Is Bill O’Reilly’s Creationism Evolving?

Two years ago we wrote Bill O’Reilly — Flaming, Full-Blown Creationist. The brief video embedded in that post tells the whole story.

But last night we saw a different O’Reilly on his Fox show. He was so different that his performance inspired an alarmed article in WorldNetDaily: Bill O’Reilly: The Bible contradicts itself.

That article includes a five-minute video of his interview with the couple who have created “The Bible,” a TV miniseries that will be seen on the History Channel. We can’t find the interview on YouTube so we can’t embed it here. You’ll have to click over to WND to see it. Their article also quotes a few things he said to his guests during the interview:

When you say you’re a believer, do you believe in the Bible literally? I mean you believe that Adam and Eve were out there, and the snake and the apple and all of that business?

He was told yes, the producers of the miniseries believe it. He also said:

Look, a lot of the Bible, Mr. Burnett, is allegorical, and we know that in creationism and things like that.

Wow! Is that really O’Reilly? Then, sounding a bit incredulous, he asked this question:

Are you telling people that they should believe in Adam and Eve? That they should believe in Noah’s Ark? Jonah and the whale? Are you telling people that this is the way to go?

His guests said that they believe those things, but they just presented the bible stories straight, as they are written. O’Reilly never gave his own views, but he also mentioned (without specifying them) that there were contradictions in the New Testament.

Take a look at the video. We can’t tell what O’Reilly truly thinks. It could be that he’s changing his opinions, or it could be that he has no opinions, but he’s willing to say anything to keep his show interesting. If he’s changing his mind it would be nice to know, because he’s done some crazy things in the past — e.g., his interview of Richard Dawkins.

Actually, it doesn’t matter what he thinks. His show is popular, and that’s probably all that matters to him.

Copyright © 2013. 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

15 responses to “Is Bill O’Reilly’s Creationism Evolving?

  1. “Actually, it doesn’t matter what he thinks. His show is popular, and that’s probably all that matters to him.”

    I haven’t watched O’Reilly all that much, but I suspect you nailed it here. He knows that his oppositional interview style sells.

  2. O’Reilly is entirely pragmatic and ratings driven. Old time populist.

  3. He hasn’t changed his views. He believes in Thiestic Evolution, meaning he believes in God and that He used evolution to create everything. That is why he mentioned the amoeba in the other video.

  4. The whole truth

    Just FYI, o’reilly used to be a news anchor in Portland, Oregon (KGW, channel 8).

  5. Whenever I click on over to the WND, it’s like a moth to the flame – I get drawn in to the comments section. It really is hard for me to comprehend the breadth and depth of the ignorance on display.

  6. The Bible is literal. The Bible is allegorical. You can’t explain that.

  7. Tomato Addict says: “The Bible is literal. The Bible is allegorical. You can’t explain that.”

    Sure I can. It’s literally allegorical.

  8. Retired Prof

    Creationists disagree that it’s literally allegorical, SC. They claim it’s allegorically literal.

    Trouble is, not everybody can agree on what the allegories literally mean.

  9. Retired Prof says: “Trouble is, not everybody can agree on what the allegories literally mean.”

    Religion — unlike science — has no peaceful mechanism for resolving disputes. Scientists devise experiments to distinguish between alternative hypotheses, and when the observable facts are available, the failed hypothesis is abandoned. That’s why science is a global phenomenon, with no regional conflicts.

    In religious controversies, because the disagreements are about spiritual issues, there is no way to resolve anything by looking at material facts. Although each interpretation is sincerely believed to be true by its supporters, they can’t persuade those who interpret things differently. That’s why we have so many denominations.

  10. Hanna: “He hasn’t changed his views. He believes in Thiestic Evolution, meaning he believes in God and that He used evolution to create everything. That is why he mentioned the amoeba in the other video.”

    All I know is that ~5 years ago he called “evolutionists” “fascists” and parrotted many “weaknesses” of evolution. If he has admitted TE since then – not the same thing as saying that Bible stories are allegories – then he has apparently learned that he had been scammed. If so, that’s encouraging, but I would not expect him to defend science, just keep a lower profile about it.

  11. Frank J,
    do you have a quote or a reference to O’Reilly calling evolutionists “fascists”?

  12. In one of his “interviews” with Dawkins, he says that “he believes in evolution” and also uses the term fascism to describe what Dawkins believes should be taught in the classroom.

  13. @Diogenes:

    Douglas E’s link is one. I recall one or 2 others, but would have to google to find them.

  14. Douglas,

    thanks for the link.

  15. Oh no it’s not! It’s allegorical literal! 😉