Darwinian atheist stonewalling
Darwinian atheists (my new name for Darwinists -- or evolutionists) are no longer even paying lip service to the idea of open debate about Darwinian atheism. Cornelius Hunter wrote,
I have encountered Darwinian atheist stonewalling in my attempts to present my ideas about coevolution [link]. My presentations of those ideas have been met almost entirely with scoffing, impromptu just-so stories, bibliography bluffing (just aimlessly pointing to literature), general filibustering, and censorship. The bloggers at the Florida Citizens for Science actually banned me from posting my ideas about coevolution on their blog unless those ideas are approved by "experts" in advance![link] Who ever heard of such a thing? I could see the point of requiring pre-approval of my ideas if those ideas required some specialized, esoteric knowledge, e.g., knowledge of advanced mathematics, but my ideas about coevolution are easily understood by laypeople. The Darwinian atheists bury their heads in the sand because they can't believe -- or pretend that they can't believe -- that anyone could come up with reasonable criticisms of Darwinian atheism.
.
Once upon a time scientists were supposed to be skeptical. Scientific theories, we were taught, were to be questioned. . . . .Scientists were to be objective, and to follow the evidence where ever it may lead.
Those days are gone — long gone. Misleading the public, covering up evidence, protecting theories — that is all standard fare today. We have now arrived at the sad state where evidence that is contrary to evolution — any contrary evidence — is not allowed. Consider this recent exchange between Yudhijit Bhattacharjee of Science magazine and evolution crusader Eugenie Scott:Science magazine: How has this battle changed in the past 20 years?
Eugenie Scott: The enemy has become more diverse. When I started, it was just creation science. Now we have creation science, intelligent design [ID], and straight-up antievolution in the form of "evidence against evolution."
Evidence against evolution? Is there something wrong with that? Yes, there is for evolutionists.
I have encountered Darwinian atheist stonewalling in my attempts to present my ideas about coevolution [link]. My presentations of those ideas have been met almost entirely with scoffing, impromptu just-so stories, bibliography bluffing (just aimlessly pointing to literature), general filibustering, and censorship. The bloggers at the Florida Citizens for Science actually banned me from posting my ideas about coevolution on their blog unless those ideas are approved by "experts" in advance![link] Who ever heard of such a thing? I could see the point of requiring pre-approval of my ideas if those ideas required some specialized, esoteric knowledge, e.g., knowledge of advanced mathematics, but my ideas about coevolution are easily understood by laypeople. The Darwinian atheists bury their heads in the sand because they can't believe -- or pretend that they can't believe -- that anyone could come up with reasonable criticisms of Darwinian atheism.
.
Labels: Intelligent design (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/19/2009 11:44:00 PM
5 Comments:
I've had the same happen to me. Just banned. They will not tolerate anything that doesn't agree with what they WANT to believe. Amazing. Astounding for someone who claims to adhere to the scientific method of inquiry.
Makarios...I think you might be working from the wrong definition of "believe". We want to believe that we can say something meaningful about the world. We do not merely want to believe that a specific idea is right or wrong. That's a juvenile way of thinking.
From a naturalist's point of view, this means we ought to use our best means of reasoning to determine if what we're saying about the world makes sense or not.
Given the information we possess about the natural world around us, the evolution of life makes sense. If there was a better theory that explained the data more fully without resorting to supernaturalism it would be the biggest news in a few hundred years.
Also, note that theories are not necessarily equal in quality just as opinions are not necessarily equal in quality. This is a common fallacy you find in these debates. You make the fallacy by suggesting that a scientists who doesn't buy Intelligent Design and is kind of tired of hearing about it is not being scientific - as if being scientific means entertaining every conceivable idea no matter how silly.
The Darwinian theory has been around for a long time, and it is one of the most astoundingly well-documented scientific theories there is. There is no such thing as a 'controversy' when it comes to the theory of evolution, because any science-minded individual reading the documentation for this theory will be convinced. It is part of the definition of what makes a theory scientific that there is no such thing as a proof, but if you've been testing a theory for 150 years withour managing to disprove it and finding enormous amounts of evidence in favour of your theory along the way, there is little reason to doubt it. You don't see people doubting Newton's laws of motion, do you? When people like Darwinians, scientists and atheists treat people like you the way you describe, it is because we are tired beyond words of responding to the same stupid-ass sorry excuses for scientific discussion you call 'alternative theories' or 'reasonable criticisms'. There are endless amounts of highly readable, well-documented published works that effectively and elegantly refutes all the so-called 'reasonable criticisms'. So in stead of flooding the internet with stupidity just because you read one or two dubious articles and fell in love with them, read some proper science. And while you're at it, read some theory of science as well, and learn how to judge the validity of a claim before subscribing to it.
For the record, I entered this blog by curiosity, after I saw you had been banned for stupidity from PZ Meyers' Pharyngula blog. I had to see for myself... It is a good thing that you have your own place since I suppose that will keep you away from serious discussions.
Do you think I am being rude? It is, sadly, hard to keep smiling when large parts of the community insists on twisting every word we say and denying pure logic and common sense out of principle. By all means, carry on with your little ideas, I won't be coming back.
>>>>>> The Darwinian theory has been around for a long time, and it is one of the most astoundingly well-documented scientific theories there is. <<<<<<
It has more holes than Swiss cheese. Darwinists cherry-pick the evidence that they use to support evolution theory. They cite only the strengths and ignore the weaknesses.
>>>>>> There is no such thing as a 'controversy' when it comes to the theory of evolution <<<<<<
If there is no controversy, then why are you even posting here?
>>>>>> It is a good thing that you have your own place since I suppose that will keep you away from serious discussions. <<<<<<<
Wrong -- I spend a lot of time commenting on other Internet forums.
>>>>>> Do you think I am being rude? <<<<<<
Of course you are being rude.
>>>>> I won't be coming back. <<<<<<
Well, then good riddance. Why should I even post your crap when you won't be back to check my response?
I take back what I said. It certainly makes more sense that a superbeing swooped in, created all forms of life to look like they evolved from common ancestors, left bogus clues for scientists to lead them in the wrong direction, and then quickly vanished again so no one could possibly detect his presence. It is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant! It perfectly explains why my sinuses give me problems, my back hurts, and why there is a hole in the center of my field of vision. It isn't that these are examples of nature tweaking me, but that these are the handiwork of a being so powerful and mysterious I cannot possibly understand it on any level!
Clearly there is a Super Duper Creator! We should thank him very much for cancer...that was a particularly good class of diseases. He's easily killed a handful of my loved ones. Good job, Super Duper Guy!
Post a Comment
<< Home