Most of us have experienced the equivalent of a college dormatory bull session on religion. Usually this happens when we’re around 18 years old and away from the influence of our families for perhaps the first time.
Last night on the Bill O’Reilly show, something very much like that took place. O’Reilly’s guest was a preacher named Robert Jeffress, from the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas. As the video of the event reveals, Jeffress is very much a scriptural literalist — Adam & Eve, all of it — although he allows that the world may be older than 6,000 years because scripture doesn’t literally say otherwise. That puts him in the tradition of old-Earth creationists like William Jennings Bryan.
But what are O’Reilly’s views? They seem to be wildly fluctuating. Last week we posted Is Bill O’Reilly’s Creationism Evolving?, describing his apparently major departure from what we wrote about a couple of years earlier (see Bill O’Reilly — Flaming, Full-Blown Creationist). As the video of last night’s interview indicates — it’s only five and a half minutes long — his view of things is now shown to be that of a theistic evolutionist. He asked his guest:
Let’s begin at the beginning, Adam and Eve: Did they literally live in the garden of Eden and usurp the evolutionary process?
The rev said that yes indeed, that’s all literally true. Then O’Reilly said:
If you believe in Adam and Eve, there are a number of other things that you have to believe. Incest is one of them because the race had to procreate off the children that Adam and Eve had. Then you have to reject the science of evolution and carbon dating and all of those things. So it’s kind of incompatible with science. Or am I wrong?
As we said, this is typical college dorm stuff. The rev responded:
The Bible does not contradict true science. It may contradict the passing fads of scientific theory that are always evolving. For example, it used to be thought that the cosmos always existed. But then we had Sir [Fred] Hoyle, who named the Big Bang Theory, that said, “Guess what, the universe had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago.”
Actually, Hoyle rejected the Big Bang theory — to which he gave that name as a term of derision. Anyway, O’Reilly then said:
I subscribe and my belief system is that there is a Higher Power, and that the evolution was the way He created the world. Now I was taught in my Catholic school that a lot of the stories in the Bible are allegorical.
To which the rev replied:
Here’s the problem with that. If you start labeling these stories as fictitious or fable, where do you stop?
And so it went. There’s nothing really new in any of this, except for the venue, which gave their little debate a lot of exposure — especially to many of the Fox News audience who may never have heard such a conversation before. They’re probably still in shock.
So what does O’Reilly’s debate mean? Nothing, really. Most of us who experienced such conversations long ago usually came to one of two conclusions. Either: (1) “This is all a bunch of unresolvable hooey, and I’m going to head for the coffee shop to look for that blonde with the big bazooms;” or (2) “This is really important stuff, and I’m going to be obsessed with it all the rest of my life.”
Where does O’Reilly fit in? We’re not sure. Because his position seems to be changing, it’s possible that he’s coming to this topic somewhat late in life. That’s unusual, but better late than never. Or it’s possible that as he approaches his dotage, he’s wildly groping around, changing his views from day to day.
Maybe we’ll never know what O’Reilly thinks — if anything — because he’s just a showman who realizes that — like some starlet’s “wardrobe malfunction” — such episodes are good for his ratings.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
He’s an opportunist, promulgating whichever viewpoint will garner him the greatest popularity, so it’s hard to figure out what his spin (or non-spin) is on this.
Bill O’Reilly has demonstrated on several occasions that he is not all that familiar with the arguments on either side, which puts him in the same camp as Ann Coulter. As for “coming to this topic somewhat late in life,” I also came to it later in life, having been preoccupied with getting an education and staying employed for most of my adult life. I now definitely fall into your second camp: “This is really important stuff, and I’m going to be obsessed with it all the rest of my life.” The Big Bang and biological evolution are topics that Christian theologians, scientists, and pastors need to face head on before we lose most of our youth. So far, only a few are doing so, such as Francis S. Collins, Daryl R. Domning, Peter Enns, Darrel Falk, Karl Giberson, Daniel Harlow, John F. Haught, Denis Lamoureux, Alister McGrath, John Polkinghorne, and Christopher Southgate.
Paul Bruggink says:
I went to the coffee shop looking for the blonde. I’m still looking.
“This is all a bunch of unresolvable hooey, and I’m going to head for the coffee shop to look for that blonde with the big bazooms;”
What’s so bad about a brunette with small bazooms?
I’m going to stop by the First Baptist Dallas coffee shop at lunch today to look for the blond SC. If shes there it may be time to choose a different blonde because a dance and a beer somewhere will not be part of her agenda, guaranteed. Unless you can get Coulter to Vegas. At that point, the sky’s the limit. Sci guy may have some pointers based on his experiences with her .
@doodlebugger: Huh? I have no experience with Coulter or buxom Baptist beer-shunning blondes, for that matter.
retiredsciguy says: “I have no experience with Coulter or buxom Baptist beer-shunning blondes, for that matter.”
I never met Coulter, but I met one of the latter, from Baylor, many years ago during spring break in Ft. Lauderdale. She didn’t shun beer, however. Our time together was very scriptural — if you carefully select the right passages.
SC: Actually, Hoyle rejected the Big Bang theory — to which he gave that name as a term of derision.
Right. It was George Gamow who championed the idea that the universe expanded from a dimensionless singularity. Fred Hoyle adhered to the Steady State Theory, which held that the universe had no beginning and was constantly adding new matter as it expanded, thus maintaining a “steady state”.
The discovery of the 3º K. background radiation by Penzias and Wilson put a stake through the heart of the Steady State idea.
SC: Our time together was very scriptural — if you carefully select the right passages.
Nicely put! (Unless you’re referring to the part about what happened to Lot’s wife — but enough of that salty dialog.)
At one time First Baptist in Dallas was the largest single church in the country. I first encountered creationist thought as such (although raised a Southern Baptist) in the serialization of Criswell’s “Did Man Just Happen?” in the Baptist Standard around 1956 or 7. At that time Criswell was the pastor at First Baptist, and later became president of the Southern Baptist Convention. I wrote a letter pointing out thirty two errors of fact in Criswell’s missive. My letter was published, edited to make it appear that I agreed with Criswell. That was my first clear cut personal encounter with creationist dishonesty. Although that letter was my first publication, I have never listed it on my vita. I see that some of Criswell’s arguments are alive and well among creationist thinkers today.
Before getting involved in all this banter, I intended to comment on Bill O’Reilly. His statement –
“I subscribe and my belief system is that there is a Higher Power, and that the evolution was the way He created the world. Now I was taught in my Catholic school that a lot of the stories in the Bible are allegorical.”
– is straightforward, without any lawyerly hedging. I stated in an earlier post that it seemed like O’Reilly would just engage in oppositional interviewing to boost ratings. Now it appears that he has revealed his actual beliefs.
Not that it matters at all in a scientific sense; however, it is important because he is quite influential in popular opinion.
O’Reilly is simply a blowhard and a bully. In his calmer moments he will dredge up his Catholic upbringing and I’m convinced he’s still One with the Church. However, his “tides come in, tides go out, never a miscommunication” statement, a ridiculous comment from which he refused to back down is an example of blowhard, and his shouting over his guests rejoinder and then terminating the interview was an example of bully. Not a serious man, simply an entertainer – and effective at that, obviously.
As for these guys:
none of them are “doing so.” Giberson got himself kicked out of Biologos for his allegory talk and Hough’s “theology” is so insubstantial that it’s a wonder the guy is taken so seriously. Oh, right, he’s not; Hough only takes himself seriously, more like O’Reilly than not. None of these guys express a thought any newer than what Aquinas proposed in the 13th century.
There is one theologian who has, though, and that’s John Spong, former Episcopal Bishop of Newark. Spong’s analytics stripped Christian theology down to the bare essential where Spong found himself standing at a very thin line across which was atheism. He wrote that he was not ready to cross that line, but I think he did but wasn’t ready to put it in print.
Here’s a little Spong to brighten up your day.
Sci guy… “I have no experience with Baptist beer shunning Baptists”….You’ve been to Czechoslovakia. Right? Auyobahn, headed east
….
The pilsner glass was invented in Czechoslovakia. Its a curvaceous glass., pilsner is blond. The metaphor for Coulter is so stunningly obvious, even O ‘Reilly can see that. Why do I always have to lay out the obvious here….:) But if you just insist, fine. Ill take her to St Barts when she breaks up with SC.
Windbag O’Reilly and Babble Thumper Jeffress Have Battle of Wits.
There is no winner. News at 11:00.
After some brewing failures due to contamination, the folks of Plzen, Bohemia (now in the Czech Republic) in 1840 hired a Bavarian brewer, Josef Groll, to introduce the Bavarian lagering method using some lager yeast that had been smuggled in (allegedly!) some years earlier. Groll infused his brew with local hops and Pilsner was born. I had a Pilsner Urquell in Prague just a couple of years ago and it’s still good!
OK, I had more than one. OK, I had a lot more than one. OK, OK, those little arrows on the room keys are difficult to see in a dark hallway and there are like 10 ways to put it in wrong. And, yes, officer she’s my niece. Srsly. Truth ™.
So why does he have Jeffress ON at all. This is a guy who deserves ZERO exposure. Some quotes:
And if we get into that idea and fall into that trap, then we say then we can’t say anything that’s going to offend people, why, if we preach that homosexuality is an abomination to God we better not preach that because that’s going to offend the gays or people who know gay people, if we tell people what the Bible says that every other religion in the world is wrong: Islam is wrong, it is a heresy from the pit of Hell; Mormonism is wrong, it is a heresy from the pit of Hell; Judaism, you can’t be saved being a Jew, you know who said that by the way, the three greatest Jews in the New Testament, Peter, Paul, and Jesus Christ, they all said Judaism won’t do, it’s faith Jesus Christ.”
““That is a mainstream view, that Mormonism is a cult.”
““Every true, born again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian.”
“On that show, Jeffress likened the Catholic Church to Satan, and called it a “fake religion.”
“Jeffress called Catholicism “a Babylonian mystery religion spread like a cult” and suggested that it was “the genius of Satan” to make this “counterfeit” religion look like real Christian faiths.”
Wonder if O’Reilly knew his guest thinks Catholics like Bill are subscribing to fake beliefs fostered by Satan. Hmmmmmmm???
doc bill: Here’s a little Spong to brighten up your day.
Thanks for the link, Doc. Good read!
Bill O’Reilly is the Ann Coulter for people who cannot read.
In my opinion O’Reilly is playing a character on TV. You aren’t going to get near what he really believes because those beliefs might be contrary to what his character is supposed to believe — which of course are those things that increase his celebrity-hood and makes him more money.
O’Reilly is more nearly the replacement for Paul Harvey than Ann Coulter. Pew Research audience demographics report from last year shows 40% of O’Reilly’s audience is 65+ years of age.
The only one who tops that is Hannity at 42%. No one else on the list even manages to break 30%. Rush’s audience is 27% 65+; NPR 17%; Colbert and Stewart in single digits at 6% and 7%.
http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/09/9-27-12-40.png
Doc oh heck you’re the travel to Czech guy, not sciguy. My bad. Thanks for the Pilsner piece, highly informative.