Rev. David Rives — Darwin Was Desperate

We were playing with the dogs when we received an urgent summons from the Drool-o-tron™, which was calling to us with its sirens and flashing lights. The blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND). The Drool-o-tron™ had found the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries.

Our computer was locked onto this headline at WND: Science’s desperate attempts to explain away God. Wow — desperate attempts. Good title, huh? The actual title of the rev’s video is “The evolution of evolution — Charles Lyell.”

The rev tells us that Charles Lyell was an early geologist who wanted to free science from the bible, so everything had to be explained naturally. He said that the processes we see today were also in effect in the past. Charles Darwin admired Lyell, and even took Lyell’s work with him when he traveled around the world on the Beagle.

The rev says that Darwin wasn’t convinced of evolution by his observations — it was his rejection of God! But now the scientific evidence is against Lyell, so Darwin was wrong!

The rev has said much the same thing before. See this from five years ago: Rev. Rives — The Darwin-Lyell Conspiracy. Nothing wrong with recycling this stuff. It’s always The Truth.

The rev is wearing the same gray bible-boy suit with a dark blue shirt that he wore for the last video we wrote about. It’s weird that he rarely changes his clothes, but he’s still the cutest rev you’ve ever seen! The video is only three minutes long before the commercial at the end. Go ahead, click over to WND and watch it.

As we always do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. Just in time, too, because you’re all bursting to unload about Trump. This is the place for it. You know the rules. Okay, the comments are open. Go for it!

Copyright © 2017. 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

12 responses to “Rev. David Rives — Darwin Was Desperate

  1. Did anyone read this book
    The Book that changed America: How Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Ignited a Nation
    Randall Fuller
    Viking, 2017
    How the Origin of Species, appearing on the threshold of the Civil War, was influential among abolitionists.

  2. The rev tells us that Charles Lyell was an early geologist who wanted to free science from the bible

    How very, very curious. So the rev’s telling his drooling followers that Lyell was dedicated to taking God out of science? Yet, as Wikipedia quite accurately summarizes:

    Lyell . . . struggled to square his religious beliefs with evolution. This inner struggle has been much commented on.

    “Much commented on.” Comment that, alas, has somehow escaped the rev’s copious researches.

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    How stupid are Republicans? Don’t even know how insurance works. This stuns me:

    “The fatal conceit of Obamacare,” Ryan said in his press briefing, “is that young and healthy people are going to go into the market and pay for the older, sicker people.”

    Explains why they can’t figure out how to replace it. They are just desperate to get rid of it.

  4. Ceteris Paribus

    Davy Rives witty take-down of Lyell and Darwin is a classic. Rives mocks both by invoking the slippery term “evolution of evolution”, demonstrating that science is just a false flag of logic. So it is precisely because science constantly modifies the “Truth(tm)”, that one should know that no reasonable person could ever find truth using mere science.

    Rives has a much better methodology for divining “The Truth(tm)”. He would call it “Belief in Belief”, thus making his KJV Biblical evidence double-plus-extra true. A master mind is at work.

  5. Of course, the good reverend has no evidence whatever that Darwin embraced evolution because he had rejected God–except, of course, for his own conviction that anyone who accepts evolution must have rejected God. This is argument from assertion, not from fact, which is the hallmark of fanatics for whom facts are inconvenient.

  6. Dave Luckett

    As realthog tells us, Lyell was a devout Protestant Christian all his life, led by unimpeachable evidence to an appreciation of the antiquity of the Earth and of man upon it. He struggled with, and implicitly rejected, the apparent blindness of evolution.

    What gets me about creationists like Rives is not merely their appalling ignorance and recklessness about the facts. No, it’s their remorseless lack of charity. Rives grossly traduces Lyell. Ham appears to believe that relegation of Genesis to the realm of myth and legend is worthy of damnation; and he simply cannot reflect on what that would imply about God, if it were true.

    Something has been removed from these people’s conscience.

  7. Ross Cameron

    The fall-back position of religion is that if you can`t answer facts presented to you, it`s not because they are true, but that you haven`t arrived at the correct answer yet. Then, the blackness descends and the episode is wiped so that you can go back to your original stance. Works every time.

  8. Our Curmudgeon calls an IFFZ because

    you’re all bursting to unload about Trump

    Actually, no, the man himself is such a self-satirising narcissist that res ipsa loquitur.

    Slightly more interesting is monitoring the Devout Trumpers as the administration attempts to deliver on some of the ill-defined pledges of its populist programme: e.g. there’s an overwhelming consensus amongst his base for the repeal of the ACA (and I’m not here to defend that legislation, btw) but rising discord about the proposed replacement (or even consensus that any replacement is needed, but a return to status quo ante instead). Opposition is always far easier than Government; how the current batch of clowns will deal with that remains to be seen.

    But I think there is a more general issue that does merit thought and discussion, to wit, the programme Mr. Bannon & company advocate of economic nationalism. And that ideological movement has populist counterparts in Europe and Asia as well. It is often promoted by outright demagogues using emotive fear-mongering, but I think one needs to set that aside as a distraction and consider the pros and cons (I did not dare write here “the strengths and weaknesses”) of Economic Nationalism.

    And personally, I have very mixed views on that. I do find it fascinating that the same folks who most ardently admire Reagan for his call, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” are the most vociferous enthusiasts baying for “Mr. Trump, build the yuge beautiful wall!” Similarly, it was the left wing of the British Labour Party that opposed the UK’s membership of the EU in 1974–and largely on the grounds of ‘economic nationalism’–while the Conservatives promoted enhanced globalisation; Thatcher would have been horrified by the Brexit vote.

    Any takers for kicking that topic around a bit?

  9. Michael Fugate

    Maybe money needs a passport and a visa before it goes to different countries and then a green card or citizenship when it gets there?

  10. David and a box of rocks go head-to-head in an IQ test! And the winner is …..

  11. @TomS. re: “Did anyone read this book
    The Book that changed America: How Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Ignited a Nation”

    No, but I wouldn’t waste my time with it as the very premise is bulls**t. If anybody really thinks that a book published in late November of 1859, in England, which then had to get over here, get widely disseminated, discussed, and then spark a war that killed hundreds of thousands (and started in February of 1861, less than fourteen months later) is a valid premise, then I have this bridge and some swamp land for sale.

    The only way anyone should find this book compelling is if they don’t understand either timelines or American history.