Rev. David Rives — Darwin Was Two-Faced

It’s once again time for another video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries. The last time we brought you a David Rives video was Distance to the Stars.

Today, in less than two minutes, the rev reveals that Darwin was being disingenuous when he referred to “the Creator” in the final edition of Origin of Species. The rev also distinguishes between micro-and macro-evolution, and declares that an amoeba will never be transformed into a man.

You don’t need our commentary. Go ahead, click on the video and take a look. It’s a real eye-opener!

Copyright © 2012. 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

9 responses to “Rev. David Rives — Darwin Was Two-Faced

  1. “Unrelated to this article “
    Heres a link to the review at the Dallas Film Festival of “The Revisionaries” the documentary made about Don McLeRoy and his YEC/Discoveroid sponsored revisions to Texas science standards. It is totally scathing
    and made a huge splash at the film festival this weekend, a good thing. More people are aware of how out of control the Texas state board members have become as a result.
    I recommend viewing the film if it can be located, or at least, reading some of the reviews, this one is particularly good. Google “The Revisionaries” to find other links. Wild stuff.
    🙂 Will

  2. what a fine upstanding member of the clergy this guy is. can’t wait for more.

  3. The Curmudgeon has truly inspired me to seek the truth…..and a better suit/tie combo.

  4. retiredsciguy

    SC: “The rev … declares that an amoeba will never be transformed into a man.”

    Probably not again, no. That niche is now occupied. But really — is anyone even claiming that an amoeba can transform into a human? Of course not. It apparently happened through myriad intermediate stages over billions of years, and the amoeba (or similar protozoan) wasn’t even the beginning stage, but was itself fairly advanced compared to the earliest forms of life.

    Hey Rev — stick to theology. Leave the science to more advanced brains.

  5. How does owning and apologizing for a previous lapse (if you even want to call it that) constitute being “two-faced”? Creationists don’t know integrity when it hits them in the face, they’re so used to fudging their own misstatements and misdeeds.

    Is there anything thing left they haven’t accused Darwin of? What’s next, his sloppy penmanship and poor fashion sense? Who gives a ****?

  6. NeonNoodle said:

    What’s next, his sloppy penmanship and poor fashion sense?

    Rives might be able to talk about the penmanship. I don’t know as (thankfully) I’ve never seen him write. Given the low priority of penmanship in the past, say, two decades, I’m willing to bet it borders between “doctor on a prescription pad” and “chicken scratch”.
    As for the other thing, Ian already pointed out that Rives would have no place talking about anyone’s “fashion sense”.

  7. Ceteris Paribus

    Science wouldn’t be science if it didn’t allow for changes. But it is good that Rives can only produces video rants about long dead, agnostic, biologist Darwin. Please, nobody let him know that a living, atheist, astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, supported the movement to remove Pluto from its designation as the 9th planet. Rives might be truckled to heave his beloved telescope into the Lake of Fire.

  8. Doctor Stochastic

    In other good news, the Witte Museum in San Antonio has an exhibit, “Darwin, How One Man’s Theory Turned the World on its Head.”

  9. Doctor Stochastic, ah, a name from the past.