David Barton: Founding Fathers Rejected Darwin

This video is popping up all over the place, so we’ll give a hat-tip to everyone. But just because we didn’t discover the thing is no reason not to post it.

Barton is the favorite historian of the Texas State Board of Education, Glenn Beck, and Mike Huckabee. The last time we posted about this guy was David Barton: Favorite Historian of Theocrats. All the background information you need is there.

Did you realize that the Founding Fathers had the “complete creationism v. evolution debate”? Really, they did — Barton says so. He also says that Thomas Paine wanted creation science taught in the public schools — which didn’t then exist, by the way.

Go ahead, click on the thing. It runs less than a minute.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

11 responses to “David Barton: Founding Fathers Rejected Darwin

  1. Uhh. I’m actually speechless.

  2. Notice how Barton opens his mouth and word salad falls out. That ‘s a polite way of saying “BS” and I don’t mean the college degree. Blah, blah, blah, founding fathers, blah, blah, Thomas Paine, blah, blah, creation science in public schools, blah, blah.

    It’s called pathological lying. No pause, no thought, just pure BS. Now, Barton will take this very clip and turn it around as an example of the godless, liberal media taking his words out of context.

  3. What kind of idiot is he? The founding fathers and evolution? The founding fathers could not have even heard of Charles Darwin. The thing that bothers me is that some people will believe anything. Thomas Paine in favor of creation science. Anachronisms (like saddles on dinosausr) abound is creationist thought, but this boggles the mind!

  4. How many Nobel Laureates does he have to back that up?

  5. Anachronisms (like saddles on dinosaurs) abound is creationist thought, but this boggles the mind!

    I wish my landlord was a creationist. When he asks for the rent, I can say “I’ll pay you yesterday already.”

  6. Barton is crazy like a fox, or, better yet, a wolf. The percentage of people in the country who are well-educated, literate and keep up with news, science and the arts is very, very small. My guess would be 5%. Barton appeals to a huge base of very ignorant, functionally illiterate, impressionable, gullible and apathetic people who would rather listen to his glib presentation and feel “educated” rather than do the hard work of actually knowing S*** from Shinola.

    What is ironic is that he’s making money by making fools of the very base that’s making him rich. That’s too rich in itself! I’m sure Barton thanks God every night for suckers being born every minute.

    Barton is a business, not a professor. He’s a self-professed expert, not a recognized expert. I yam what I yam ’cause that’s what I say I yam! And then he proceeds to yammer. Barton can’t be fired; he owns his own company. He can’t be denied tenure or shunned from academia; he’s not in it. He can’t be voted out; he’s not an elected official. He can, however, be ridiculed and mocked and satirized and laughed at.

  7. Barton and The Hamster are soul-mates for sure. Neither is stupid. Both are lying, conning, despicable manipulators of the ignorant, knuckle dragging mouth breathers who are their base of support.

    Now, I’m gonna go take a shower.

  8. Well, if you believed that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, anachronisms like the Founding Fathers rejecting Darwinism before Darwin was even born is par for the course. These people don’t exactly have a tight grip on historical chronology to begin with.

    “He also says that Thomas Paine wanted creation science taught in the public schools — which didn’t then exist, by the way.”

    He counts on the fact that most of his audience doesn’t know anything about Thomas Paine apart from the fact that Paine wrote “Common Sense” during the American Revolution. Thomas Paine was a Deist and a political radical whose religious and political views would be anathema to most American religious conservatives, if they were aware of them. The idea that Thomas Paine would have supported “creation science” is laughable.

  9. Doc Bill: “Barton is crazy like a fox, or, better yet, a wolf.”

    The minute I heard of this story I figured that was the case. I also guessed correctly that some of his detractors would “take the bait,” as if Barton didn’t know that Darwin’s theory came almost a century later, or that creation “science” and its replacement scams like ID and “academic freedom” came a century or more after that.

    Like most of today’s scam artists, Baton knows better, but will pretend that he is supported by people who (1) did not have access to today’s evidence, and (2) are not alive to correct those who put words in their mouths. It’s cheap and easy to spin it that the Founding Fathers would advocate education “fairness.” But anyone with half a brain and any honesty would know that they’d be appalled at the antics of today’s anti-evolution activists.

    My guess that Barton was more “perp” than “rube” was confirmed in a 2008 article he wrote (hat tip to Mr. G. at The Panda’s Thumb). He was aware that the science-literate Founding Fathers accepted the old earth conclusions that were already well-established, if not yet settled on the 4.5-4.6 BY age, which is compelling enough to convince many (most?) self-described creationists. I didn’t torture myself with Barton’s writing to see if he gave his own opinion of the age of the Earth. I will guess that he’s clued in enough on the scam to avoid taking a position. If anyone is interested, I’d like to know if my guess was right or wrong. In this case I’d rather be wrong.

    I can’t say it enough. Please ask all these perps “hard” questions like the age of life/Earth/Universe and common descent. And watch most of them dance around trying to pander to a big tent full of rubes.

  10. Thomas Paine was no creationist. “The Age of Reason” makes it clear that he had no respect for either Christianity or its creation story. Yes, he acknowledges that God was the Creator; but 220 years ago there was simply no other game in town. Being a Deist was about as far as one could realistically marginalize God in those days.

    He may not have had a handle on the depth of geological time, but he clearly understood the depth of physical space. Regarding creationism in light of the vastness of space he said: “The two beliefs cannot be held together in the same mind, and he who thinks that he believes both, has thought but little of either.” (The Age of Reason, part I, section 12).

    One expects that Paine would have embraced evolution eagerly and with relief, had it become known in his lifetime. He almost seemed to be grasping toward some natural understanding of adaptation and physiological change toward the end that great work.

  11. Poolio: “Thomas Paine was no creationist. He may not have had a handle on the depth of geological time.”

    Actually, like most (all?) Founding Fathers, Paine knew that the Universe/Earth/life was far older than common “literal” interpretations of the Bible, even if science had not yet arrived at the well-established ages of today. If not in the 1700s, by the early 1900s, even most educated creationists, e.g. W. J. Bryan, reluctantly accepted mainstream science’s ages, if not common descent. Not until “scientific” creationsim attepted to force a “heliocentric YEC” compromise did that become the biggest seller among the masses, and “educated” science-deniers.

    But from almost the beginning, “scientific” YECs started retreating on the “age” questions – not conceding like the OECs, but playing “don’t ask don’t tell.” That was before court losses forced them to use less-obviously Biblical references, and evolve the ID scam.