Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chris Matthews Attacks Pence and Conservatives on Belief in Science (Rush)
Rush Limbaugh ^ | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 05/06/2009 3:56:09 PM PDT by mnehring


RUSH: Now, I got some sound bites here with Chris Matthews and Mike Pence last night.  I want to play these for you because it's very instructive about what the liberal media is attempting to do to Republicans: portray Republicans as anti-science; portray Republicans as not believing in evolution, only believe in creationism; blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.  I play this Matthews stuff for you because I don't think it's just Matthews.  Normally I won't give a hoot, but I think this is a template that the left has come up with and that they're going to be hitting a whole lot of Republicans with over the course of the near future.  So here's the first of three sound bites we have on this.  This is an exchange, again, Chris Matthews with Mike Pence of Indiana on science.

MATTHEWS: (shouting) Republicans aren't known for being green! Your party's come up with this alternative but nobody really believes you got any passion on this subject!  If there's any passion on the subject it's Limbaugh!  How can your party be credible on dealing with CO2 emissions, with greenhouse gases, when the loudest voices in your party don't believe in it?

PENCE: Well, I --

MATTHEWS: (screaming) They just don't believe in it!

PENCE:  Well, let me tell you. I think the science is very mixed on the subject --

MATTHEWS (interrupting):  Okay, well, how can you get excited...?

PENCE: -- of global warming, Chris. I --

MATTHEWS:  (interrupting) -- then -- then -- th-th-then --

PENCE: Well --

MATTHEWS: Why should your party believe you're going to get serious --

PENCE: Yeah, absolutely, I --

MATTHEWS: -- about if you say the science is mixed?

PENCE:  Yeah, that's fair question, but look, I'm all for clean air. I'm all for clean coal technology.  You just wait and see. We're going to go all across the country with these energy summits and --

MATTHEWS: Harrumph!

PENCE: -- hear from the American people, and we're going to educate the American people on a twenty-first century Republican --


PENCE: -- agenda for the environment.

RUSH:  So you see what's being set up here? Republicans are anti-science because -- and there's this word "belief."  We don't believe that CO2 emissions are destroying the planet.  Therefore, we're anti-science.  And presumptive in this question is that there's no question at all about the science.  The science is settled!  That everybody knows that carbon dioxide emissions destroy the planet, and that's a false premise.  It isn't true.  So the effort here is to portray Republicans as Neanderthal on this basis. Here's the question if I had been on with Matthews last night.  I would have ask him the following question: "Why is it, Chris, that you and all of the other environmentalists in the West who subscribe to the theories you subscribe to, always end up hurting poor people?"  

And he would start sputtering and spewing and spitting.

I'd say, "Is it just a coincidence that your environmentalist policies hurt poor people?"  

"What do you mean? What do you mean?"

"Well, go to Africa!  Go to Africa where the environmental movement is denying technological improvement in terms of agriculture, air-conditioning, refrigeration.  You want them to remain Third World countries under this silly belief that their primitive lifestyles will save the planet.  All they're doing is staying poor.  They're not advancing; they're starving to death! They're dependent on the rest of the world for whatever it is they get, but you're happy that they're starving and dependent because somehow they're 'saving the planet' because they have no CO2 emissions.  Let's go to China.  We have just learned that these new curlicue lightbulbs, these compact fluorescents...

"There's a story: 'Green Lightbulbs Poison Workers.'  The mercury in these lightbulbs is poisoning poor people in China who have to manufacture them.  Why is it, Chris, that you say the science is totally settled here -- and the science is that the CO2 emissions are destroying the planet -- and yet when I look around, everybody that is benefiting so-called from your belief is poor and they're getting creamed! Why do you western environmentalists always end up hurting poor people, wherever it is?"  

And I could then produce a list of scientists who don't buy into this at all.  "Chris, you exhale CO2!  By your standard, you are helping to destroy the planet.  Here's the next bite from science into evolution."

PENCE:  Do I believe in evolution?  I embrace the view that God created the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that's in them, and --

MATTHEWS: (interrupting) Right, but you believe in evolution from the beginning.

PENCE:  The means, Chris, that He used to do that, I can't say, but I do believe --

MATTHEWS: (interrupting) You can't what?

PENCE: -- in that fundamental truth.

MATTHEWS: Well -- well did you take biology? (screaming) Did you take biology in school? Did you take science, which is all based on evolutionary belief and assumption?

PENCE: Well, I've always wanted to --

MATTHEWS: (screaming) If your party is to be credible on science, you've gotta accept science.  Do you?

PENCE: Yeah, I want to --

MATTHEWS: Accept science?

PENCE:  I always wanted to play in Inherit the Wind, but on the global warming issue --

MATTHEWS: (mocking laughter)

PENCE: -- I know that in the mainstream media...

MATTHEWS: See how you're hedging?

PENCE: In the mainstream media --

MATTHEWS: (screaming) This is why people don't trust Republicans!

PENCE:  In mainstream media, Chris --

MATTHEWS: (snorting)

PENCE: -- there is a denial of the growing skepticism in the scientific community about global warming.

RUSH:  See how this is working?  I'm playing these sound bites because it isn't just Matthews.  I want you to get ready for more of this to come down the pike.  See? Republicans don't believe in science.  You don't accept science!  You Republicans are Neanderthals.  So the premise is out there. Whether you're talking about global warming, evolution, regardless, the premise is out there: Republicans are Neanderthals and don't accept it.  All Republicans do, have blind faith in God.  Now, had I been on the program, this is an easy answer.  Matthews' question: "You want to educate the American peep about science and its relevance. Do you believe in evolution?"  

"Yeah.  I believe in evolution."  

"Oh, you do?  We got a Republican believes in evolution!"

"Yeah, wait, Chris! Wait, though! It can't explain creation.  I mean, we've got both.  Where did it come from, Chris?  Don't give me the Big Bang. Don't give me evolution for the Big Bang. Where did this all come from, what was it before it was what it is?  Certainly things evolve.  There's no question. There's no denying it. But evolution does not explain creation."  

(sputtering) "Buh, buh, buh, buh, but you're against science!"

"No, I'm not against science.  I'm against lies.  I'm against phony science. I'm against propaganda.  I wish people like you would get smarter.  You're a journalist; you're supposed to be curious.  You're not curious about anything.  You blindly believe whatever people on your side put out.  I'm curious, Chris.  I'm wise enough to know that there are answers to questions I will never get while on this earth.  I am wise enough to know that as a human being, there are a lot of questions I can ask to which the answers will not be made available to me while I'm alive.  I have the humility to understand that all this is much larger than I am.  I am not in control of all of it, Chris. I can't master it and neither can Stephen Hawking and neither can you.  And, by the way Chris, why are you trying to politicize this?  And, by the way, Chris, you're Catholic. What's wrong with believing in God?  Why don't you tell me, Chris: Is the pope a dummkopf?  Is the pope anti-science?  Is the pope somebody who ought to be thrown overboard?"

I don't know why our guys go on the shows.  They don't have any audience anyway.  Here's the final sound bite in this roster.  Matthews says, "Look, I've asked, do you believe in evolution.  Let me go back to the question.  You don't take a fundamental view of the seven days of creation, do you?  I mean, there were polls that show a huge percentage of the American people don't believe in evolution.  A lot of people don't believe in climate change.  I'm just questioning your passion of your party for climate change."

PENCE:  Look, you know, I've supported extensive increases in funding to the National Institute of Health.  


PENCE: That happened under Republican administrations and Republican Congresses.  This anti-science thing is a little bit weak.

MATTHEWS: (snide) The trouble is that your Mount Rushmore now includes Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and these characters that don't share either your intellect or your honesty, and thank you for showing your honesty today.

RUSH:  Well, now what is it that Beck and Palin and I do not believe? (interruption)  We're being dishonest?  Okay. Now, what are Beck and Palin and I being dishonest about, H.R.?  Because I've lost...? What are we being dishonest about?  It's gotta be global warming, it's gotta be: Okay, we're "deniers."  See, gets back to whatever. Matthews simply BELIEVES.  He cannot intellectually prove his case, he cannot intellectually explain it.  Do you remember...? I'll give you a great example.  Juan Williams at Fox, who's a bright guy, h heard Vaclav Havel from the Czech Republic when he was in the United States totally nuke the "science" of global warming.  And Juan Williams said, "I'd never heard that.  I'd never heard an alternative to..." These guys, they just believe it.  Algore says it! There scientists at the green clubs, Sierra Club say it, and they believe it, just believe.  There's no curiosity; there's no doubting.  Some of them don't even see the left-wing agenda aspect of it.  They really think they're good people here.  Somehow people that deny global warming... I don't "deny" global warming, by the way, Chris.  I just deny manmade global warming.  Because, even if it's warming up, we can't cool it off -- and if we're heading into an ice age, we can't warm it up.  We don't have the power.  What Chris Matthews refers to as "stupidity" is a characteristic I think he ought to try to retain and get back -- and that's a little humility in the face of things much larger or complex than he can ever explain or understand.


RUSH:  I got a note from a friend of mine, and it's well worth mentioning here, talking about settled science, something to throw back at Chris Matthews.  Hey, Chris, the American Psychiatric Association once classified homosexuality as a neurosis.  Was that settled science?  Did you believe them, Chris, when scientists came out, the American Psychiatric Association, a bunch of scientists, classified homosexuality as a neurosis?  Was that settled science for you, Chris? 


Read the Background Material...

HotAir: Chris Matthews to Mike Pence: Do You or Don't You Believe in Evolution?

TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: creationism; evolution; globalwarming; matthews; pence; rush; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
To: BearArms

Theistic evolution is pretty well accepted, just not necessarly by that name.

21 posted on 05/08/2009 5:21:44 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BearArms

Rush does not believe in cross-species evolution. Ol’ Chrissy may be evolving a new appendage which will spring forth from the tingle running up his leg. Stay tuned! No one can explain the concept of macro-evolution, and it’s time that people who reject evolution should stop playing footsy with leftists out to ruin us on this issue. I’d demand that any interrogator explain the evolution of a spider’s web, for starters. Bob

22 posted on 05/08/2009 9:38:28 PM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

I didn’t see Rush quibble on his “I believe in evolution” and “Certainly things evolve. There’s no question. There’s no denying it.” answer, other than saying the obvious, that evolution as a scientific theory doesn’t explain creation.

Here are Rush’s words on the subject...

“Now, had I been on the program, this is an easy answer. Matthews’ question: “You want to educate the American peep about science and its relevance. Do you believe in evolution?”

“Yeah. I believe in evolution.”

“Oh, you do? We got a Republican believes in evolution!”

“Yeah, wait, Chris! Wait, though! It can’t explain creation. I mean, we’ve got both. Where did it come from, Chris? Don’t give me the Big Bang. Don’t give me evolution for the Big Bang. Where did this all come from, what was it before it was what it is? Certainly things evolve. There’s no question. There’s no denying it. But evolution does not explain creation.”

23 posted on 05/11/2009 2:57:55 PM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

I still say that Darwin would take a flamethrower to his papers if he ever met Chris.

24 posted on 05/11/2009 2:59:13 PM PDT by RichInOC (No! BAD Rich! (What'd I say?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
People use “evolution” to mean very different things. I KNOW that Rush rejects the concept of cross-species evolution. I too believe that over generations, organisms change somewhat, such as differing skin colors among humans. To assume that organs and organisms sprouted from single cells, which themselves sprang from non-life, over billions of years, is ridiculous. And Rush agrees. Blessings, Bob
25 posted on 05/14/2009 12:54:22 PM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan
Evolution is a scientific term and it has been clearly defined by science.

Rush did not quibble when he said he believed in evolution.

How do you KNOW that Rush rejects something that you cannot even describe properly. Cross species evolution? Do you mean speciation?

26 posted on 05/14/2009 1:03:10 PM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
#23 of Rush's original “35 Undeniable Truths of Life” stated that “Evolution cannot explain creation.” I've heard him in years past say that he disbelieves in cross-species evolution.
Now, if he has subsequently changed his mind, that would be unfortunate. To take a single cell, the naturalistic probability of which is zero, and imagine that within that miracle cell, there was contained therein the gazillions of bits of information to mutate into the millions of fully functional organisms we witness today, is fantastical and absurd. So, I'd be stunned if Rush does believe it now. Blessings, Bob
27 posted on 05/15/2009 8:56:06 PM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

And Rush reiterated that he doesn’t think evolution can explain creation in the way that Genesis does, and I agree; but he also said that evolution was a fact.

The beauty of the evolutionary system God brought into being by his will is that a single living cell need not have all information, it just need to be able to change.

DNA is incapable of remaining exactly the same from replication to replication.

28 posted on 05/15/2009 9:41:45 PM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Where is the evidence that randomly-changing DNA can form never-before existing organs and organisms? I’d sooner believe that the Encyclopedia Brittanica “evolved” over time. Blessings, Bob

29 posted on 05/16/2009 8:44:51 AM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Ironically, on Tuesday, when the “missing ling” news broke, Rush called the idea of cross-species evolution “BS”. He must have been following this discussion, and wanted to set the record straight. lol Bob
30 posted on 05/24/2009 5:23:57 PM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan
You have yet to even define “cross species evolution”, do you mean speciation? Are you claiming that Rush used this incorrect term?

Rush doesn't use expletives on his show.

Do you have the relevant transcript?

You do know it is a sin to bear false witness don't you?

31 posted on 05/24/2009 5:57:49 PM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
OK, my definition of “cross-species” evolution would be “the propensity over time for one species to develop into multiple species”, such as single-cellular life developing into more complex organisms, which in turn, branch out into other organisms.
Rush did not use the expletive, but the abbreviation, as I quoted. He stated that he didn't believe that “cross-species evolution” has ever been proved, and said the the missing link story was “really all BS”. What he means by the term “cse” remains undefined, as far as I know. He said this on either Tuesday or Wednesday in the second or third hour. No “false witness” on my end. Cordially, Bob
32 posted on 05/24/2009 6:47:18 PM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan
So the bears on Noah's ark didn't posses a propensity over time to become all the different species of bears?

Those that think all modern species descended from those primordial “kinds” that Noah had on the Ark believe in “cross species evolution” with a power and speed unsupportable by experimental evidence.

Nothing Rush has ever said, or that you can produce, would lead one to believe he thinks the world is only a few thousand years old or that dinosaurs lived alongside humanity.

If you have evidence to the contrary please produce it, otherwise we must go with what words he has actually said, the words which you originally tried to twist into some semblance of your own belief; but which actually say quite simply that Rush accepts the theory of evolution, thus diminishing the journalist’s point that Republicans are not wholesale rejectors of science.

33 posted on 05/26/2009 7:46:40 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I do not believe that the earth is six, or ten thousand years old. I have no problem with the idea of the universe being millions or billions of years old. I lean strongly in that direction. As for Noah, I tend to think of this story as an illustration of the importance of being faithful to God. I know this is sacrilegious to some Christians, but I don’t see these beliefs as a rejection of Christianity at all. I do believe that Noah’s story was at least *inspired* by God.
Evolutionists seize upon the unimaginable amount to time to conjure a story which only thousands of years would render implausible. But I’ll give you a quadrillion years, and I still say that the billions of positive mutations which were necessary to construct millions of life forms could not have happened. The clearly irreducible complexity of organs and organisms render any tale of random construction absurd. Blessings, Bob

34 posted on 05/26/2009 12:41:00 PM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

So if the earth is billions of years old, and not all species existed for the entirety of that, what mechanism do you ascribe to the appearance of new species? God came down at various points in the epochs of Earth life and created them from nothing?

So you think God has no power over random processes? That God’s infinite power stops at the Casino door? That God could not or would not use random processes in nature in order that all things fulfill God’s will?

Prov 16:33 The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord.

35 posted on 05/26/2009 12:47:03 PM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I would say, AMD, that He created organisms out of existing elements, which in turn came from God's will out of nothing, as we would understand it. At which point He willed any or all of the myriad creatures into existence is uncertain. But I do not believe that there ever existed a time in which birds could not fly, insects did not pollinate, mammals did not perform intercourse as we know it today, nor one in which spiders could not spin webs. The entire fossil record reveals *completed* species.
Also, I do not believe in a “randomness” of God's design. God-created forces, and free will among creatures, does produce randomness to an extent unknown to me, however. Cordially, Bob
36 posted on 05/26/2009 2:00:37 PM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan
If you do not believe in any randomness incorporated into God's design then you reject numerous observations of how reality unfolds at the quantum, atomic, and biological level.

Of course the fossil record reveals completed species. Every species between a toe walking animal to a three pronged hoofed animal to a fused hoof animal was a full and complete species, how could they be anything else? And yet the fossil record clearly shows that hoofed animals are a recent innovation.

Are you suggesting that fused hoof animals have been around from the beginning but nobody noticed? Or that God created fused hoofed animals from raw materials in the more recent past, rather than creating them from a three pronged hoofed animal?

37 posted on 05/26/2009 2:13:12 PM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

AMD, there is randomness in virtually all arenas of life, but the idea that human beings and other creatures came into existence via grand accident is unsupported by science. Grandpa was NOT a protozoa, at least in *my* family tree. Blessings, Bob

38 posted on 06/01/2009 3:10:23 PM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson