A creationist has responded to this post about the dirty rhetorical tricks of creationists, as follows:
There is really no scientific evidence that proves evolution happened. No animal has developed extra chromosomes that we have recorded and none of the findings of supposedly ancestors have any DNA evidence. Evidence does not hold up in court.
Darwin had a theory, based on observation. Fine.
Creationists have a theory based on the Bible.
Intelligent design mongers are clueless and belive in Star Trek.
No one knows where we come from, but the fact that Darwinism was used as en excuse to justify fascists regimes is a fact. They refer to Darwin as their substitute for God all the time in their literature, comparing fascism to "Survival of the Fittest. Why? He is dead, he can't defend himself.
Let me explain where they are wrong. Nature doesn't work by "survival of the fittest". "Survival of the species" trumps that. Observe bees, bacteria, herds of animals, even predators like lions depend on socialization for survival. Where is the "survival of the fittest?". The economists, in their greedy ways twist science to justify a consumerist society in which a few have wealth and the rest suffer.
It really is remarkable for its stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance, all rolled up into one. Isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"It's not even wrong!"
"Darwin had a theory, based on observation. Fine.
Creationists have a theory based on the Bible.
Intelligent design mongers are clueless and belive in Star Trek."
Bizarre that he sandwiched Creationists between two groups he disagrees with. Or, maybe he disagrees with all three?
Eh, even if he is a creationist, wouldn't your reputation be enhanced if you were to forgo slamming the crazies and take on those who really debate well?
Intelligent design mongers are clueless and belive in Star Trek.
They say that like it's a bad thing. Live long and prosper.
One of my favourite examples of pointless creationist incivility was when Sal Cordova accused Darwin of being a sadist who beat puppies because he enjoyed the feeling of power. This had been quote-mined from a passage in which Darwin confesses to striking a puppy when he had been a nursery-school child, and then goes on to say, "This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters."
Post a Comment