Re: What's with the personal attacks on Darwin?

On May 6, 10:02 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 6, 9:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On May 4, 6:02 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- [snip]

I assume that you are referring to Dawkins' notorious comment that
anyone who claims not to believe in evolution is either ignorant,
stupid, insane, or wicked (lying).  

Yes.

Of course, all of us are born
ignorant of everything, and die ignorant of most things, and Dawkins
notes that ignorance, by itself, is a correctible corollary of the
human condition, not necessarily despicable.  But even so, his article
at <http://scepsis.ru/eng/articles/id_2.php> describes Kurt Wise
without condemning him as ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.  So you
are wrong.

One out of how many others?

Dawkins' very title implies that there are not many honest, informed
creationists.  This is my opinion, also.  May I point out that you are
doing very little to alter my opinion in this regard?


We are well aware that evolutionists think very little of
creationists.

Dawkins played the insane card on Richard Milton when reviewing his
book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism."

It is true that he implicitly calls Milton a "fruitcake" who needs
psychiatric help.  But he spends far more space accusing Milton of
making numerous gross scientific errors, and points out a number of
the specifically  (e.g. not knowing the difference between recessive
genes and noncoding sequences).  So strictly speaking, he indulges in
some superfluous name-calling and plays the "ignorance card" -- quite
justifiably.


Very embarassing tactics for a Professor of Zoology. Milton is a major
intellectual, a member of Mensa. There is no reason to believe that
Dawkins does not regret his behavior. It indicates anger caused by the
inability to refute.

His slanderous assertion is free standing and applies to anyone who
rejects evolution; and just because he exempts one person this does
nothing to harm my point.

Once again, Ray, it's "libel," not "slander,"

Slander is perfectly acceptable as a general term in these context.
Your legalism is not necessary here.

....except that "fruitcake
[who] needs psychiatric help" would be taken by any reasonable reader
as an expression of frustration at Milton's ignorance and
unreasonableness rather than as a literal diagnosis, and is thus fair
comment, not libel.


I wasn't implying that Dawkins slander was actionable - the term
simply describes the nature of what he wrote concerning Milton.
'Slander' is a better word than 'libel' in these context. Objective
persons who are not naive realize that Dawkins's slander is caused by
anger due to the inability to refute Milton.


But your comments simply imply that evolutionist slander is not
slander but creationist slander is slander. In other words your
comments lack any objective merit.

Slander, of course, is by necessity and definition slander.  But
truthful denigration of another's competence, knowledge, honesty, or
reasonableness is by necessity and definition NOT slander.  Most of
the unkind things defenders of mainstream science say about
creationists or ID proponents is not slander.

No one could possibly expect the slander artist to admit that what he
or she says is slander. All slander artists present and assert their
slander to be truth.

So do most truth-tellers.

Show me an unkind word directed at a Creationist or IDist and I will
show you that the word was probably uttered by an evolutionist. Vice
versa is, of course, also true.

You might be wrong, here; creationists pay more attention to other
creationists than evolutionists do.  Likewise, creationists read very
little work by evolutionists and know very little of what they do,

Wrong.

This Group as an example knows almost nothing of what their own
scholars have written. Evolutionist ignorance is appalling. While you
might have a point concerning creationists at large, your exclusion of
lay evolutionists and their unread status is very unobjective.

so
denunciations and criticisms of evolutionists are mostly issued by
other evolutionists.  

Total exaggeration.

Except for the Gould-Dennett-Orr feud there is no real hatred between
evolutionists.


Hugh Ross and Ken Ham have probably spent more
time attacking each other than any evolutionist has spent attacking
either or both of them.  I've seen very harsh things said of both
Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins by other evolutionists.


Creationists hate each other mostly for theological reasons because to
be wrong theologically means you are going to hell - that's the
stakes.


-- [snip]

I may be predictable; I may even be biased.  That does not show that I
am not objective; it certainly does not show that I am wrong.  You
have yet to identify any actual "slanders" made by "evolutionists"
against creationists.  

Unless the words are kind anything else is not objective, easily
explainable by remembering that they were utttered by an evolutionist.

I realize you asked me not to break up this argument, but the above
calls for comment and clarification.  It seems to imply either that
"Hitler had some six million Jews murdered" is either not an objective
statement, or else that it is a kind thing to say about Hitler.  Are
you sure you meant to write what you wrote above?


For a guy like yourself who has a six month chip for not beating his
wife this is an absurd non-sequitur.

For example: "William Dembski is a scholar and of course, an author."

The statement above is true, a fact.

Do you agree?

Yes.

If you do and if you are objective then you will indicate without any
buts attached, like this:

"Richard Dawkins is a scholar and of course, an author."

I agree.

[Please do not break the above argument up. Furnish your reply to the
entire argument after the last two words, just above.]

"Scholar" does not imply either "intellectually honest scholar," or
"competent scholar," or even "entirely sane scholar."  It is perfectly
objective to point out where Dembski's arguments have gone badly
wrong, or where his quotes do not support his argument, or where his
facts are wrong, or where his words suggest unflattering things about
his mental health.


This is what evokes retaliation by creationists. You are unable to
grasp this point. We are not talking about what you think is actually
true; rather we are talking about biassed comments attempting to
camouflage themselves in an air of objectivity.

You have yet to show that "evolutionists" have
argued that creationism or ID is wrong merely *because* creationists
and ID proponents are ignorant, stupid, insane, or dishonest.

Just about every evolutionist argument plays these cards at some point
- SHEESH! Simply read this News Group on a daily basis. Or read
anything Dana Tweedy says to me.

I think I've read most of the things Dana Tweedy says to you; I've
never seen him argue that creationism or ID is wrong simply because
creationists and ID proponents are ignorant, stupid, insane, or
dishonest.


You must suffer from temporary blindness then. But as you know your
"belief" is explainable by your bias. I readily admit that my claim is
also explainable by my bias, but anyone can verify my claim by reading
Dana Tweedy and his response to my posts. He has acted like Dawkins.
Of course he, like Dawkins, thinks it is justified.


The issue is not perceived creationist slander but acknowledgement
that both creationists and evolutionists engage in slander in order to
poison the well. In other words human beings engage in slander,
whether they are creationists or evolutionists, do you understand?

The OP sought to establish a one-way street. It is, in fact, a two-way
street. Always has been.

There are, no doubt, offenders on both sides, but this sort of
_argumentum ad hominem_ is much more common from creationists than
from supporters of evolutionary theory.

Almost objective.

The part which is not is easily explainable.

-- [snip]

Again, complaining that I am "predictable" does not show that I am
biased, and showing that I am biased does not show that I am wrong.

True, especially the last phrase.

My only goal was to try and obtain an admission of bias. When we admit
our bias, that is, that which we all possess, then our conclusions are
more objective (notice I didn't say that they *are* objective).

No, I think you are wrong here.  Pointing out that you have a bias
does not turn your quote-mines into honest scholarship, nor turn your
arbitrary redefinition of words into valid arguments, nor somehow make
your assertions about the fossil record conform to reality.
Statements are objective when they correspond to objective facts, not
when they are uttered by people who are clear about their biases.
Reality is not a bias.


Groundless charges explained by your known bias.


Your entire position here (one which has become increasing common
among creationists) is  that there are no objective facts, no
discoverable objective reality --

Completely false.

Objective reality exists, it never changes, the only thing that
changes is our perceptions of it.

a position variously called
"pyrrhonism," "epistemological nihilism," and "extreme skepticism."
The view that everything ultimately comes down to personal bias and
that all interpretations of the data are equally valid is especially
tempting to people who've noticed that their views are entirely
unsupported by evidence.  Weirdly, this same view underlies
fashionable postmodernism, and the fusion of po-mo epistemology with
fundamentalist metaphysics is one of the sick, sad wonders of modern
civilization.


The claims of evolution are not supported by the evidence. Remember I
have come to reject microevolution, whereas before I had accepted it.


In point of fact, of course, supporters of evolutionary theory are
more likely to be factually correct than are creationists or ID
supporters.

No one could possibly expect evolutionists to believe anything else.
The preceding observation is objective.

The statement that creationists are more often wrong than
evolutionists is also objective.


More people reject evolution than creationism. Your theory has failed
to convince the majority of educated persons. We know Atheist ideology
dressed as science when we see it.

Are you objective enough to agree?

Yes.  Do you care enough about truth to admit that creationists
usually are, in fact, ignorant, unintelligent, unreasonable, or
dishonest?


Since there are millions of creationists in the U.S. some will be bad,
like the KKK. There are also millions of evolutionists too, some will
be bad, like the ACLU. What is your point?

This is called being objective, something that you refuse to be.


You seem unable to grasp the point: objectivity is a two way street.

You seem unable to grasp the point: "objectivity" does not mean that
the facts support your side [or your side either].

Agreed.

You have grasped the concept of objectivity.

Creationists are wrong, both in their
conclusions and in the "evidence" and arguments they adduce to support
those conclusions.

Yes, this is what evolutionists surely believe.

Creationists believe the same about evolution.

But creationists are wrong.  That's the point.

As a general free standing statement, lacking any facts or arguments
in support of the statement, we explain your belief based on your
known bias. This is an objective observation.


Hello? Anybody home?


Fourth, did not Christ command you to return good for evil rather than
seek "an eye for an eye?"  You have said that you would criticize
creationists where they were wrong; by your own standards they are
wrong when they behave this way,

Christ said that in the context of one's neighbor, not impersonal
arguments with strangers.

Caranx Iatus has already brought up the parable of the Good
Samaritan.  Are you really arguing that because we have not physically
met, you feel free to lie to and about me, and call this Christian
conduct?

How long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?

I'll take that as a yes.

and even if evolutionists were also
wrong, that is no excuse for creationists' misbehavior.  

Vice-versa?

Of course.

Why do you
seek to justify presenting lousy arguments against evolution, rather
than attempting to craft a valid one?

What lousy agrument?

That, e.g. Darwin was a racist, or that "Darwinism" motivated the
Nazis to conduct the Holocaust, and that therefore "Darwinism" ought
either be removed from schools, or at least countered with god-of-the-
gaps arguments.

Darwin was a racist like most Europeans in the 19th century. His
theory made the Nazis believe that God does not exist and that it is
every race for itself. I have supplied ample quotes from scholars
showing this, only to have them be treated how Holocaust deniers deny
the evidence for the Holocaust.

Many Nazis, based on their own statements, did believe that God
existed.  This would seem to argue that neither Darwin nor anyone else
persuaded them that God did not exist.  Quotes from scholars
describing the Nazi regime as somehow "Darwinist" or "social
Darwinist" do not establish that the Nazis actually derived their
ideas from Darwin, much less that their ideas are actually compatible
with Darwin's.

Creationism is a scientific theory that is only unconstitutional
because Judges in the 20th century, who are staunch evolutionists
themselves, have corrupted the Document to make it say what they want
it to say.The bias of Darwinian Judges is the only thing that says
Creationism is unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers have been
deliberately misinterpreted since most of them were surely
Creationists.

Creationism is not a scientific theory.  

False.

Our theory was the first scientific theory embraced by Science. Evil
Judges who are evolutionists have shit on the Constitution in order to
ajudicate their own personal bias into Law.

Creationism is a series of
mutually-inconsistent god-of-the-gaps arguments from ignorance,
occasionally varied and flavored with other logical fallacies, and
heavily supported with scientific errors.  It is irrelevant, as far as
the (objectively nonexistent) scientific merits of creationism go,
what constitutional law has to say about it, although it is certainly
true that all attempts to include creationism or ID (including ID-
based "evidence against evolution") in the curriculum proceed from
attempts to use instruments of the government to bolster the doctrines
of particular Christian sects, which I think has always been viewed as
dubiously constitutional.



Ray

-- Steven J.

Creationism is the only scientific theory that explains all of the
evidence and the explanation, most importantly, corresponds to
reality. Only Atheists and ignorant Christians, who care more about
kissing Atheist asses, than God's ass, reject Creationism.

Unless you kiss God's ass and acknowledge Him as the Designer, causing
the appearance of design seen in reality, you are going to hell.

Ray


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats with the personal attacks on Darwin?
    ... ignorant of everything, and die ignorant of most things, and Dawkins ... creationists. ... creationists than evolutionists do. ... camouflage themselves in an air of objectivity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: i want to join with this group
    ... were not objective since you did not include evolutionists as well. ... consistent a phenomenon as the errors made by creationists. ... accomodate science, not by actual evidence. ... Science presupposing that God produced reality and the assertion is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
    ... lists no creationists books in his bibliography. ... that all modern day creationists accept Mendellian genetics. ... evolutionists now focuses ... Let us know when you find a brain McClueless. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
    ... this newsgroup, and in fact, in textbooks. ... lists no creationists books in his bibliography. ... that all modern day creationists accept Mendellian genetics. ... evolutionists now focuses ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How you know when the Darwinists are losing
    ... ignorant, and I would be fully justified in saying so. ... it's simply an informed opinion. ... You have misunderstood the underlying point: Whether creationists are ... I might add that there are evolutionists that make poor ...
    (talk.origins)