2
I don't know which is more appalling

I don't know which is more appalling-the fact that people keep voting for this guy, or the fact that he is running unopposed.

How anyone can be a student of science and a practicing physician while completely blowing off facts, is downright mind boggling and flat out bizarre.

So does Broun believe that science is wrong about the earth being round? Does he believe that the earth revolves around the sun? This brings me to wonder what other atrocities and fallacies of the bible Broun believes.

Since Jesus clearly states that the old testament is still law (Matt 5:17-18, Luke 16:17), does this mean Broun thinks that if a man is caught in the act of violating a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father? (Deuteronomy 22:28) Does he believe a man has a right to sell his daughter as a slave (Exodus 21:7-11)? Or that the daughters of priests should be burned at the stake if they play a whore (Leviticus 21:9)?

wittyno43
18
Points
wittyno43 10/07/12 - 11:34 pm
1
2
There's only one

pit of hell I can attest to. And that's right there in the CSRA. I'm stunned to find so many people who actually still think the invisible man waved a magic wand and *poof* in 7 days, there we were.

It must be the heat.

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 10/08/12 - 12:35 am
1
1
"I do believe God said he

"I do believe God said he created MAN and created them in HIS image. Not the image of a Monkey, hominid or any other species. So Yes, God denies evolution with that statement. He didn't say He created "hominids" and caused them to evolve into MAN."

Myfather, are you claiming that men know what the image of God is? Do you believe this statement irrefutably means people have a physical form shared by God? What does it mean to say someone is "the image of health"? They look like health? They have an unchanging form that matches health's form? How do we know that being formed in God's image has ANYTHING to do with a physical form? This is the evidence that God condemns evolution? That man was made in "His image"?

For men to think that their interpretation of a phrase in Genesis is God's clear instruction to ignore the evidence of His Creation is extremely presumptuous.

As far as the scientific consensus of the evidentiary bases of evolution myfather, you're not accurately representing the case.

"There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public."

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

Of course you'll find Creationist scientists. 3% of them are, apparently. That's the beauty of science. Unlike religous dogma, people are free to form their own conclusions from the evidence. But it is deceitful to claim that scientists are split on evolution simply because a fringe minority doesn't accept the theory.

myfather15
54389
Points
myfather15 10/08/12 - 01:06 am
1
1
Of course it must be a fringe

Of course it must be a fringe minority, because you said so and someone who wrote an article on wikipedia agrees as well. THATS IT!!! Its a scientific fact!!! You just convinced me and now I'm a changed man!! Wow, and just to think I was so ignorant for so long. How did I not see this truth?? It was right there all along, dang I am so blind. I've immediately got to get an airline ticket to Africa or Asia and go visit my original ancestory.

On the other side, YES I do know what God looks like. He looks like a human being!! Christ said if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father!! Your "Higher intelligence" has you very confused. Go ahead, keep trying to figure everything out with your intelligent thought. I'm done with this particular discussion. Keep thinking your great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was a monkey, lol.

The Word of God is factual and true. Just because you have an absolutely atrocious understanding of the Word, doesn't mean it isn't factual. MANY scriptures have came true, just as they are written. Even Saddam Husseins fall, and the 9/11 attacks for very important recent prophecy coming true. Egypt falling into the hands of Israels enemy was prophesied. Israel becoming a Country again in 1948 was prophesied by God. Look at a map of the middle east sometime. Look how small Israel is compared to all the Countries around it that despise them and don't believe they have the right to exist. If you don't think Israel's existence in that region is divine intervention, you're not thinking with common sense. Which is exactly what so many "Higher educated" liberals are lacking in today's world.

myfather15
54389
Points
myfather15 10/08/12 - 01:46 am
1
0
Dr. Austin H. Clark, noted

Dr. Austin H. Clark, noted biologist of the Smithsonian Institute, stated: "There is no evidence which would show man developing step by step from lower forms of life. There is nothing to show that man was in any way connected with monkeys.... He appeared SUDDENLY and in substantially the same form as he is today.... There are no such things as missing links."
He also said, "So far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists appear to have the best of the argument. There is NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE THAT ANY ONE OF THE MAJOR GROUPS AROSE FROM ANY OTHER. Each is a special animal complex, related more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing therefore as a species and distinct creation."

Of Course, pay no attention to these blathering scientists from the Smithsonian Institue!!

myfather15
54389
Points
myfather15 10/08/12 - 03:11 am
0
1
Lets play a little game of

Lets play a little game of "Who said this?"

"Not one change of species into another is on record.... We cannot prove that a single species has changed into another."

Who said this? Drum roll please.............Charles Darwin!! Ding, Ding, Ding, We have a winner John!! Tell our contestant what they've won John!! They have won a free one way ticket to the Kool-aid drinking contest, being held in Tehran, Iran!! Have fun you silly kids!!

Reference; (Darwin, Charles, My Life and Letters, Vol. 1. Page 2 10).

Pay no attention to Mr. Darwin, he was mistaken, correct?

myfather15
54389
Points
myfather15 10/08/12 - 01:52 am
1
1
Professor Albert Fleishman,

Professor Albert Fleishman, professor of Comparative Anatomy at Erlangen University, said, "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts. The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."

Pay no attention to such nonsense, all scientists agree that evolution if FACTUAL!!!

myfather15
54389
Points
myfather15 10/08/12 - 01:54 am
1
1
"In fact, evolution became in

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution,"

Noooooo, say it ain't so!! Scientist would actually bend their observations to fit in with it??? No way that could happen!!! Right??
But pay no attention to this Physicist, he is an idiot!! Right??

myfather15
54389
Points
myfather15 10/08/12 - 01:56 am
1
1
"The problem of the origin of

"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . . "Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude

erniedavidson
5
Points
erniedavidson 10/08/12 - 10:21 am
2
2
He's right!

He's 100% right. Darwin's THEORY of evolution is one perspective, not the only perspective. Biblical creation theory should be given an equal chance to be heard.

wittyno43
18
Points
wittyno43 10/08/12 - 11:51 am
0
2
Myfather15-calm down!

Before you burst a blood vessel, let me ask you this-do you have any reliable and current works written from scientists who weren't born in the 1800's?

Dr Austin Clark - December 17, 1880 – October 28, 1954
Professor Albert Fleishman - 1862-1942
Pierre-Paul Grassé 1895-1885

Would you want to go to a doctor that learned medicine studying only textbooks from 50-100 years ago? Wouldn't you think those outdated views might pose a problem in getting you most up to date care? This scenario with evolution is very similar. You're quoting scientists who did not have the technology and advanced studies that the benefits of the years bring. As Burn rightly pointed out, there are only a small handful of scientists today that don't believe in evolution.

As far as Lipson, the only references to him I can find are those on pro-creationist websites. I can't even find a reference to the book you mention. So unless it's just a figment of the anti-evolution folks minds, please tell me where I can find this book.

I'm going to have to take you to task about the Darwin book you mention. I have read that one, and I am very familiar with it's origins. Charles Darwin-the father of evolution-never wrote that book. It was published after his death and is a compliation of half letters, misquotes and statements taken out of context, written and edited by Charles Darwin's son, Francis.
Emma Darwin-Charles' wife and mother of Francis- had conflicting beliefs with those of Charles, and asked Francis to change/and or omit several passages in the book. This is evidenced in Emma Darwin, a century of family letters, 1792-1896.

blags_47
4
Points
blags_47 10/08/12 - 09:22 pm
2
2
Paul Broun Evolution

http://www.americanprophet.org/IntelligentDesignWhyaretheIntelligentSoAf...

C'mon, evolutionary theory has never been proven, inter species evolution is a joke, only intra species has any truth. All of the theory is the cogitations of a man given to prior philosophic postulation. Uncle Charlie thought himself a scientist but he was just a man with a big imagination.

Who made the gases that made the big bang? Did they create themselves?

Counting the least number of any species that could survive the very worst disasters and bad years on earth, missing links could be piled high enough to reach the moon and back. They should be in every backyard garden and every dig in the world. They are not anywhere to be found. Some of those accorded the status of missing link have been proven to be hoaxes.

The new revelations of creation scince are being ignored and scientists with any real brains are leaving the inner circle in growing numbers.

Broun has more sense than most of the bloggers on this site today.

Come in for a landing.

wittyno43
18
Points
wittyno43 10/09/12 - 04:21 pm
0
0
Explaination of gases from the big bang

Of course the gases weren't formed from absolutely nothing. Scientifically, we know that's impossible. You have to realize that you are asking a question about a subject that has infinitesimal answers, and no serious student of science would ever accept "God did it" as an answer, and stop searching for logic. As with any answer to a question, answers always provoke more questions-as anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes with a two year old knows. The next question will always be "why?" So you're being extremely unreasonable in expecting a single answer to bring closure to a question that has virtually no limits in answers.

In a nutshell, the gases were thought to have been formed from Dark Matter. We know dark matter exists, but proving what it is has been more difficult. We know those gases help us estimate the total baryonic matter of the universe by studying Big Bang nucleosynthesis. This is done by connecting the observed He/H ratio of the Universe today to the amount of baryonic matter present during the early hot phase when most of the helium was produced. Once the temperature of the Universe dropped below the neutron-proton mass difference, neutrons began decaying into protons. If the early baryon density was low, then it was hard for a proton to find a neutron with which to make helium before too many of the neutrons decayed away to account for the amount of helium we see today. So by measuring the He/H ratio today, we can estimate the necessary baryon density shortly before and after the Big Bang. We know 1/20 of the total mass of the Universe is baryonic matter. There is non-baryonic dark matter to account for the remaining 95% of the matter required to give Ω, the mass of the Universe, in units of critical mass, equal to unity. Now, there are some anomalies in the mass and baryonic matter theories. However, with the discovery of the "God Particle" or Higgs Boson, scientists are 99% certain that this particle explains away those anomalies. But this particle isn't anything like the biblical god, rather it is seen as the "DNA" of astrophysics.

It's understandable, for a layman who has absolutely no background in physics, to want an explaination in the simplest terms. It makes people feel like they've accomplished something. But in essence,by claiming "God did it" without nary an iota of proof that that was so, you close your mind to evidence and the possibility of absolute truth. If all scientists did this, we'd still be believing spontaneous generation was true, that the earth was flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. None of the advances in medicine or even technology would have been possible.
So before you blow off science, think about that. We don't pretend to have all the answers, but we won't stop looking for them either.

hopple
9
Points
hopple 10/10/12 - 03:29 am
0
1
Reading through the comments

Reading through the comments and I am discerning a pattern...it seems as though Mr. Broun's supporters are the reason that so many Georgians catch the stereotypes of "backwoods, inbred, hillbilly, hick and uncle daddy, cousin lovers"...with that being said, Invisible Pink Unicorn...prove she doesn't exist!!!

zoebrain
2
Points
zoebrain 10/10/12 - 05:30 am
0
0
We've seen this before

The Bible says the Earth is Flat - circular in one place, with corners in others. St John Chrystostom, one of the Church Fathers, pronounced anathema on anyone who claimed otherwise. But Reality trumped belief - eventually - and those passages were declared Metaphorical.

The Bible says the Flat Earth has waters below it, and waters above it, the Earth being covered by a Firmament with valves in. Noah's flood was caused when the waters bubbled up from below, and the "windows of heaven" - the valves in the sky - opened to make it rain. The whole Flood story depends on that belief. But eventually, those passages were declared Metaphorical.

The Bible claims the Sun and Moon shine with their own light, and travel across the Firmament. Stars are little lamps on the Firmament, which sometimes fall off and fall to Earth. But eventually, those passages were declared Metaphorical.

God's Holy Sword, is, according to the Bible, lightning - nothing about "electricity". Despite opposition from pastors and priests, Benjamin Franklin showed otherwise, and those passages too were declared Metaphorical.

The Book of Job explicitly states that set above the Firmament, there are storehouses of snow and hail, and places from which the winds blow. But eventually, those passages were declared Metaphorical.

The sciences of Astronomy, Geology, and even Meteorology show that the Bible is not a reliable textbook for science. Very few people admit to believing that the Earth is flat, or that rain comes from cosmic oceans that leak in through the windows in the sky, or that God dumps snow through them.

So why is it that when Biology shows that the rest of the creation story in Genesis is also "metaphorical", that on this one issue, there's so much opposition to realizing that this bit is too, like all the rest?

Believe in the Creation story as literal truth, you have to believe the Earth is Flat, that there are waters above kept out by a Firmament, that not only is Biology "from the pits of Hell", but so is meteorology, astronomy, geology. That Americans can't have landed on the Moon, as it's a lamp that travels on the Firmament. That Hail is stored in big sky-warehouses, just as the Bible (and the Babylonians before the Bible was written) said.

InChristLove
22459
Points
InChristLove 10/10/12 - 10:05 am
0
0
zoebrain, it truely is sad

zoebrain, it truely is sad when someone can not distinquish what is a metaphoric description of the mighty works and creation of an Awesome God and what is a literal descriptive accounts of the creation of this universe and of man. You are correct, the Bible is not a scientific manual and can not be read as such. An introduction to the Holy Spirit is a wise choice when trying to interpret and understand biblical scripture.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Fatality highlights golf cart safety

Similar to cars, driving a golf cart has legal requirements. Texting and driving is illegal. So is driving while impaired. Also, all drivers must have a valid driver's license and golf carts are ...
Search Augusta jobs