Is Roger Ebert A Creationist?

Roger Ebert stopped raising his thumb long enough publish a Q&A in the Sunday Chicago Sun-Times about Creationism, which he claims “should be discussed in schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution.” Is he being incredibly dry, or is this an earnest attempt to push the fundamentalist platform? Here’s a sample:

Q. What about oil and coal, which seem to have been generated from ancient forests millions of years ago?

A. They are evidence of a Great Flood about 4,400 years ago, which laid down all the layers of sediment at once. They are nowhere near as old as evolutionists and archeologists say. A fossil claimed to be 200 million years old, found in Nevada in 1917, shows a shoe print. [See photograph]

Q. What about bones representing such species as Cro-Magnon Man and Neanderthal Man?

A. Created at the same time as man. They did not survive. In fact, all surviving species and many others were created fully formed at the same time. At that moment they were of various ages and in varying degrees of health. Some individuals died an instant later, others within seconds, minutes or hours.

Fans who believe Ebert is being satirical point to the 2005 commentary “Job Vs. The Volcano: Faith Vs. Science in IMAX,” in which he clearly states “the creationist belief cannot withstand such tests and challenges [as evolution theory]; it exists outside the world of science altogether.” But if his tongue is firmly in cheek, why does he say it “should” be discussed in schools? Is the accent on “discussed” (as in “laughed at”)? Did he find religion after his tracheostomy? Did Lou Lumenick hit him harder than we thought? With the puzzled reaction his piece is receiving, Ebert probably won’t take long to clarify his stance. There’s irony and then there’s irony, Roger!

[Photo: Wire Image]