×

Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu





RUSH: McComb, Ohio, this is Billy, great to have you on the program, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Yes, sir. I have a bone to pick with you, Rush. You’re in my top ten most admired people, but I don’t understand what you have a problem with Darwin, you know? Seems to me that science is pretty sound on this, and I would agree with you totally on other sciences like global warming —

RUSH: Well, no, I should’ve thrown Marx in there, too, along with Freud.

CALLER: Well, I’m not a Marxist. I mean, Ayn Rand is probably my number one most admired people, but I consider the science pretty sound. I mean, the DNA is 98% the same as the great apes. And as far as O’Donnell’s comment is concerned, you know, I hope she wins and all that, but I think she misunderstands that human beings and the great apes share a common ancestor. They didn’t evolve from apes, they shared the same common ancestor, sort of like a tree branching off.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: Yeah. So I don’t — you know, as far as Darwin is concerned, I know a lot of people, a lot of Republicans are Christian, and although I may agree with them on a lot of different issues, I think they’re way off on this. And I think the — you know, I don’t understand it.

RUSH: Well, the only thing that some people have with Darwin is that they believe evolution cannot explain creation. I happen to agree with that. I don’t think evolution can explain creation. And something had to evolve from something. Where does something come from? It didn’t evolve from nothing. Something had to put it there. It had to be created. Darwin tries to argue against creation, and it gives the anti-creationists ammo, Darwin does. I think it actually limits inquiry and curiosity, contrary to promoting it.

CALLER: Well, but why would you disparage a certain theory just because you can’t explain something else? I mean, you know, there’s lots of —

RUSH: Well, Darwin can’t prove his, either.

CALLER: I think there is solid evidence in favor of Darwin. Like I said, 98% DNA the same. If you look at — if you look at the fossils —

RUSH: Okay, what Big Banged? There was a Big Bang, right? The Big Bang of what?

CALLER: Well, I’m not a professional scientist, but I will say this, that just as far as evolution is concerned, if you look at the bone structures of human beings versus the bone structures of apes —

RUSH: Yeah?

CALLER: — and — they’re very similar.

RUSH: Yeah, I know.

CALLER: And then on top of that — just as the theory of evolution as a whole, not just from apes — if you look at how viruses or bacteria mutate, you know, how —

RUSH: I’m not — wait a minute. You may be misunderstanding here. I have never said I don’t believe in evolution; clearly things evolve. All I believe is that evolution does not explain creation. And the evolution the Darwinists use — Darwin and whatever it is he believes — to argue against the whole concept of creationism, or intelligent design, which to me is intellectually vapid.


CALLER: Well, I don’t think — I don’t think Darwinism necessarily says that there’s — I am an atheist, but I don’t think — I don’t think Darwin, you know, the philosophy of evolution comes out and says that there is no God, you know? But I do think —

RUSH: Well, I don’t know, Darwin may not have, but the people that don’t believe in God use Darwin as their evidence. I mean, Darwin created a lot of, shall we… gave a lot of people a lot of insurance policies.

CALLER: Well, there — see, I don’t understand this. Just as there’s no evolution — evidence for socialism, there’s no evidence for creation. So why would you try to even bring creation up —

RUSH: Wait a second, what do you mean there’s no evidence for socialism?

CALLER: What I mean is there’s no evidence it works. Excuse me.

RUSH: Oh. Oh. I see. Yes.

CALLER: But it’s the same thing, so I don’t understand when — you know, I agree with Republicans and conservatives when they say, ‘this stuff has been tried, socialism has been tried,’ but on the other hand, when you look at — there’s no evidence for the evidence of creation, either, it’s all based on faith. Where you have faith in socialism, you have —

RUSH: Alright —

CALLER: — faith in —

RUSH: No, no, no, socialism is not a matter of faith. I mean, if you believe in socialism, you’re stupid! There’s evidence it doesn’t work! Of course —

CALLER: I know. That’s what —

RUSH: Of course creationism is — but Darwinism is faith, too. That’s my whole point. Darwinism is presented as absolute science, inarguable science, and it’s faith as well.

CALLER: It is science. It is science, Rush. There’s a lot of evidence —

RUSH: Well, then I’m going to say creationism is a science, intelligent design is a science. If you say my faith isn’t a science, I’m going to say yours isn’t.

CALLER: Yeah, but there’s actual fossil — I mean, there’s actual bones, when you look at — I’m not a professional scientist, I’m not —

RUSH: I know, you’ve made that clear. And, you know, I’m not a professional creationist.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: I’m not a professional intelligent designer. You know —

CALLER: Okay. Okay, well, I just totally disagree with you on that —

RUSH: I just think it’s a shame. If we and apes have a common ancestor, the apes got screwed.

CALLER: Yeah, they did.

RUSH: Wouldn’t you rather be a human being than an ape?

CALLER: Of course.

RUSH: I mean, I like air-conditioning, running water, toilets and so forth. I don’t like to eat bananas all the time and terrorize people.

CALLER: (laughing) Yeah.

RUSH: I’m glad that my ancestors are human. I wouldn’t want to be an ape.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: The only reason to be an ape is there’s probably better chance of meeting Naomi Watts than if you’re a human being, but even that’s a long shot.

CALLER: Correct. Okay, El Rushbo. We’ll have to just agree to disagree on that one, but go Sharron Angle.

RUSH: Amen, bro. I mean, look. We’re not on different sides of this thing. I don’t mean for you take what I said personally. I do think Darwin has caused humanity a lot of grief, like Freud has caused humanity a lot of confusion, and like Marx has literally, single-handedly been responsible for more murder than any organized criminal you could name.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, look, folks, as I’ve told you countless times, I live in Literalville. And this is one of the things I think that results in me being more misunderstood than anything else. If you tell me something, I take it literally. I believe that you mean it. I don’t dance around edges trying to figure out what you really meant. If you say it, I believe it. I live in Literalville, and I’m telling you that when it comes to evolution and creationism, they are both articles of faith. Neither can be proved as a means of explaining how all this came to be. Nobody’s arguing that there is within species evolution, but cross-species evolution?

There’s another objection that some people have to evolution, and that is, to some people it’s a tautology, survival of the fittest, meaning that what survives is the fittest. It’s always amazed me that liberals embrace this. Liberals hate the survival of the fittest, do they not? Liberals are obsessed with the equality of outcome. Liberals say they’re animated and motivated by the fact that they can’t stand the inequality of things. It’s not fair that somebody should be richer than somebody else. It’s not fair that somebody should have two houses while somebody else has only one. Well, if they’re gonna profess their belief in evolution, isn’t it the case that the survival of the fittest must be allowed to explain all of this? In other words, that some people have more than others because they’re more competent; they’re more able; they’re more fit. And yet the same people want to tell us, ‘Oh, yeah, you have to believe in survival of the fittest. That’s why the weak members of the tribe end up being slaughtered, that’s why the weak lion goes away and gets creamed by the wildebeest or whatever the hell happens. You know, vanishes into the veldt in Rhodesia.’ Darwin’s major premise is the Origin of the Species. Now, I, living in Literalville, say, point me to a species we have seen originate. I’m sorry, I live in Literalville. Origin of the Species. Okay, I’m sorry. As much as people may love Darwin, he cannot explain the Origin of the Species. And nor can I. Nor can Marx, and nor can Obama.

Now, back to tautology. How do you know it’s the fittest, survival of the fittest? Well, the only way you know that it’s the fittest is that it survived. It’s just circular. It really doesn’t advance anything. You know, people find comfort and faith anywhere they can. And some people are hell-bent on not being religious. It’s an article of faith with them. ‘I’m not going to be sucked in by some religion. I’m not going to surrender my mind to a bunch of baseless religion.’ Some people have that attitude while other people totally immerse themselves in it and be very comfortable having faith. But Darwinism isn’t science any more than creationism is. Global warming is not science, it’s not been proved in the scientific method. Another test of whether something is — and I’d have to confirm this with my official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama Huntsville — but to me another test of whether something is science or not is if it’s predictive. Can you predict from your knowledge of the science? Evolution is not predictable. What has evolution ever predicted? What can we know for certain is going to happen down the road because of evolution?

Just the other day, maybe yesterday, the day before, I had a story in the Stack of Stuff, they found 150 new species somewhere, didn’t even know existed. Well, okay, cool. I thought we were destroying species, but that’s beside the point, where did these come from? Simply because we didn’t know them, does that mean they weren’t there, because we had not discovered these species, they weren’t there? I’m sorry, I don’t believe that. Just because we didn’t know it doesn’t mean they weren’t there before we found out about it. Global warming has turned out to not be predictive, either, as we have seen over the last ten years. If global warming were predictive, we’d have had a thousand hurricanes already this year, right? Based on what Algore told us after Katrina. If you live in Literalville like I do, it’s amazing how simple things are. But if you want to live in Grayville, where there’s no certitude, you can confuse yourself ’til the day you die, all the while convincing yourself you’re brilliant. Which is what I found amazing. Some of the most confused people with no answers of anything are among our greatest thinkers, among our finest scholars, and they’re just running around in rampant confusion. One day, oat bran is going to cure heart attacks. The next day all it’s going to do is create more cellular fat in your butt. They haven’t the slightest idea, pure and simple.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This