Evolutionists... You never know what wacky nonsense they'll spout next! On this page, I will collect and dissect the excesses of their unsupportable philosophy and various bits of amusing Darwinalia. While this could be viewed as a humorous, even cruel, endeavor, my intention is not to mock (although sometimes it is impossible not to, given the source material.) Instead, I hope to expose exactly what passes for Evolutionist thought and why it is so flawed, so that the Truth of Creation will stand out even more stark against the background of Evolutionism that our culture has been draped in.Whoo-boy, this guy is either nuts or a scam artist or both (or a Poe.) Okay, I'm going to try to get all my refutations in and not skip anything. 1) Evolution by Natural Selection (through genetic variability and species pressure) is an explanation for the mountains of evidence suggesting a common ancestor from millions of years ago. 2) Evolution is not a philosophy; it is a scientific fact (supported, if you will, by more facts. 3)Dawrinalia? I know you love making up words, but this is a stretch, even for a theobiologist. 4) Mocking is fun, but much more effective when you're actually right and can support your own claim with data, rather than merely disagreeing with an alternate claim. 5) Even if evolution was revealed by science to be incorrect (highly unlikely), it would not do anything towards establishing that creationism is correct, much less your Christian version of creationism. There have been, of course, thousands of creation myths throughout recorded history. Won't those be worth investigating also, if finding the truth is the goal? 6) Quit saying "evolutionist" and "evolutionism". They are buzzwords used only by you and your cronies; they are not used within the credible scientific community (or, apparently, Chrome's spellcheck.) 7) Using a capital T on Truth doesn't make what you say less ridiculous. It just makes you look like you don't know the difference between a proper and common noun. 8) Backgrounds don't drape cultures. They're backgrounds. (D'uh.)
Propaganada & Word Shystery: evolutionist, wacky, nonsense, unsupported, amusing, flawed, stark, culture (as in culture wars/secular culture and other code words.)
Crazy Darwinist ParanoiaOh, come on now! You lose the right to even pretend credibility once you go this cartoonish. "Crazy" and "paranoia" huh? What do you call your belief that all of science is some big "evolutionist" conspiracy? Is that "Crazy Creationist Paranoia"? (Yes.) Gee, when you don't have facts on your side I guess just making stuff up always works.
In response to growing Darwinist ravings over a Darwinist urban legend popular among true-Darwinism-believers on the Darwinist fringe, Evolution News & Views offers some reasoned clarifications: How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend.Propaganda words: Darwinist, ravings, true-Darwinism-believer, Darwinist fringe, reasoned clarification, paranoia, urban legend.
Let's try this again, in something more akin to the fake-balance found in most American journalism.
"In response to growing statements made by some scientists, our internet tabloid offers some palatable lies: How to Keep Believing in Nonsense Because God Said So."
It seems that Darwinists, unable to scientifically support their Darwinism in classrooms, are instead seeking to incite paranoia among credulous Darwinists.Buzzword, buzzword, buzzword, buzzword. And here's the thing about real scientists (like Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins, & Paul Gross) would not stand behind evolution if it wasn't supported by the facts, or if the facts materially disproved it. That's what makes science science. I used to tell my now-physicist brother, "I don't believe in science." Mostly I did this because there's this one vein on his forehead that gets all throbby, and I *am* a little sister y'all. But I also did it because I was completely ignorant of how science works - about testing and falsifying and peer-review.
I wish public school had done a better job of teaching me about that, so that by the time I was confronted with science that disagreed with my faith, I would not automatically assume science was the untrustworthy one of the two. (Propaganda words: Darwinists, unable, Darwinism, incite paranoia, credulous) This next paragraph is a true work of art, so I'm going to show it in its entirety, before dissecting it to tiny crushable bits. (emphasis mine)
These fringe Darwinists, lead by Crazy Doc. Barb, are claiming that the "Wedge Document" -- in reality a modest Discovery Institute fundraising proposal -- is part of a vast anti-Darwinian conspiracy to suppress Darwinism and persecute Darwinists. These crazy Darwinists, driven loopy by their Darwinism, are so incapable of separating their Darwinian Materialism from real science -- such as practiced by Intelligent Design theoreticians and theobiologists -- that the reasonable goal of overthrowing materialism and its cultural legacies, errecting in their place a true science consonant with Christianity, becomes an attempt to impose a theocracy on Darwinists.Now in pieces (but keeping the fun emphasis)
These fringe Darwinists, lead[sic] by Crazy Doc. Barb, are claiming that the "Wedge Document" -- in reality a modest Discovery Institute fundraising proposal -- is part of a vast anti-Darwinian conspiracy to suppress Darwinism and persecute Darwinists.Ha! Does he not even realize he just called the Wedge Document "a modest proposal?" (Am I the only one who immediately jumped to Irish cannibalism?) But first, let's get past the strawmen. When evolution proponents (ie, scientists & other people without their heads up their bums) talk about an anti-evolution movement or conspiracy, they're talking about you clowns at the Discovery Institute, and your buffoon friends at the Institute for Creation Research.
And are you really going to refer to a professional, adult, respected woman as "Crazy Doc?" Yet you want to be taken seriously, fascinating. In reality, Barbara Forrest co-authored Creationism's Trojan Horse, a book about the Intelligent Design movement and the almost laughably transparent attempts that had been made to simply substitute the words "intelligent design" in place of "creationism" in text books intended for public schools. She also served as an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and her testimony was extremely detrimental to the fools on the side of "Goddidit!"
Since she's right and they can't disprove or refute her premises, instead they go after her sanity. I don't like when people play the crazy card. I remember what Dave Chappelle said after he disappeared to Africa for awhile, "The worst thing to call somebody is crazy; it's dismissive. I don't understand this person, so I'm gonna call them crazy." This is essentially what the author is asking his readers to do - to dismiss Ms. Forrest out of hand, rather than seek to understand what she is saying.
These crazy Darwinists, driven loopy by their Darwinism, are so incapable of separating their Darwinian Materialism from real science -- such as practiced by Intelligent Design theoreticians and theobiologists -- that the reasonable goal of overthrowing materialism and its cultural legacies, errecting in their place a true science consonant with Christianity, becomes an attempt to impose a theocracy on Darwinists.Let's try this run-on without buzzwords.
"These..."'Nuff said, really, but I'll also add this: look in the mirror, buddy? True science doesn't concern itself with whether or not it is consonant with your mythology! *facepalm* And you must actually know that. You're just a propaganda man out to make cash on stupid Christians willing to fork over real money for merchandise and funding your expedition to go find living dinosaurs in Africa. (I'm serious.)
I guess Darwinists have to keep themselves busy waiting for cats to evolve into dogs.Obviously, pathetically, this is a strawman. No one suggests at all that cats will evolve into dogs (or that what cats will eventually evolve into is even knowable to any degree of certainty.)
As Rob Crowther puts it in the article: Don't Darwinists have better ways to spend their time than inventing absurd conspiracy theories about their opponents? The longer Darwinists persist in spinning such urban legends, the more likely it is that fair-minded people will begin to question whether Darwinists know what they are talking about.Scientists who use actual science instead of Bibles are keeping themselves plenty busy developing vaccines, finding new treatments for HIV/AIDS, battling cancer, doubling the human life span, mapping the human genome, restoring balance to damaged ecosystems, discovering new species, and looking for life on other planets (to name a few.)
Have you ever noticed that you only hear the phrase "fair-minded people" in weasly ways? Also, in the case of ID there is a clear attempt at painting creationism as an equal alternative theory, and to suggest scientists are being "unfair" for keeping their fiction out of their journals. But science is fair. As soon as Mr. Crowther or Dr. Baley provides evidence, and that evidence withstands the rigorous process of testing, falsification, and peer-review (you know, science) then it can absolutely get printed. But when you're just making things up in a desperate attempt to ignore the world around you and stick to the comforting origin myths of your childhood, then no, you don't get to be taken seriously.
Darwinists! Is there no wacky idea they won't buy into?Yes. It's called "intelligent design." (You really set yourself up for that one.)
* I got through this whole post and then realized, "This is probably a Poe." But I can't be sure, since this one wasn't a Poe.
**According to Wikipedia, Barbara Forrest also "serves on the board of directors of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), the Board of Trustees of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association (NOSHA)". Now that is my kind of woman! *Total swoon*
