Liberal memes debunked: I have many leather-bound books


What makes this so face-palmingingly awesome is the recent compilation by Steve Williams writing for the Examiner who found that of the ten people with the highest recorded IQs, eight are theists and at least six profess Christianity.

If that weren’t enough, a Yale professor last year found that those who identified as Tea Party were better versed in science than those who didn’t, including liberals.


  1. What really makes this stupid is the assertion that Christians (who are the real target here) do not read other books. Just from a personal perspective, I probably read more books on more diverse subjects that 75% of the population. While my worldview is rooted in the ONE book, I educate myself about all other worldviews through reading authors propagating such worldviews. E.g., I not only study creationism, but also ID and evolutionism. I study atheism and other religions. I study liberal ideology. Etc, etc, etc.

    And I’m not even a scholar! So if a layman like me can be well read in “many books,” those with the same worldview and of scholarly credentials certainly do better. So this meme is one of abject stupidity.

  2. Do you have any comments on this blog? What do your think?

    • Anthony, after reading the first post, it’s apparent theres little to no understanding of the bibles teachings. I left a comment, but it’s asked why is so much given to those who pursue underatanding of the natural law? Seriously? As if that’s the most important thing in the big picture?

      • The prominence of physical law and the power of science is what is putting pressure on the long-term viability of religion. So, yes, I’d say that’s important.

        • REAL science is compatible with the Christian faith.

          Albert Einstein said that James Clerk Maxwell made greater contributions to physics than anyone except Isaac Newton.

          Maxwell developed complex theoretical and mathematical explanations for all the forces in the universe except gravity and nuclear forces. He also made scientific contributions in the fields of thermodynamics and mathematics. In other words, Maxwell was a scientist of gigantic proportions who remains greatly respected today.

          By today’s standards, Maxwell would be called a “fundamentalist.” Maxwell lived at the same time as Charles Darwin and was very aware of evolutionary theory. He felt strongly that evolution was anti-scientific and wrote a powerful and important refutation of evolutionary writings. He also offered a very careful mathematical refutation of the theory that the solar system had evolved from a cloud of dust and gas.

          The great scientist Maxwell believed that Jesus Christ is the Savior that God has provided to deliver humanity from the results of sin – including eternal death. A writing of his, found after his death, states that the motivation for his work was that God had created all things just as Genesis says. And since God has created humans in His image, scientific study is a fit activity for one’s lifework.

          • Science is always evolving. Maxwell might have felt differently had he seen more evidence.

            Regarding evolution, certain forms of evolution clearly exist. There is a molecular basis for understanding how organisms can evolve. Experiments can be done in the laboratory to prove it.

            The evolution that concerns you most is origin of species in the large. For example, the path from invertebrate to vertebrate, or from fish to mammal. This form of evolution is extrapolated from the more “local” kind that one can demonstrate in a laboratory. There is no detailed understanding of how large-scale evolution happens, but it’s believed to be plausible and there is no alternative physical explanation. Scientists have to search for physical explanations. Religious faith is not a substitute.

            Whatever the state of scientific knowledge is today, it continually evolves and changes. It makes no sense for a scientist to stop trying to explain things with physical explanations. That does not mean everything will be answered and solved. I believe religious people should be open to scientific evidence, and be willing to accept the physical and material world as it is, because that world is fundamentally a creation of God. If scientific explanations exist for how creatures can evolve, then that is God’s will.

            • Yeh, pretend science is always evolving. They keep changing their ideas about what became what in evolutionism, and they go from claims of global cooling to global warming, etc,

              What we call “micro-evolution,” adaptation within a species, is never doubted, and it really shouldn’t even use the title “evolution” because it confuses people.

              BUT, there is absolutely NO evidence for molecules to man. NO. Can’t be tested in the lab because in a lab you have people DIRECTING the changes. Also, evolutionism is a forensic science, making speculations, assumptions and assertions about the past based on nothing but an upriver theory.

              Maxwell would have held to his beliefs because there is still no evidence for evolution. Evolution is impossible to begin with. The alternative physical explanation is the intelligent design and creation by God. It is the only explanation which fits with the data. But for the non-“religious” that would be admitting there is a God who will hold them accountable for their actions.

              • I don’t agree that scientific understanding of evolution cannot improve. I believe a major step forward would be a computation that demonstrates large advances can occur. The computation would be launched and then “compute” the consequences. It would not be “directed”, except at the beginning. (This is similar to how computers are used to design aircraft wings, based on computing with the equations of air flow).

                Another form of advance would be a computation or argument that large evolutionary changes could not have occurred in the time frames we are dealing with. We are probably not at a sufficiently advanced stage of understanding to do either of these things, but I am not an expert.

                Intelligent design is consistent with the data. As a scientist, I would want to know the details of how that occurred and was manifested in the physical world. What is not consistent with the data (in a straightforward way) is that all of creation occurred in seven days (7*24 hours) and that the universe is a few thousand years old.

              • The biggest problem I see with the evolutionary paradigm is that it requires biological organisms to have no limitations. But they clearly do. One simple example is livestock. Through selective breeding, we should have livestock the sizes of school busses by now. But there are genetic limits that prevent the animals from such a thing.

              • I don’t quite see your point. However, it is true that the scientific understanding of evolution is incomplete and lacking in quantitative detail. This often means another paradigm shift lies ahead, but I could not begin to guess what it is.

                Speaking of which: keep in mind that science makes progress through guesses, usually highly educated guesses, but guesses nonetheless. The knowledge we gain from science is what the natural world can reveal to us through the scientific method, a method that is powerful but also limited. The success of the scientific method is only possible because the world obeys an orderly pattern.

              • Anthony,

                You cannot improve understanding of evolution, because evolution never happened and is nothing but a false philosophy built on a foundation of sand.

                You talk about all the computation necessary at only the beginning, which immediately means there has to be an intelligent designer behind it. But it is more than that – the science for millions and billions of years is based on assumptions, then speculations about those assumptions, and finally assertions about the assumptions!

                What IS consistent with the factual evidence is creation and the earth-covering flood Noah rode through.

                Since we know God can create, why is it so difficult to accept how God said he created – 7/24hr days?! And why does the universe have to be billions of years old? I’ll tell you why – so as to fit in the evolutionist’s philosophical faith.

                God created time, by the way. Everything on earth had to be created mature and able to reproduce, so on day six Adam and Eve probably looked to be about 20, and yet the earth was only six days old. The point is that when it comes to forensic science, looks can be very deceiving.

              • You raise the point about an intelligent designer behind an “orderly” universe. Science has nothing to say about that. It is effectively outside the realm of science. Science is an empirical approach to gaining knowledge about the physical world. It does not explain why the world is here or how it got to be the way it is.

                As a scientist, there is much to learn about the creation events you speak of. The scientific method delves into details. How quickly did the flood cover the Earth? Where did the water come from? What physical laws were involved in creation? The laws we know about or were new forces at play? We can raise these questions now because science has been successful in describing events that occur in the physical world. From that understanding has come the miracles of modern medicine and space exploration. Why give up trying to understand creation? The bible is lacking in details. Can we fill some of these details in? Is anyone working on that?

                The universe’s age is not derived from considerations of evolution. It is derived from astronomical observations. The age of the universe far exceeds the age of Earth.

                What do you think of exoplanets? Is this plausible? Could there be life elsewhere in the universe?

              • Anthony,

                Solid, scholarly responses to your questions about how quickly the flood covered the earth, etc can be answered by a visit to If I put it all up you will give me no credibility. SO I refer you to the real scientists as well as biblical scholars at that site. The details in Scripture are as detailed as necessary to understand the truth and the facts of the situations. Almost all of the scientific research over the centuries which led to great advances were discovered by Christians applying their Christian worldview in their research.

                The universe’s age, based on astronomical observations, is still based on assumptions. I can actually grant that the universe and earth may be millions of years old by our time measurement, since the white hole theory with an event horizon shows how easy it would have been to do so and still fit in the 6-day paradigm. As the event horizon crossed earth, “earth-time” started – i.e., the start of time as we know it. From the point of the even horizon crossing the earth, the six days began ticking, and that was about 6000 years ago our time.

                Exoplanets are perfectly acceptable in a Creationist’s universe; after all, we have many uninhabited planets in our own solar system.

                No life elsewhere. Go made the earth for humans, and he made the earth as the center of his plans, including salvation through Christ. In fact, there is much evidence to show that the earth MAY be the center of the universe.

              • Come to think of it, finding life elsewhere than Earth would be major evidence for evolution. We can probably agree on that.

                Life elsewhere not found, yet.

              • Why would it be evidence of evolution?

              • Life elsewhere “evidence for evolution”?!?! That’s a real big non sequitur.

              • The bible appears very Earth centric, at least that is my interpretation. Reading the bible would not lead one to believe in the existence of life on other planets. However, extra-terrestrial life is entirely consistent with the theory of evolution. Many (perhap most?) scientists fully expect life to exist elsewhere than Earth, based on their scientific understanding of life’s origins.

                There is a simple scientific argument regarding life on other planets. It is possible that the emergence of living things on planets is highly unlikely, and that our example (Earth) is very rare or even unique. It is more likely that Earth is “average” regarding the emergence of life. In that case, life probably exists elsewhere.

                The scientific consensus is that the existence of planets outside of our solar system is not rare or unusual. Thus, it is likely that life exists elsewhere than Earth. Of course, we cannot be sure, because we don’t know how rare life is in the Universe.

              • It’s actually unlikely that life is elsewhere given the tight life permitting parameters required. For that reason I don’t think we’ll find life elsewhere.

                However I don’t think life on other planets is disruptive to the Christian worldview since the bible is concerned with only us here.

              • So the alternative physical explanation is magic?

  3. The first article you linked seems to have disappeared, and the second article admits that liberals are usually more scientifically literate than conservatives. The Tea party is clearly a fluke.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: