On Science and Blasphemy …

When I talk about religion on the O’Reilly Factor I get more mail than when I talk about anything else.  And most of it is depressing.

Best I can figure I’ve talked about religion with Bill only three times on his program, and all three times he brought the subject up.  Once, during a discussion about President Obama wanting to raises taxes on the “rich” Bill said:  But the Bible says it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.  What about that, Bernie?

“I don’t care what the Bible says,” I told him – clearly meaning I don’t care what the Bible says about the tax debate.  I got a ton of angry email, all of it from self-professed Christians, much of it warning me:  “You better care what the Bible says!”

In that same segment I casually added:  “Besides, if Jesus were around today, he’d be a liberal Democrat.”  Boy, did that touch off the evangelicals.  Some said, “What do you mean if Jesus WERE around today.  Jesus IS around today!”  Okay.  But what they saw as downright blasphemy was the reference to a liberal Jesus Christ.  Until then I never really understood just how much these people hate liberals – and yes, hate is the word I want to use.

Now I gladly grant you that reasonable people may disagree on this thing about Jesus being a liberal.  But the people who wrote to me had no doubt whatsoever.  No way their Lord and Savior would be a lefty.  NO WAY! They would have been less angry if I said Jesus was a bank robber.

I wrote back to some and said, “Imagine if a modern day politician took the floor of Congress and said, ‘It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven’ – who do you think would be more likely to say such a thing:  a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican?”

I rest my case, your honor.

The second time religion came up was not long ago when Michelle Bachmann told supporters in church that her husband wanted her to become a tax lawyer, something she says she had no interest in.  But she did it anyway, because the Bible says the wife should be submissive to her husband, she said.

When journalists asked her about that Ms. Bachmann said “submissive” means “mutual respect.”  “No it doesn’t,” I said on the air.  She was backtracking, I said, the way gutless politicians often do — because she understood that she could say something to supporters in church and get away with it, but saying a wife should be submissive to her husband would hurt her, I said, “even in Republican primaries and certainly in a general election.”

What followed that was another ton of emails with my name on them.  This time the writers told me I shouldn’t talk about something I know nothing about; that Ms. Bachmann was right and I was wrong; that “submissive” may not be synonymous with “respect” in Webster’s dictionary, but the two words mean the same thing in the Bible.

The last time religion came up was just the other day when Bill asked if it is legitimate for journalists to ask politicians about their religious beliefs.  Yes, it’s perfectly legitimate, I said, if religion is an important part of the candidate’s life.  Then, as an example, I added this:  Let’s say a candidate thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old [it’s 4.5 billion years old] and dinosaurs roamed the planet at the same time as people, “that kind of ignorance matters,” I said.  It may not affect his foreign policy or her economic policy, I went on, but it will affect something – and so we need to know about such things.

That one didn’t go over too well, either, with those who take the words of the Bible literally.   “The Earth is 6,000 years old,” they told me.  “And dinosaurs did roam the Earth at the same time as people.”  And again, they advised me to keep my yap closed if I didn’t know what I was talking about.  A few also said that God created the world in six 24 hour days and that he created Adam and Eve pretty much by snapping his fingers.

A brief aside:  If God created Adam and Eve, and they had two sons, Cain and Abel, where did the fifth person come from?  So far we have three males and one female, right?  So how did the next person get to the Garden of Eden?  You see where I’m going with this?  I’m sure the literalists will have an answer to this one too – an answer that probably will come straight from the Bible and will also strike me as dopey.

Let me be clear:  I don’t care if someone believes in God or doesn’t.  I don’t care if someone believes Jesus is the Son of God or doesn’t.  I think religion has inspired many noble and selfless deeds throughout history.  I think it also has spawned a great deal of stupidity.  Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion but not to his or her facts.  The Earth is not 6,000 years old no matter how many true-believers think it is.  It’s not 6,000 years old even if the Bible says it is.

The anti-science nature of these people brings me down – that is when I’m not falling down laughing at how silly they are.  Why can’t they believe that a God that can create heaven and Earth and all the planets and stars can also create … evolution!

I’ll bet that something close to 100 percent of these people who write to me are conservative Republicans.  Liberal Democrats may be nuts, but they’re not nuts about this kind of thing.  A conservative running for the GOP nomination for president may do quite well in Iowa believing in religious fairy tales – but it’s not going to play well in other parts of the country, especially with independents who tend to be more moderate.  And even Republicans running for president who don’t believe in this kind of thing, I suspect, will be afraid to say so – not wanting to alienate the Christian Right.

I have said that I’d vote for Scooby Doo before I’d vote for Barack Obama.  Anyone who feels the same way should pray that no journalist asks any of the Republicans running for president:  Do you think that dinosaurs walked the Earth side by side with humans?

The wrong answer could result in four more years for President Obama.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Infrequent visitor

    I just have a question for all those people who say every word in the Bible should be taken literally. Why do you insist that there are no symbolic meanings to any of the words, then get to Revelations and tell me that horses symbolize jeeps, or tanks, and angels mean jets, and AntiChrist means Obama (or any other leaders, over the years of my life there have been many) and so on and so forth (see Left Behind series, et al)?
    Either the Book is full of metaphors and parables (as Jesus himself says) or it’s not, but you can’t have it both ways.
    BTW I consider myself a Christian, although biblical literalists will probably say I am not.
    I can’t take someone seriously when they can’t even be consistent within their own mind.

  • el cajon dui attorney

    Thanks for the auspicious writeup. It if truth be told was a amusement account it. Look complicated to far introduced agreeable from you! By the way, how can we keep up a correspondence?

  • Proe Graphique


    When you are a professor of microbiology at a major University like Behe, who wrote Darwin’s Black Box, then you can swagger around citing “sketchy sources” and administer praise and condescension as you see fit. Right? Right.

    • Bob Hadley

      When you’re a professor of economics at a major university like Princeton and get a nobel prize then you can swagger around with bravado, with your carping and condescending criticism.

      Is that what you say to Prof Paul Krugman’s agonistes?

      I guess you’re not one of those who rails against elitists.

  • salvatore

    Proe Graphique was doing pretty well up until “Darwin’s Black Box” (aside from the evolution-makes-no-sense-argument, because the only way you need it to “make sense” in your way of thinking is if the universe was Created by a similarly-minded being). Misguided armchair pseudoscientists always give themselves up by their sketchy sources. I once had a long, unproductive conversation about Milton Friedman with a guy who finally tried to prove his bona fides by linking me to World Net Daily, the website that thinks soy makes you gay.

  • salvatore

    1) How can you be surprised by this reaction when you’re a frequent Fox News guest?
    2) You have watched Fox News, yes?
    3) So are you saying you’ll vote for Bachmann or Perry over Obama?

  • Bob Hadley

    “But what they saw as downright blasphemy was the reference to a liberal Jesus Christ. Until then I never really understood just how much these people hate liberals – and yes, hate is the word I want to use.”

    DUH! For someone who can be so keen, you can also be so clueless.

    Have you not listened to right wing rhetoric over the last 20 years or so? Maybe you’ve been so busy monitoring the Left that you don’t know what many on the Right are espousing.

    But you need go no further than the Commentary section of this website to see hatred spewed at liberals (as much as or more than at the word than at the reality). Maybe you don’t consider your posters to be comprised of what you term “these people.”

    Occasionally you have spewed venom at liberals that, if your counterparts on the Left had spewed at conservatives, you’d label as hateful.

  • Proe Graphique

    I missed this initially, Bernie, and let into your pal Burt who it now seems was only following your lead.

    It appears to me that your terror about journalists asking these questions of Republican candidates is born of the same thing that appears to keep you silent of the fact that expert analysis by guys like Newcomer who got Dan Rather fired from CBS news say Obama’s birth certificate is fake: with respect, you lack the backbone to stand up and call a truth a truth, an opinion legit when it is, and live under the knee-shaking fear that media backlash will give us four more years of Obama. I have news for you: it is exactly that thinking that got us four years of Obama in the first place.

    I gave this information to Burt. I’ll give it to you, involving creationists and what they believe. It’s lengthy. It’s lengthy because their point of view and what informs it is almost entirely unknown to the mainstream mediettes, so one almost needs to start from scratch. Anyway, here are a few examples for your enlightened age memory banks:

    (Burt had misstated radio carbon dating as being an aspect of old-earth measurement and I corrected him, but this is woven into the fabric of what you need to know, so I’m leaving it in)The way you write this shows you know little if anything more than you were taught in grade school, since you mention “radio carbon dating” in relation to the age of the earth, since as every science junior knows, radio carbon dating tops out at 50,000 years (c-14 has a half life of 5,000 years, so in 50,000 years there is not enough c-14 left in the sample to measure for an accurate dating assessment). Duh. Check it out on any secular university site, as that aspect was predicted correctly by the very inventor of the process, Dr. William Libby. So you are mocking young earthers but mention radio carbon dating in the process.

    Let me clue you in and yes, I’m also a birther guy, so here is your chance to lump birthers in with young-earthers in one, smooth, intellectually dishonest swoop.

    First, my own armchair opinion, to clarify my opinion which is clearly more educated on the subject than your own: We do not know the earth is billions of years old. We do not know that the earth is thousands of years old. Keeping it real when you look at the larger facts, IMO we know nothing. The questions are so vast that we probably never will know anything substantial on this matter for sure – and secular scientists who say they do are either looking for money or on ego trips or both – before God destroys the earth by fire or we blow ourselves up because as people like you are proving, people, in the aggregate, tend to talk – and believe – way past where their knowledge tops out.

    Here are a couple of scintillating facts put forth by young earth/universe creations that, IMO, does not prove their point, but disproves old earth-favoring science, hence my opinion that we know nothing:

    1. A comet is made of ice, and we see the tail as the ice ball swings around in a usually elliptical orbit (in the case of Halley’s, 76 years) and as it gets closer to the sun, and as the heat and solar winds burn off a significant portion of its icy bulk, that burning off vapor is what we see as the tail. So who is making the ice balls that burn off and show as comet tails, because if the universe is billions of years old, those ice-ball comets should have been spent to nothing long, long ago – in only several thousand years. Even a small overall proportion of loss should drive it off its orbit as its mass shrinks and gravity affects it differently, anyway. So who has been making those ice balls for billions of years? There is nothing whatsoever to suggest they they are just drifting into the solar system willy-nilly. Secular since has some fanciful suggestions, but itself admits it has not a clue based on fact.

    2. When the first astronauts landed on the moon they expected to find a few feet of dust on the surface. This is because the earth and moon, as they orbit the sun, every year go through dust clouds in space. On earth those clouds are responsible for the several meteor showers we see every year (we go through them, they do not come to us), as the larger particles hit the atmosphere at an angle at incredible speed and show as bright streaks in the sky. What doesn’t burn up is otherwise absorbed into the soil, etc. However, there is no atmosphere with which to burn the particles and and no rain to muddy the dust on the moon. Gently, imperceptibly falling year after year on the airless moon, that dust remains as dust, hence their expectation at the time of a few feet of dust based on their understanding of how much we catch in each orbit around the sun each year and an assumption of an earth and moon a couple of billion years old . When they got there the moon had only a couple of INCHES of dust, dramatically suggesting a much, much younger moon at least. Why was more not found? They have some interesting math which is clearly based on wishful thinking, but unfortunately, as they themselves often acknowledge, after over 40 years they don’t have a clue. Nobody knows.

    3. The orbital imbalances of the planets, including earth, should have long since played out by now, unless such imbalances were so large billions of years ago that our solar system could not possibly look the way it does now. The imbalances are still there and so are we. Explanation? Nobody knows.

    4. One of the great cases for an old universe is that the speed of light is a constant – if not acted upon by gravity, and therefore we see from measurements that the light from stars and galaxies, pulsars, etc, is coming from many light-years distant, supposedly proving the universe is billions of years old.

    Einstein mathematically predicted that time and matter/gravity were indivisible and scientists have proved it in actuality with a tool Einstein did not have: atomic clocks. Two such clocks are synchronized and one is left on the surface and one goes up in a plane. The difference in that little amount of gravity changes the rate in which actually time operated and the clocks fell out of sync – by only the smallest of atomic-clock measurements, but out of sync nevertheless; the one higher up was running slower while in the air, proving Einstein’s theory in practice. Afterwards, atomic clocks were eventually found to run at a different rates of speed only between the height of a table. In lab tests light has been slowed down to a slow pulse. Einstein was right. It’s been proven practically that time and space are indivisible.

    However, the idea that light traveling through such enormous distances would be unaffected by the passage past black holes and a billion island galaxies, the gravitational influence even mathematical astrophysicists can only barely shrug at – and this does not count the biggie: the utterly unknown geometry of the boundaries of the universe – is a preposterous and simple-minded secular daydream. OF COURSE distant starlight is affected by gravity as it passes through such dense gravitational forces multiplied by the billions that are certain to bend time. However, without a second and ideally third point of reference for triangulation – since our only current vantage point is earth – we have no idea how those gravitational forces effect the light that is traveling toward us. It is certainly effected – it is mathematically impossible for that light/time to NOT be effected as Einstein predicted. How much? Once again, nobody knows, and scientists I have spoken to about it don’t like to talk about it. My guess from the emotions involved is that it frightens them to think they don’t know the basics, and that fear angers them. But their hostility to the questions they can not answer does not change the fact that they can not answer them. We – don’t – know.

    We know nothing. Go to the 4th day alliance for some balance in your education and if you meet the two points of view halfway, secular and creationist, as the facts demand, you’ll realize we know nothing. So the mockers are getting a bit too big for their britches.

    In terms of evolution, that silly supposition – not “theory” as a theory demands a predicted outcome under controlled conditions – is falling apart by the day, and secular evolutionists struggle with evermore absurdest ideas. For example, did you know that according to them, turkeys were cold-blooded – then warm blooded, and then became cold blooded again – back and forth? Oh yes, they believe that without a shred of actual evidence to support it: the Discovery Channel devoted a whole hour to it a few years ago, complete with lots of animated dinosaurs.

    I could go on for hours, but this should be enough to suggest you get your act together before shooting your mouth off. Secular science knows as little about these larger issues in actual fact than they did in the middle ages, because despite all the instruments and communication of this “enlightened age” – as they used to say in the Victorian times – secular science continually skips over the tough questions and chooses to ignore them, undermining our general understanding completely. Most of what you are being told is a supposition fantasy.

    On the issue of evolution, for one of many examples, I assume also you never heard of Professor Michael Behe’s famous and revolutionary book, Darwin’s Black Box; Behe is professor of microbiology at Lehigh University, no small accomplishment. Read it, and learn how evolution is – literally, it seems – impossible on a microbiological level, as the very things necessary for evolution as a mechanism could not have evolved without them: the ultimate catch 22/ chicken or the egg scenario, and makes absolute mincemeat of little naturalist Darwin’s absurdly simplistic notions based on superficial observation that he mostly ripped off from Greek and Roman scholars two thousand years before his time, anyway.

    Bernie, you aren’t doing the world much of a service by only knowing the upper two percent of the stories and information on which you are writing “facts” and opinion. Instead of mocking even more people whose mainstream media backlash may cost votes, why don’t you smooth out the highway for a GOP win that includes all conservatives when you’re on TV and say things like, “They may sound like nutters on the surface, and while I don’t subscribe to their beliefs, they do have some interesting scientific facts on which to hang their belief structure.” If you missed the memo, a very large portion of the south is baptist and a large percentage of those people believe the very thing you’re mocking, and they vote, too.

    If we have to do what your example suggests: cow-tow to the liberals every time they say boo for fear of losing an election, we might as well let them win, anyway, because they’ll just keep moving the goal post regardless and living too many intellectually dishonest points of view is simply bad for the heart.

  • Mike Willmore

    Hi Bernie – I am a Catholic who agrees 100% with you. I’ve always believed that “Creationism” and “Evolution” goes hand in hand. God did create the Heavens & Earth, and set in motion the evolution of life. It simply took billions of years to reach this point, which I believe makes His plan all the more Glorious.

    I am also tired of the religious divide. Jew, Christian, Muslim etal; we all pray to the One True God, we simply know God by different names, as He made His presence known to us in ways our people and culture could comprehend. Hopefully someday we will understand that we are all simply on different paths to the same destination.

    PS: thank you for your insightful work. I truly enjoy your columns, books, and “Factor” visits. Way to keep Bill on his toes!

  • a simple man

    I appreciate your perspective Bernie. I, being a mere human, will not presume to tell God what his powers are. I will not tell God what is right or wrong.
    I do accept his given word. I also accept the Physical Sciences. When the two oppose each other … I simply apply that I am NOT God, that I do not know everything. Some questions I just have to trust that God DOES have the answer. I also pray that God will reveal that answer to me in His own sweet time. Otherwise I don’t sweat the small stuff.
    To me God Created some things and enabled them to evolve. And perhaps some things, like humans were simply created.
    I believe God is all-powerful, and for me no proof is neccesary.
    I don’t hate liberals, and try to pray FOR them regularly. And if it’s OK I’m not going to hate you just because your beliefs might not be the same as mine. Because it is important to me that a candidate for public office follow some kind of “acceptable” belief system …..

    • HolyChristAlmighty

      Is non-belief an “acceptable” system for your vote?

      Is Islam? How about Wicca, Janeism, Hindu, Mormon or Humanist. Are those acceptable belief systems for your vote?

      Shouldn’t a moral and honest person be a little more important in your elected officials?
      Don’t try and pass yourself off as some moderate believer.

      Simple man, I know you are wrong and “no proof is necessary.” I trust that logic is OK for you. You did use it yourself.

      I am an atheist. Well, your God cannot have any other gods, right? When anyone does not believe in a higher power, they are an atheist. I, God, therefore am an atheist. That makes Me, the one true God, an atheist. By the way, atheist does not equal liberal. Atheist Christopher Hitchens is conservative on some issues.

      You keep on praying for the “liberals”. The atheist’s in turn will keep on thinking for you and the other believers.

      Amen, amen ah ah ha ha ha.

      Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

  • Bill Coffey Sr.

    I decided to read all the comments on this page and found them very interesting. Bernie you do read these and you do comment. Sorry to say only when someone is praising you. First of all you are not hated by true Christians. I really appreciate you and I will admit I was upset at you calling Christians who do not believe in evolution ignorant. So I looked you up and found all your other misinterpretations of the Bible. I could label you a hypocrite based on your belief that all those that disagree with Obama ‘are not’ Racist but all those that disagree with evolution ‘are’ ignorant. I could also make the point that all those that voted for Obama because he is black are racist and all those who believe in evolution are ignorant. We don’t agree with Obama based on his policies not his skin color and we don’t agree with evolution based on scientific fact. I was hoping you would respond to my scientific proof that the earth is young and evolution is a fairy tale based on scientific proof of the Sun shrinking. This phenomenon trumps all else. The earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old based on the size of the Sun, It matters not what you or I believe only the facts matter and after 400 years observation the Sun is constantly getting smaller. This is science and I have not mentioned the Bible in this truism. The average Earth temperature is 59 degrees and the Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun. The average Temperature on Venus is 860 degrees and Venus is 67 million miles from the Sun. I realize that there are other issues that would change the temperature slightly on Venus but you get the point. One hundred thousand years ago the sun was twice the size it is today. Life on earth would be impossible. Six thousand years ago the sun would be 6% larger. Science Bernie, Just plain Science. With these facts how could any one believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. I really do like you and your work but you started this folly by calling all Scientist ignorant if they do not believe in evolution. Yes, I meant to say Scientist. Lastly, for you and all your visitors to this page I ask the following with all humility, please say this prayer daily for Christ paid the penalty for all of us. “Lord Jesus Forgive my sins, I receive the gift of pardon that God purchased for me, I want to be in God’s forever family, Make me the way you want me to be. In your wonderful name, Ah-men”. Think of it He went to hell in our place and only ask you to love Him and invite Him into your heart. God Bless you Bernard Goldberg.

  • Jay Thompson

    Bernie, you are spot on with this article. As a thinking Christian, I am appalled at the willful ignorance many fundamentalists and evangelicals impose on themselves in the name of faith and more important to them, “dogma.”

    In fact, many of these Rick Perry types conflate faith with dogma and reduce faith to a sacrosanct set of beliefs that must have certain Ts crossed and Is dotted just so. Ridiculous.

    While a person of meaningful faith, I’ll gladly cast my lot with folks like you if it means not being labeled what I ought to be labeled: a willfully ignorant person who ignores undeniable mountain loads of clear and unequivocal evidence. To suggest otherwise is incredulous, ridiculous, and worse, is a refusal to act in the very image of God we were created in. If in fact we were created in the image of God, does it ever occur to any of these rabid, foaming at the mouth types that engaging one’s mind is a reflection of that divine image? I guess not.

    • HolyChristAlmighty

      Jay Thompson,

      Those are fine, reasonable words you wrote.

      • Proe Graphique


        Well, it’s good to know you read the comments because some of us are wondering why you haven’t followed up on the birther issue you mocked ‘religiously” until the document analysis came to light.

        More On-topic, yes, science and religion are compatible, but sometimes that means questioning science, not compromising religion. See the very lengthy response on page 2 of this string of comments to understand why. Educate yourself before throwing stones, Bernie. It’s good journalism.

  • Bill Coffey SR.

    Science is Science Bernie.
    Scientists have not always attributed the energy source of the sun to thermonuclear fusion. Prior to the discovery of thermonuclear fusion, Helmholtz predicted that the energy of the sun was supplied by the gravitational collapse of the sun. This model was accepted until the theory of evolution began to dominate the scientific scene. Then Helmholtz’s explanation was discarded because it did not provide the vast time span demanded by the theory of organic evolution on the earth. The substitute theory was introduced by Bethe in the 1930’s precisely because thermonuclear fusion was the only known energy source that would last over the vast times required by evolution. Science may now be on the verge of disproving the substitute evolutionary model of the sun.


    The change in the size of the sun over the past 400 years is important in the study of origins. Over 100 thousand years these changes would have accumulated so much that life of any kind on the earth would have been very difficult, if not impossible. Thus, all life on the earth must be less than 100 thousand years old. The sun, 20 million years ago, would have been so large that it would have engulfed the earth. The earth cannot be more than 20 million years old. Those dates as upper limits rule out any possibility of evolution requiring hundreds of millions of years. However, the tiny change that would have occurred in the sun during the Biblical time since creation would be so small as to go almost unnoticed. Thus, the changes in the sun are consistent with recent creation.

    The changes detected in the sun call into question the accepted thermonuclear fusion energy source for the sun. This, in turn, questions the entire theoretical structure upon which the evolutionary theory of astrophysics is built.


    1 Lubkin, Gloria B., Physics Today, V. 32, No. 9, 1979.
    2 Ordway, Richard J., Earth Science and the Environment, New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1974, p. 130. Fig. 5 – 23 on this page gives a good illustration of the accepted evolutionary time scale.
    3 Scientific American, V. 239, No. 3, 1978. All articles in this edition list the various evolutionary time scales.
    4 Halliday, David and Resnick, Robert, Fundamentals of Physics, New York; Wiley, 1974, Chapter 14.
    5 The exact formula must be derived layer by layer using integral calculus. The result is identical to the formula listed, except that it contains an additional factor. The additional factor is so close to unity that it makes little difference in an estimation.
    6 Lubkin, pg. 18.
    7 Poppy, Willard J. and Wilson, Leland L., Exploring the Physical Sciences, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1973, P. 324.
    * Dr. Akridge earned his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in physics from Georgia Tech. He earned the Th.M. degree from the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Akridge is an Assistant Professor of Physics at Oral Roberts University. He has written several articles in the Creation Research Society Quarterly in which he shows that the laws of physics support a recent creation. [Dr. Akridge and his wife, Anita, have two children, Floyd and Sheryl. They live in Tulsa, Oklahoma.]

  • Bill Coffey SR.

    Science only.
    The shrinkage of the sun greatly alters what we believe to be the energy source within the sun. The sun shrinks because of its own self-gravitational attraction. As it compresses itself, it heats itself. This heat is then liberated in the form of solar radiation, i.e., sunlight.

    Would a 2.5 feet per hour contraction of the solar surface be sufficient to liberate all of the energy that comes from the sun? A crude estimate can be made by assuming the interior of the sun is uniform. The known formula for the gravitational potential energy of two masses m and M a distance r apart is U = – GmM/r, where G = 6.6 x 10-11jm /kg2. The gravitational potential energy of the sun’s mass Ms interacting with its own mass Ms is U= – Gms2/R, where R is the radius of the sun. The solar power produced as the sun shrinks at the rate of v = R/t is5 P = U/t = (Gms2/R2) . (R/t) = GMs2v/R2. The mass of the sun is 2 x 1030kg, the radius of the sun is 7 x 108 m, and the 2.5 feet/hour rate of shrinkage in the radius of the sun is 2 x 10 -4 m/sec. in metric units. The power formula gives a potential solar power of 1 x 1029 watts. This potential gravitational power is hundreds of times more than the 4 x 1026 watts of power actually produced by the sun. This figure is an overestimate because the sun is actually far from uniform. The massive interior of the sun is protected by the outer layers of the sun. Only those low density outer layers are thought to contract. Even so, there is plenty of gravitational contraction energy potentially available to account for all or a large part of the sun’s energy.

  • Bill Coffey SR.

    More science for you Bernie.
    One thing is certain. Some of the sun’s energy comes from its gravitational self-collapse. Therefore, not all of this energy comes from thermonuclear fusion. This discovery greatly alters all calculations on the evolution of the sun, because all of those calculations attribute practically 100% of the sun’s energy over the past 5 billion years to thermonuclear fusion. The discovery that the sun is shrinking may prove to be the downfall of the accepted theory of solar evolution. All accepted theories of the evolution of the stars are based on the assumption that thermonuclear fusion is the energy source for the stars. If this assumption is unjustified for our own star, the sun, it is unjustified for the other stars too. The entire theoretical description of the evolution of the universe may be at stake. With the stakes that high, it is no wonder that the experimental evidence for the shrinkage of the sun is “explained away” by evolutionists. Evolutionists claim that the sun probably undergoes temporary shrinkages and expansions as small fluctuating oscillations on its overall regular evolutionary development. They point to other cyclic solar occurrences such as the 11-year sunspot cycle on the surface of the sun. This claim is made in spite of the evidence that the shrinkage rate of the sun has remained essentially constant over the past 100 years when very accurate measurements have been made on the size of the sun. Less accurate astronomical records spanning the past 400 years indicate the shrinkage rate has remained the same for the past 400 years.

    • HolyChristAlmighty

      “Whether you believe in evolution or creation there has to be a first.”

      Who created me, Bill? Where did I come from? If there had to be a first for everything, how did I, your God and Father begin? Before answering, remember, THERE HAS TO BE A FIRST. Even for me, GOD! Right Bill? Those are your words.

  • Bill Coffey SR.

    Whether you believe in creation or evolution there has to be a first. You choose to have Apes mate with their offspring as opposed to man. I choose man. “Go forth and multiply”. Adam and Eve were perfect creations and had many children and that is how the human race began. Your preference is that apes committed incest in order to form the human race. It matters not what answers you get from us Bible loving creatures, your mind is made up but what bothers me Bernie is you claim not to care what the Bible says and that means that our Judeo Christian values mean nothing to you because we get those values through the Bible. I gather you do not approve of any of our 44 Presidents because they were all Bible believing Christians or they were liars. Do you ever respond to any of these messages?

    • HolyChristAlmighty

      My son Bernard doesn’t always have time to reply to you. But I, as you heavenly Father, do.

      Bill, you said, “You chose to have apes mate with their offspring as opposed to man. I choose man.”

      Bill, it would be too easy to mock you with a homosexual dig. You chose ‘man’ over woman to play around with? But I won’t. I see a far more obvious contradiction from your Mr.-know-it-all rants. You mock apes for incest but are proud that Adam and Eve’s kids populated the world from their incest. No contradiction there?

      I am your Lord God Almighty and am with you on every corner at all times. You take the first swing at Me, your Maker, anytime, any place. I double-dog dare ya! Take your best punch at HolyChristAlmighty.

      • Bill Coffey SR.

        Its difficult to comprehend your attempt to stick with sexual innuendoes. I was not trying to offend any one but I was answering Bernie with his misreading the gospels. You commented thus. “I submit, I like to watch you and your wife submit to each other”.

        P.S. STOP SUBMITTING ON SUNDAYS! Give it a rest, tiger.
        Do you expect me not to respond to this remark. In regard to the mention of Men vs Woman you have got to be kidding. My response to Bernie was based on Cain and Able and their offspring. Why does it upsets you so when one quotes the bible correctly as opposed to taking it out of context? Here is hoping we can debate the issue instead of always making it personal. I still resent the remark about me and my wife. You still have not given your name.

        • HolyChristAlmighty

          For he that not knoweth Me by My Name shall be denied My Kingdom in Heaven.

          Thus sayeth they Lord.

          “Why does it upset you so when one quotes the bible correctly as opposed to taking it out of context.”

          I have never used elipses when quoting you or the bible. If I quote you, or the bible correctly, how can either be considered “out of context”? Along that line, why are you pretending to use science to debate theology? Real + faith = real.

          And I began this REPLY with something that appeared to sound like a biblical quote.

          Is it?

          Is it out of context?

          Bill, you were not talking about Cain and Able. You said Adam and Eve begat all mankind after them. Earlier in the same comment you said you were disgusted by the idea of apes procreating with other apes, like that was some sort of incest. Yet, according to your dogma, all mankind is produced by Adam and Eve’s offspring? You’re fine with that? Seems inconsistant to me.


    • Proe Graphique


      Bravo. Your citing of scientific fact and the impossibility of time frames was brilliant, and true. I feel at least 50% certain that Bernie will not take the trouble to wrap his head around these facts, do his homework and write an honest column of these matters. Alas, I do suspect he’ll wait for guys like us to give it a rest, peek around the corner to see if the coast is clear, and vent with another intellectually dishonest column.

      Re the 2012 election, yes, this stuff will be mocked by the media. Yes, the media will mock GOP candidates who cite this stuff because many of them have made it clear that they really do hate God, perhaps because if there is a God, then the ratings on which they hang their egos don’t mean much by comparison and they really will have to explain to a higher authority why they screwed the secretary at the office Christmas party.

      The flip side is if we really want to get all right-wing people enthusiastic about defeating Obama, we have to say that “birthers” and “creationists” are not simple-minded kooks. The retired astrophysicists who put together the 4th Day Alliance have put forth solid theory while the mainstream scientific community has been reduced to authoritative-sounding conjecture to justify the legitimacy of the shrinking scientific school of thought in which their careers and self-esteem depend. And that’s a hell of a lot closer to “fact” than “opinion”.

  • Linda

    Hello Bernie! Yes, I have something to say about the comments you made about Christians saying the earth is only 6,000 years old and the issue on submission. I am a Christian and I am sorry to say that many Christians and secular people do not know what the Bible says about these topics.
    The Bible does NOT say the earth is 6,000 or 9,000 years old. Genesis 1:1 In the BEGINNING God CREATED the Heavens and the EARTH. There is no time frame reference so it is very possible that the earth is millions or billions of years old. Also, the Bible says that one day with the Lord is as a 1000 years and a 1000 years as one day. In the picture of creation it may have been a 1000 years for each day God created.
    Also, on submission I agree with you somewhat. Bibical submission for a wife is giving up her idea’s or desire for her husbands. If the husband wants to purchase a car and the wife does not the wife would then submit to the husband’s desire. The husband has the final say. It does not mean mutual respect as Mrs. Bachmann said even though that is what a man & women should do, but submission and respect are two different things.
    I completed Bible College several years ago and the Bible is filled with many wonderful things and many science is now proving.
    Good night Bernie and be Blessed!

  • John J

    We must always keep this in mind: compared to the liberal media at CBS, Bernie is a conservative. To us, he’s still a screaming liberal, and he makes the same primitive mistake that the rest of the arrogant media makes. He fancies his position to be the center, the mainstream. In that, he is a walking advertisement for his own argument that media bias is not a conspiracy, just groupthink on the part of people with a common outlook. For that, I thank him. But Wm. F. Buckley, he ain’t. Perhaps theology is simply outside his purview. Let’s not whip him too badly. He means well.

  • Bill Coffey SR.

    The following has been intentionally omitted by your lack of understanding the Bible. You only bring up part of these verses in order to inject your spin and make your points. When you say woman submit to your husbands and eliminate the following it is the same as quoting only half of the U.S. Constitution First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, when the second half of this is known it changes everything, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Now if you add the following to your putrid attempt to claim Christians as idiots it should change even one who claims he does not care what the Bible says and then quotes it out of context to make points. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband. A husband submits by loving his wife, while the wife submits by submitting to her husbands love for her.

    • HolyChristAlmighty

      “A husband submits by loving his wife, while the wife submits by submitting to her husbands love for her.”

      As you Lord and Savior, I submit, I like to watch you and your wife submit to each other.

      P.S. STOP SUBMITTING ON SUNDAYS! Give it a rest, tiger.

      • Bill Coffey SR.

        I gave my name you did not. Your mind is beneath contempt. My wife and I have been married for 54 years with 6 children and 9 grandchildren. I have always put her needs ahead of mine and she has always shown respect. Look up the definition of submit and get your small mind out of the gutter. PS: I will be willing to meet with you any time any place tiger.

  • Bill Coffey SR.

    The illustration of the camel going through the eye of a needle was perfect for those Christ was speaking to. The eye of a needle means the eye of a needle. Jesus’ explanation that what is impossible for men is possible with God shows that rich men can be saved and enter Heaven. But only if they put their faith in God rather than in their riches. Bernie you are always out of context and understanding when you speak of Christ.

    • Linda

      Jesus did say that it would be harder for a rich man to enter heaven then for a Camel to go through the eye of a needle. The Eye of the Needle actually refers to a smaller gate within the larger Gate of the City during the times Jesus lived. During the day the large Gate was opened for business and at night it was closed. There was a small gate built into the large gate and at night travelers and camels enter through the eye of the needle. The camel be be unloaded from all it carried and put down on all fours to go through this gate. Once the camel went through they reloaded the camel with all it goods. These gates for built this way to protect the city from invasion at night.

  • Bill Coffey SR.

    If Jesus was alive today he would be a Liberal (democrat) So says Bernie baby.Modern Christians are ignorant of the full “Gospel of Kingdom” preached by Christ and the early Church. Some have even claimed that Jesus was a socialist. Modern socialism requires a social contract and the point of a sword to force the contributions of the people. That and their lack of knowledge is why they are back in bondage of the world.
    Christ preached a welfare system based on faith, hope and charity which required virtue and love for one another. The ministers of their society were servants of the people in an alternative system that set men free. Jesus told many parables on how His government of righteousness must operate. He talked about forgiving debt rather than arresting people and forcing them to pay. He talked about the poor widow giving more value than that of the rich man. He fired the money changers and instructed the ministers in the royal treasury. He refused to appoint captains and princes to rule over the people. He taught his minister that they were there to serve.
    This was called the perfect law of liberty. It was a system of individual responsibility and honor. It had congregations and ministers. It was organized from the bottom of the hearts of men who loved the way of Christ according to the precepts of God. It divided the goats and sheep.
    Some of the people of Judea and the world went the way of Herod, Caesar, and Pharaoh and some went the way of Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist and Jesus. The former denounced David and embraced the ways of Caesar and the latter embraced the highest son of David, the rightful king of Judea according to Rome.
    The Pharisees were socialist. Christians simply would not participate in socialist schemes that compelled the contributions of their neighbor because Jesus said “But it shall not be so among you.”

    People are under a strong delusion set forward by the Modern Pharisees of today posing as the Church established by Christ. They profess God and Jesus with their mouths, but they fall short of following His “Way.”
    You cannot be a follower of Christ and seek to force your neighbor to contribute to your welfare at the point of a sword or gun. You cannot be a modern socialist and a Christian. Those who think they can may be idiots. They are certainly non-participators in the Gospel of the Kingdom preached by Christ.
    We should all be striving to participate in the ways of Christ by serving one another in love and not coveting our neighbor’s goods. If we are to be free we must set our neighbor free. If we are to be forgiven we must forgive our neighbor’s debt. Christ would be a constitutional consrevative.

    • Not Convinced

      If Christians truly practiced what they were taught, there’d be no need for the government to collect taxes to help the poor. There are so many Christians in the country, the poor ought to be overwhelmed with support.

      Alas, Christians would rather build riches in this world instead of the next, and even complain when even some of those riches go to paying taxes that might help the poor in their place.

      Jesus is here, but he’s not found in the Liberal Democrat or the Constitutional Republican. He’s the forgotten war veteran with missing limbs living homeless under a bridge… and no one is helping him. Why is that? How is that even possible if Christians in America are as great and blessed as they think they are? They can argue against evolution all day, but what about helping those in need? Isn’t that the greater problem that should be driving the Christian debate? Where’s has all the compassion gone?

      • John J

        You underestimate the capacity of scum to suck up resources, a common liberal fault.

      • Linda

        I don’t know how much you keep up with churches and missions. Many churches support the poor with clothes, food and medical assists here in America and around the the world.
        The 700 Club has Operation Blessing and they travel where ever there have been disaster and provide assistance, ask the people of Galveston, TX. after Hurrican Ike, Katrina in New Orleans and so many others. There is Samartians Purse run by Franklin Graham. Personally, I know so many good Christian who give beyond belief to the homeless and to soup lines.
        When the government stops over taxing people then maybe just maybe more could be done.

      • Linda

        One other thing “Not Convinced” I personally have a friend that I support financially. Every Saturday she and her husband take a group load up a bus with Food, Clothes and hygiene products and bring this to the homeless in Houston. Every Saturday they do this because they first love the Lord Jesus and second Love People. The world is ignorant to what really goes on in the church and in christians lives.

  • HolyChristAlmighty

    What the heck are you talking about?

  • Bill Coffey SR.

    Pure science Bernie,The sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century…corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. The diameter of the sun is close to one million miles, so that this shrinkage of the sun goes unnoticed over hundreds or even thousands of years. All data examined spanned a 400-year period of solar observation, so that this shrinkage of the sun, is continual. The Sun was larger in the past than it is now by 0.1% per century. A creationist, who may believe that the world was created approximately 6 thousand years ago, has very little to worry about. The sun would have been only 6% larger at creation than it is now. However, since the rate of change of the solar radius remained constant, 100 thousand years ago the sun would be twice the size it is now. Yet 100 thousand years is a minute amount of time when dealing with evolutionary time scales. How far back in the past must one go to have a sun so large that its surface touches the surface of the earth? The solar radius changes at 2.5 feet per hour, half the 5 feet per hour change of the solar diameter. The distance from the sun to the earth is 93 million miles, and there are 5,280 feet in one mile. Then the surface of the sun would touch the surface of the earth 20 million B.C.

    • Steve


    • Ron Kean

      Here comes the sun
      Here comes the sun
      And it’s alright

    • ginger

      I would love it if the evolutionsists could prove first cause…any more than creationists can..creationists take it on faith,,,the evolutionists have no such reason…it is THEORY.

  • Morior Invictus

    All this noise when a Conservative mentions Religion but not a peep when a democrat President practices ramadam. The wife, dog, kids and jewelry all went into hiding. He and the wife traveled separately to his much need vacation in New England. He embraces islam and claims it as having played an important part in American history. All I came up with was the time Thomas Jefferson had to travel to Spain in 1791 and find out why the Barbary Pirates were causing such grief with American ships. Turns out it was because we wern’t muslim. I guess that is obama’s claim for islam and American history.

  • Brendan Horn

    I wonder if scientists say “Thank Bang” when they are relieved about something positive that has taken place.

    • HolyChristAlmighty

      I wonder if believers say “How could You do this?” to Me when I do something negative against them for no good reason?

    • RecknHavic

      LOL! Funny stuff Brendan.

      Maybe bang d*mm*t when their peeved too.

      • namvet527

        Maybe Nigg– dammit seeing that G– dammit is more socially acceptable than Nigg–. Holding the slur of a group of people as a worse offense than to slur GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF is IDOLATRY & BLASPHEMY. I also get tired of these anti Christian Christophobic bigots being so self-righteous.

      • namvet527

        Riley is no Christian & being a Catholic don’t make anyone a Christian. Alot of Riley’s comments about religion shows he does not have a clue about Christianity. He is making a fool of himself.
        That scripture ” …it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven,” has NOTHING to do with money. It has to do with HUMILITY. The EYE OF A NEEDLE used to be an arch a camel & his rider had to go through in order to enter town. The arch was low & the camel had get almost on its knees to get through. Tell that Christophobic bigot Riley to get the REAL understanding of the Bible not some liberal heretical understanding.

  • Claudia

    Hi Bernie… Always enjoy your commentary and opinions on Bill O’s show. I am a Christian with conservative views. Whether the earth is 6,000 – 10,000 years old as the Bible suggests, or somewhat older is really not the most important issue. How you live your life, showing the love of God to your fellow man, including those who are polar opposite in their views from your own and may hate your guts simply because you follow a path that requires faith to go that way, and standing up for what you believe without falling into the trap of hating the haters back… that is what is most important. God bless… :)

  • Mike Evans

    Bernie read some Ann Coulter. If Darwinism is the science then where are all the fossils showing the transformation? There aren’t any. A major hole in darwinsism. But yet to have no talk of creationism in the classroom is to deny a scientific absolute.

    • HolyChristAlmighty

      That’s right!

      And where are the video’s for the assasination of Ceasar? We need proof!

      If we are missing any fossils between any historical period, we can deduce the whole thing is a lie.
      All hail! Bringeth on the creation story unto thine science classroom. For it shall be learned…and laughed at, in about 10 minutes, in total.

      Non credo quia absurdum est

      • namvet527

        I am laughing at the THEORY of evolution. For one, do you know the understanding of the word THEORY? I don’t think so.

        There are 2 types of evolution, macro-evo. = evo between species of which there is NO PROOF and micro evo.= evo. within a species of which there is lots of proof.

      • Proe Graphique

        Hey – Yeah, you – calling yourself “Holy Christ Almighty” throwing lame and annoying zingers that you think are brilliant in their thoughtful reasoning but are really beneath the self-esteem of an average protozoa: All you’re offering is smarmy cynicism and intellectually dishonest troll-feces.

        There are 1.5 million species of life on earth, and not a single one has anywhere near an evolutionary fossil record of its development. If mutation was the cause, then the fossil record should be littered with billions of mutations that did not succeed, as would be required by the law of averages. We have neither. Evolution is not even a theory, because a theory needs to make a prediction that can be realized under controlled conditions. Darwin’s lame-ass supposition wasn’t even his – he just ripped it off from Greek and Roman philosophers who did the same thing he did: they made superficial observations and concluded evolution works like this: The sun comes up. The rooster crows. The rooster cause the sun to come up.

        I feel quite certain that you do not have the skill to debate Professor Michael Behe because he’s the professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and you aren’t, and he has essentially proven – overwhelmingly – that evolution is *impossible* because the microorganisms necessary for the mechanics of evolution could not have evolved without already being in place: an impossible catch 22.

        So why don’t you learn what the hell you’re talking about before running all over this board spouting off like a jackass with no facts to back up your big mouth.

        If you want a long version of this, go to page two of this comment thread and learning something for a change, know-it-all.

  • Robert Hayes

    Bernie, the reason your loosing here is your religion. Your a Jew, nothing wrong with that per se, but unless your an orthodox Jew, you are likely a sort of dual sceptic. You really don’t practice your faith likely because you really don’t believe in it either. But you for sure don’t accept anything connected with Christianity as even possible. Science is your God, as it is for many, many other Americans….Science makes sense, religion is foolishness…..Good for the indivudal, but don’t bring it out in public, especially if it conflicts with science….The only problem with science Bernie is that evolution isn’t a science. Its a belief which can’t really be proven. It has bullied it’s way into our culture and maintains its place mainly because the lie has been told so often that many accept it. There is no fossil evidence showing anything in any stage actually becoming something else…..Evolution is a secular religion, and it actually takes more faith to believe in it than it would to believe in God………

  • Chris

    We who believe in the Bible do not believe in fairy tales and we are not ignorant. Jesus quoted from almost every book of the old testament. Jesus seemed to believe these books (which of course are HIS books…i.e. Word of God). Why are Christians so willing to believe that Jesus died on the cross for them…but not other things? If you are going to accept Christ, then accept him! If you believe what you read in the new testament then believe what God teaches you in the old testament. Isaiah 55:8-9. “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” Careful Bernie…he is the living God. I would rather be called ignorant and follow my God then to believe your fairy tales and have your approval.

  • Lee Grace

    Great column. I agree that Jesus probably would be a liberal Democrat. While I am a Christian, there are substantial portions of the Bible that I do not believe should be taken literally. Keep up the good work. What can we do about baseline budgeting? That’s what needs to be changed in Washington.

  • Brendan Horn


    I think you are caving into the liberal mindset when you say right-wingers hate liberals. Right-wingers are not any more hateful than left-wingers. Look at all the violence in Greece and England. This is mostly left-wing violence. Is left-wing violence labelled as hateful? It is not even identified as left-wing violence. Liberals in the media often want to make people believe that all conservatives are crazy, hateful, and dangerous. You are giving liberals ammunition to make this claim. They will say: “even Fox News contributor Bernard Goldberg believes conservatives are the party of hate.”

    Does it even really matter what happened six thousand years ago? I don’t believe you or any scientist was around six thousand years ago, not even Stephen Hawking is that old. I don’t even trust people who tell me they are certain what happened yesterday, especially members of the media. I am not anti-science but I am not pro-science either. I think a lot of people mindlessly believe scientists in the same way that a lot of religious people mindlessly follow their priest, imam, or rabbi.

    One thing that bothers me is how people are happy to mock religious people for what they believe. I am not saying you are doing this but very many liberal members of the media love to mock the religious. Bill Maher, the degenerate, joyously mocks religious people. Is it healthy to mock people? Don’t people who are mocked often learn to hate those that mock them.

    A clever religious person when confronted by the camel quote might say something like: it is easy for god to make the camel jump through the eye of a needle, after all god created the world in six days which was much more difficult. I don’t care if a religious politician believes something that I might consider crazy as long as that does not lead to crazy political solutions to the problems of the nation, especially when these solutions will do more harm than good. I think a perfectly sane person is often someone who lacks a creative interpretation of the world.

  • Bud Fleisher

    There are many many scientists and many many founders of many many modern-day scientific studies and methods that were founded by those who are called “Creationists.” For an impressive list see “The Biblical Basis For Modern Science” by Henry Morris. Sorry, Bernie, but you just don’t seem to know what you are postulating.

  • Steve

    Adam didn’t just have two son’s, he had quite a few children. Adam’s sons and daughters married each other. It seems strange to us now, but back in the day that’s how they did it.

    Genesis 5: 3 – 5

    3) And Adam lived 130 years and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image and called his name Seth.
    4) and the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were 800 years and he begat sons and daughters.
    5) and all the day that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

    It is similar to another question, “where did Cain get his wife?”

    The Bible is clear. The Bible states in very plain and simple language at Genesis 5:4 that “…he (Adam) became father to sons and daughters.” Notice the plural “sons” and “daughters.”

  • Paul Courtney

    Bernie: Knew your comments on Bachman would draw fire from my fellow Christians, was surprised it didn’t show up on this site. Must be in an email we don’t get to see, and from your description, don’t wanna see. I’m sorry these folks attack you so viciously, seems they don’t take the opportunity to ask their favorite question (wwjd) before clicking send. Of course you ask for it to an extent, but you apply the same skepticism to the MSM, for which I’m grateful, so don’t change (as if you need to hear it from me). I’ll use this forum to ask, did Jesus go ’round teaching the earth was 4,000 yrs old? When did this become an article of faith? Look into the big bang and ask yourselves, isn’t it even stronger proof of God than the biblical account? A piece of matter so dense as to contain all the “stuff” in the present universe “explodes” into a vast void, faster than the laws of physics can account for, and settles into planets and stars that obey all the laws of physics? From which life just happens to emerge, and grows into humans smart enough to perceive the laws of physics? Sure, a God that great could create a world 6,000 yrs ago and made it appear to be older, but why get bent out of shape about something that Jesus didn’t teach? I try to be humble enough to keep firmly in mind something he undoubtedly did teach, “judge not…” (you all know the rest), and it’s really hard for me to be humble! All that said, I’d vote for a fanatical Christian who has flaws but might act on Christ’s teaching from the bible, or a fanatical Jew who might act on the law of Moses, than a fanatical non-believer who might act on the teachings of Mao. And Michelle B has to give a straight answer based on her principles, or she’ll not get the promotion she seeks.

  • Jean Pearson


    Your are right on as usual. You speak with logic and clarity and strike just the right tone…and you make sense. I am a Catholic and our church teaches the meaning of the bible, not taking it literally, especially the Old Testament. As usual, people use the bible to justify their positions.

    Rep. Bachmann definitely backtracked. It’s just a shame that politicians phrase their speaches to each individual audience and tell each group what they want to hear instead of being truthful with everyone. Rep. Bachmann is not the first or the only politician to do this.

    As far as the mainstream media is concerned, it is open season on any form of Christianity…can anti-semitism be far behind?

    Please keep on doing what you do so well, many of us appreciate your work.

  • IndependentLasVegas

    Jesus was both a liberal in the forgiveness of sin and conservative in following the ten commandments.

    Jesus said to the Pharisees in regards to taxes… render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and render to God what is God’s. So Jesus had no interested in debating anything political just saving souls. It was one of the reasons he was crucified.

  • joe from louisiana

    You should know better than to opine about religion. How about separation between media and religion? Isn’t that in the constitution? I consider myself fairly intelligent and may believe in science without intertwining it with my faith. If I stumble upon a scientific matter that refutes my belief I acknowledge the shallowness of my understanding. What I do not like in the modern “live and let live” society is the non-believers ridicule those who rationally believe. As Blaise Pacal so eloquently elaborated “There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.” As far as Jesus walking the earth in human form he would chastise us for having so much faith in politics and want us to compromise on the inconsequential whle staying true to our beliefs. Neither a Democrat or Republican.

  • Marina Coca Tambakis

    Bernie ~
    I have read all your books, and happen to agree with almost all of your opinions on wimps and idiots, but PLEASE do not say people of faith believe in fairy tales. You may believe the Bible is untrue and miracles do not occur, BUT,
    many believers disagree. Although you may believe it’s about science – that doesn’t make it so. Marina
    p.s. Yes, I am a Conservative and probably fit into all your stereotypes of “religious” voters.
    I disagree on one comment of yours: I would vote for Daffy Duck before Barak Obama.

  • Rick M

    Bernie; a few observations:

    Most times when religion enters the discussion these days it has more to do with mutual respect than the substance of religious beliefs. A lot of assumptions are made about what the other side actually believes.

    For example, when using the terms ‘creationism’ or ‘Darwinism,’ most discussions ignore what is theory, what is known and what is unknown.

    Success in politics stems from the ability of a candidate to communicate effectively with, and get the vote of, a majority of citizens who have varied levels of education and sophistication. We have not seen a winner (nationally) who has achieved only the support of one of those levels or the other.

    What is obvious then is that politicians and their agents who insult those less informed permanently end their ability to bring them along. I prefer to save my political insults for the disingenuous who attempt to manipulate the discussion with false premises as opposed to false (in my opinion) beliefs.

  • Tom

    Don’t you see, I know the truth? No you don’t, I do!

  • Vin Bick

    Dear Bernie:
    Not ALL of us conservatives take the Bible literally. Have my doubts about liberals even believing in any God or religion other than their Beloved BO–which stinks…..

  • RecknHavic

    Its easy to take a phrase or a sentence out of context and twist it into whatever it is you wish it to be. But don’t worry Bernie, many Christians know even less or understand very little of God’s Word.

    “It’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven” Mark 10:25

    How could a camel possibly pass through a hole so small? It could not. Nor could a rope fit through a needled eye(if the actual original word used was the Aramaic “gamla” which could mean “camel, a large rope, or a beam”). There’s no inaccuracy either way as the meaning is you must cast aside your baggage (sin) at the feet of our Savior to enter God’s Kingdom. So, was it a sm door that only an unladen camel could pass through? was it a rope to large to fit through a sm hole? It really doesnt matter as the meaning of Christ’s words are apparent to those who have “ears to hear”. Some have a preconceived “bias” toward the Bible that blinds them.

    • joe from louisiana

      And many don’t read the whole passage. The most important part after the “eye of the needle” is:

      25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

      26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

      • michael pell

        Those that cite the “eye of the needle ” verse
        usually skip the last part. As long as the rich man learns Torah and does Mitzvos he has just as must chance of getting into heaven as the rest of us.

        • RecknHavic

          No Michael, the last part confirms what is taught throughout the Bible (both OT and NT); that it is the grace of God that saves us, not ourselves. Otherwise it would say, “w/ man some things are possible”.

          Man, through the choices weve made, have corrupted God’s perfect work of creation and rightly condemned ourselves because of our sin. But He provides a way out through His Son, Jesus Christ.

  • Cmacrider

    Bernie: Your article is, as usual, candid and inciteful. As I read your “editorial” the essence of your argument is found in this phrase …. “The last time religion came up was just the other day when Bill asked if it is legitimate for journalists to ask politicians about their religious beliefs. Yes, it’s perfectly legitimate, I said, if religion is an important part of the candidate’s life. Then, as an example, I added this: Let’s say a candidate thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old [it’s 4.5 billion years old] and dinosaurs roamed the planet at the same time as people, “that kind of ignorance matters,” I said. It may not affect his foreign policy or her economic policy, I went on, but it will affect something – and so we need to know about such things”

    One can hardly disagree with the proposition that if a candidate’s opinions on collateral matters displays a lack of knowledge that may be a valid factor in deciding how to cast your ballot. However, it could be argued with equal fervour that simply because a candidate has a literal interpretation of the Bible does not axiomatically suggest that his opinions on economics, the appropriate role for the federal government etc. etc. is equally faulty.
    As a Canadian I find it remarkable that separation of church and state in our country is merely a custom or parliamentary tradition. In the United States it is enshrined in your Constitutional documents. However, in Canada, a candidates religious beliefs are considered irrelevant while in the U.S. they seem to be a major factor in the political process.
    Surely American’s should, at this juncture, be more concerned as to whether a candidate believes in global warming which has shown itself to lack the ultimate scientific test namely it is unable to predict future physical phenomena. Surely it is more important to know whether a candidate believes in Keynes theories which date back to 1932 long before the emergence of the global economy. Surely, if is more important to know whether a candidate believes that the Keystone pipeline should be approved or whether out of pure ignorance he believes that the Alberta Oilsands are an ecological disaster. It seems to me that this kind of “ignorance” is infinitely more germaine when America is suffering under a stagnant economy.

    Always enjoy your articles … keep calling them as you see them.

  • Tucker Peterson

    I remember you saying that about Jesus . I was shocked !
    Then after a while of thinking on it . I concluded you were right .
    I love my Jesus . And believe he was perfect . We are not .

    Jesus did play the game at hand to be perfect . He waited until he was 30 to perform a miracle . Because 30 years of age was the age to be a high priest . And he would have up staged him . He went with the law they had . Because he had to die an untainted man . Which he did . He was given death . Yet committed no crime .

  • Abel

    I congratulate your courage Mr. Goldberg, you are quite right in many ways. If Jesus was a politician he would be at the very least a democrat if not a socialist. He would not understand how, we in a nation this rich, could let our own children go hungry, and not tend to their illnesses if they are sick. He would not understand how the poor and oppressed could vote for those that oppress them simply because they claim to be Christians (a good Christian is defined by deeds not words).
    The bottom line is this, the vast majority of Christians believe what they are told to believe by a few who are only interested in maintaining a status quo where they act as well paid middle-men between humanity and the divine where none is needed or wanted by God. They are incapable of logically dissecting the contents of the bible to get at the seeds of truth which inspired it. Case in point: when God decided to exile Cain for killing his brother Abel, Cain’s primary concern was that he would be killed by the men he would meet, so God marked his forehead and promised a seven-fold vengence on any man who did. Apparently, both God and Cain believed that there were other men in the world to be concerned about. Tell this to a fanatic bible-pounder though and they will treat you like Satan.
    It is my belief that in creating Adam and Eve, God made a new race of man to walk this world, and that the species of Man had been on this world for thousands of years before that.
    The concept of creationalism and evolution are not mutually exclusive theories. Life was created, life evolves, both naturally and with the assistance of God.
    It may take generations for this idea to be accepted, but God is as patient as he is wise.

  • EddieD_Boston

    I’m on your side Bernie. I went to Cafholic school and the enlightened Brothers (mostly the younger ones) talked about how you can’t take the Bible literally b/c it was written thousands of years ago by people who’s frame of reference extended to the next village. Take the meaning if not necessarily the words. Bible quoters don’t make any sense if you understand that a lot of the New Testament was written many years after Jesus died. They didn’t have video cameras so how do you know he actually said it?
    But Bernie I must say the Eco fundamentalists are whack jobs who take their beliefs to the extreme also.

  • Ron Kean


    Could you be ripping off the Clarence Darrow character played by James Cagney in the movie?

    I always wondered how life started. If lightning hit mud and made a heart beat just like that, it should be happening now shouldn’t it? Shouldn’t little amoebas be growing from zapped mud somewhere even as we blog? Maybe it’s happening in the mid-west or on the isle of Manhattan.

    Ann Coulter just posted an article about this very same topic just today. It’s funny.

    • HolyChristAlmighty

      I read Coulter too. That column of her’s was remarkable to me for one important detail, she is the first person who is preparing to explain extraterestials as being created by God. The more evolution becomes understood by the masses, the more religion has shied away from the creation fable. Most religion’s are now coopting evolution out of necessity. Ann has done this in her ‘Darwin” column in case life is found elsewhere in our universe. She’s already paving the way for believers to keep on believing no matter what evidence clearly debunks our earth being the place where it all began…in a garden.

      • Ron Kean

        Carbon dating is undeniable. But the way the Bible weaves literal, metaphorical, and allegorical meanings together is difficult to understand and if the Bible and its believers are ridiculed for opinion or interpretation, the baby is thrown out with the bath water.

        After the 30 Years War, Christians stopped killing Christians and Jews because of religion as a rule. The 20th century demonstrated godless communism and nazi ideology to be far more deadly then all religious killing before (not counting Aztec, Inca and pagan rites). The mayhem and murder of Islamic jihad is another story and goes without saying.

        So the question is, what is the consequence of people believing the universe was created in 6 days. How is that harmful? One consequence is that we all really really enjoy Saturday and Sunday.

        Will believers destroy all scientific pursuit or do they just want to be left alone? Will children in our schools be intellectually damaged any more than they have been with liberal thought? How can time have been measured at the event of the big bang?

        My theory is that believers are harmless unless you push them, fight them or ridicule them. Islam slashed and killed its way to conquest in it’s first centuries and now Crusaders have been made into the bad guy for striking back. Israel has been made into the bad guy for striking back.

        We live in a free country and anyone can take their turn bashing believers. How should this formerly quiet and peaceful group react? We don’t know but we may see.

  • HolyChristAlmighty

    I object to anyone ordering Me around. How dare my children tell me Me what to do and when. So stop going around and saying, “God bless you” or “God bless that.” I’m always watching so I don’t need you to tell Me whom to bless. Ever occur to you I don’t want that individual blessed?

    And for My sake, knock off doing My work. I hear some of you saying, “I’m doing the Lord’s work.” Seriously? You think you can step in and do the work of Me, the Almighty?

    Now, go in peace and give generously to …Me!

  • Robert Mees

    Mr. Goldberg:

    “This time the evidence is about labels” you wrote recently “the ideological labels journalists slap on presidential candidates the way tobacco companies slap warning labels on packs of cigarettes. One says ‘Cigarettes cause cancer.’ The other practically shouts: Look out, be careful, you’re about to hear from” an ignorant evangelical Christian! As you admit this week you accused Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible of “ignorance”. In an e-mail to me you claimed that they are unfit for the office of president because “to people of faith, religious conviction affects a whole bunch of things.” So let me get this straight: Muslim Supreme Court nominees are somehow able to separate their religious convictions from their judicial responsibility and a Bible believing Christian cannot; a Bible believing Christian is incapable of Christian love and compassion toward homosexuals; and, America does not have a long history where Conservative Christian presidents were able to humbly “turn the other cheek” in response to an offense rather than reacting in anger, and still effectively lead this country when we were attacked by “bad people”. Is that an accurate characterization of your position?

    Frankly, Bernie, “this kind of thing should embarrass journalists” like you. This is not the time or the place for us to debate Biblical Truth, though I am open to having that conversation with you. What we do need to address is your own Bias. Men and women of religions conviction, as well as faithless ideologies, need to be vetted not on the basis of their faith tradition, or lack thereof, but on the strength of their character. Do they value integrity and and sound stewardship of time and money? Whether an individual holds a Young Earth worldview based on the creation timeline in Genesis (a worldview shared by many Christians, Orthodox Jews and Muslims around the world), as opposed to an Old Earth worldview taught in public schools for the past 75-100 years, holding that worldview does not affect their ability to govern and is certainly not proof of their “ignorance”. An unwillingness to embrace popular scientific theory as fact is just as healthy as doggedly adhering to that theory in the face of mounting evidence that refutes it. I believe that you owe those Christians who you so cavalierly labeled as ignorant an apology, and I would expect Mr. O’Reilly to give you a forum to do so.

    Robert Mees

    Quotations above come from “Warning: Conservatives May Be Harmful to Your Mental Health”, by Bernard Goldberg, August 17, 2011 (http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/warning-conservatives-may-be-harmful-to-your-mental-health/).

  • Nancye

    Dear Bernie,

    I’m a conservative. I’m also a Christian. But I don’t know if God created our earth in 6 days (there were no 24 hour days while the earth was being created by the way) or billions of years. It doesn’t matter. HE did it! So be it! The Bible was written so the average person could understand it – knowing that most of us aren’t scientists and couldn’t understand it even if the whole creation was explained to us.

    I enjoy your appearances on O’Reilly’s show. He’s the problem – not you!

  • Trapp

    Well Bernie, you have my sympathy for having to deal with the more fanatical among us. Of course, you might cut down a bit on the fire and brimstone if you chose to be a little more diplomatic in your choice of words! Yes, I suppose diplomacy makes for boring TV. I’m sure that most, like me, welcome hearing (or reading) your perspective, agree or not.

    You were certainly right about Rep. Bachman. It never ceases to amaze me how politicians will say things to one group, apparently without thinking that others will eventually hear it too, such as Obama’s classic “clinging to their guns and religion” statement. I cringe every time they do it.

    However, as for resting your case on the Jesus quote, sorry, but I think you need to go back to the drawing board on that one. Jesus never actually demanded that the rich in society give up their money, nor that society as a whole do anything at all. It was personal. He spoke of YOU (or the listener,) and how you must think, in this case, that you not amass earthly riches. But if there was an overall message in his teachings, it was that you not be a hypocrite. In light of that, it seems probable that he wouldn’t have aligned himself with either side, but would have called out both for being the hypocrites that they (we) are.

  • Phil

    Bernie: A very interesting column. Very thought-provoking. I would add that radial environmentalism has become today’s religion of choice for many, and much of what radical environmentalists are pushing has as much basis in actual science as what religious conservatives say. How many times has “science” been proven wrong (The next Ice Age, for example)? The late Michael Crichton wrote a brilliant essay on environmentalism and religion and how similar they are in many ways. Give it a read one of these days.
    And keep up the good work.

  • May Day

    Mr. Goldberg –

    The knee-jerk reactions espoused by folks with a limited mind-set is a direct result of their unwillingness to approach issues logically. Your views are based on logic and unfortunately those who are insecure in their own beliefs rail against anyone who challenges them. Please continue to say what needs to be said if for no other reason that it is refreshing to listen to someone who doesn’t pander the left or the right. With that being said, God Bless you and yours!


    ~May Day

    • Bernard Goldberg

      God bless you too, May Day

  • Harry Peterson

    Hey Mr. Goldberg,
    I apprecite your segments on O’Reily. You are however a little too bold on your “theory” of the age of the earth.
    Scientific creationism or evolution” are BOTH theories. Just because they come to the SAME conclusions because thy have the same facts, just diffrent starting points, doesn’t make either right or wrong. But since billions and billions of years doesn’t work in real science,(demonstrateable, observable, repeatable) let’s keep our comments about political things. You’re awesome at that!! :)



    • The Real Truth

      You are incorrect. They are NOT both “theories.” There are not thousands of pee-reviewed articles in science publications. There are no experiments done in creationism. Almost the entire scientific community discredits creationism – tens of millions of scientists disagree with you, while maybe a few hundred, like Dembsky or Behe, agree with “unscientific” creationism. Believe me, if a scientist could prove creationism true, they would – it would be an instant Nobel Prize and millions of dollars, and their name would go down through history. Scientific creationism is not a theory – it is a superstition.

      • John Daly

        Only two people know how old Earth really is: God and Helen Thomas.

        • favorites

          G-D is not a people ….

      • Reality Bites

        Many scientists also think evolution is a theory to this very day. Are you saying that evolution is fact? There are many holes in the theory of evolution. In my humble opinion, it takes FAR more faith to believe in evolution!

    • HolyChristAlmighty

      Please look up ‘theory’ in a dictionary. When scientists say theory they don’t mean the ‘wild guess’ meaning. They mean it as in; The theory of gravity. The theory of gravity can be proven by…yourself, right now. Can you prove any of your beliefs with such ease?

      Respectfully, there are NO FACTS supporting creationism. Not one. Talk about ‘gaps’ and ‘holes’ in a theory. I will give you this. In a hundred or thousand years evolution might be debunked. If that happened, scientists would be the first to admit they were wrong and trust the newer evidences. The only time religions change or admit they were wrong is when it cuts deeply into attendance and collections.

      • Abel

        A theory is a hypothesis that is in the process of being tested. If a theory is proven by repeated empiric tests to be valid then it is considered a “law” or theorum. Thus we have the law of gravity (not theory), the laws of thermodynamics (not theory), the laws of motion (not theory) and the numerous theorums associated with geometry (again, not theories).

  • KayakBob

    Hi Bernie

    For what it is worth, I did understand when you told O’Reilly that you didn’t care what the bible said, that you were speaking specifically within the context of tax policy – not in the broader sense. And besides, even if you were speaking of the bible in the broader sense? Well, you have that right! And, as a conservative with strong PERSONAL beliefs in God, I will defend your right NOT to believe what I believe…about God or anything else.

    Best wishes and keep up the good work – meaning “good work” of expressing a different point of view than the NY Times, et.al.


    • http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/ Bernard Goldberg

      Many thanks, my friend

  • John Matthews

    I agree that there are nutty people on the right related to religion. I disagree with your view that Jesus and his story is a fairy tale. I am a conservative. I think Jesus would not be in favor of enabling people or giving people things that ultimately lead to them becoming dependent and unable to rely on their God given talents.

    • The Real Truth

      Talking snakes? Rods turning into snakes? Fairy tales.

      Water to wine, loaves and fishes to feed multitude, coming back to life like a zombie…fairy tales.

      • HolyChristAlmighty

        John, I am in favor of enabling people to lead independant lives and enabling them to use the talents I have given them.

        Thus sayeth Me.

  • Linda Scher

    I agree completely with you and what Ceredwyn wrote, so I won’t reiterate.
    I couldn’t agree more about Michelle Bachmann’s backtracking. When you stated that on Bill O I said “Yes” !! There is something about her that just doesn’t ring true.
    My favorite segments are when you are on air with Bill.
    Best Regards,

    Linda Scher

    • http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/ Bernard Goldberg

      Thank you, Linda. I do appreciate the kind words.

  • Ceredwyn F. Holt

    Dear Mr. Goldberg,

    I’m sorry everyone is giving a hard about your views. Somethings, evangelicals believe, just need to be taken on faith.

    With that said, Science and faith need not be incompatable. Many scientific break throughs and inventions were by men of faith. Issac Newton wrote more on religious subjects than he did scientific. George W. Carver saw the world through the lens of faith and look at all he did.

    Some people aren’t going to be happy now matter what you say, just stand by your convictions and call them how you see them.

    Wishing you well.

    Ceredwyn F. Holt

    • http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/ Bernard Goldberg


      Thanks … much!

      • Proe Graphique


        Well, it’s good to know you read the comments because some of us are wondering why you haven’t followed up on the birther issue you mocked ‘religiously” until the document analysis came to light.

        yes, science and religion are compatible, but sometimes that means questioning science, not compromising religion. See the very lengthy response on page 2 of this string of comments to understand why. Educate yourself before throwing stones, Bernie. It’s good journalism.

    • The Real Truth

      Science and faith *are not* compatible.

      Newton may have been religious, but throughout history, do you know what they would call a scientist who was an atheist? Dead. Executed by christians.

      Too bad Newton spent his valuable time on the supernatural stuff that benefited no one. Who knows what more he could have contributed to reality, if he didn’t waste his time on religion.

      But let’s talk about modern times instead of old history. 90% of the NAS (National Academy of Science) membership of 2,200, the United States highest organization of science, are non-religious.

      But to your point, science and religion are not compatible, because science actively debunks theistic claims. It proved that the earth moves around the sun, and Galileo was almost executed for it – Giordano Bruno, philosopher and scientist, *was* executed for the crime of heresy of pantheism. Right now we have the ability to create humans, to alter our DNA. We have created organisms from scratch. This is all within the last 15 years. What of Adam and Eve then? Additionally, I’m sure soon we will figure out how the universe started by “natural” means soon. What then?

      • Abel

        Science and religion are indeed compatable. The greatest scientists of all time (Einstein, Newton, Archimedies, Hypocrates and many others) believed in a divine creator. Men of lesser capabilities and imaginations don’t.
        Louis Pasteur disproved the concept of spontaneous generation over one hundred years ago, yet men with small minds have resurrected the concept (now called abiogenisis) to explain how living matter has sprung from non-living matter. As a biochemist, I find their dogged efforts to prove their theories (which they will never do) darkly amusing.
        So while they spend millions of dollars trying to get reactions to run backwards naturally (what a joke) and present their crack-pot theories to the masses as science, I can only laugh. What they do is not science, it is magic. What they profess as science is not science it is misplaced faith.