Is There Dissension in
American ultraconservative, anti-evolutionist and right-wing Christian Pat Robertson has opened a considerable can of worms by taking a swipe at the creationists' favourite, nay essential, piece of humbug, the six, twenty-four hour day creation as described in the Book of Genesis.
Just how wriggly these particular worms are can be gauged by reading Answers in Genesis' somewhat intemperate response to Robertson's 'heresy'. AiG begins the article thus -
'Pat Robertson, well-known founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN-TV) and host of the "700 Club" TV program, recently took a swipe at people who are dogmatic that the Bible teaches Creation in six 24-hour days. During a 17 June broadcast, Robertson said, "I sure wish he'd get off that 6/24 business," speaking about Michael Farris, founder and president of Patrick Henry College in Virginia (USA), who requires his teachers to believe and teach a six-day Creation'.
Read all of AiG's response to Robertson's statements.
Many of AiG's supporters are also supporters of Robertson and other members of the US Christian right such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchanan. This attack on Robertson could cause at least some fractures in the US Christian right.
And if AiG considers Robertson (a nutter of the first order) to be too liberal, then AiG and Ken Ham et al. have cemented their position among the loonier Christian cults.
During the broadcast referred to above, Robertson said -
'Genesis was never intended as a science textbook. Genesis is the backdrop for the introduction of the Jewish race through Abraham, which was God's agency of salvation through Jesus Christ. That's what Genesis is all about.'
'I mean, if God intended a textbook, he wouldn't be, you know, talking about the sun in the sense of the moon and all this kind of thing because it's phenomenal language. Its what you see. And when I look out, I see the sun rise, and I see the sun set. We know now the sun doesn't rise and the sun doesn't set. But the Bible talks about "from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same." But it's poetical language.'
'It [the Earth] actually revolves, but the writer of the Bible doesn't say, "Well, the Earth revolved on its axis, and therefore it looked like the sun was coming up." [Instead, the Bible says,] "From the rising of the sun to the going down of the same." '
'[The Bible also says in Psalm 114:4] "The little hills skipped like lambs." We'll, [sic] I mean, nobody really thinks the hills skipped. This is poetry! And to stake your whole faith on the basis of misinterpretation of poetry, to me, is a mistake '
It's little wonder that the folks at AiG are displeased. Think about it. Since Robertson dismisses Genesis as nothing more than 'poetry', on what basis is his rabid anti evolutionary views and rampant fundamentalism founded? And do his colleagues on the right agree with him? As fundamentalists (creationists) rely on Genesis and the rest of the Bible being the written word of God, divinely inspired and inerrant throughout, surely if (according to Robertson) it's not, there can be no 'creation', no 'Flood', no fall from grace and consequently, no creationism.