We all know why, of course. If people accept evolution, they'll be less likely to follow Jeebus.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Creationists' Real Agenda Revealed
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The fun thing about creationists (and I include ID proponents there) is that if you wait long enough, their real agenda gets revealed. Here's an example: the ID folks are fond of claiming they don't want to suppress the teaching of evolution; they just want the "evidence against evolution" taught as well. But Denyse O'Leary gives away the store! She admits that she wants to ban discussion of evolution in textbooks.
Jeffrey Shallit
Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and
Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and
Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and
Recurrent thoughts about ....
-
Jeffrey Shallit
American mathematician, professor of computer science at a major Canadian university, & skeptic.
All comments are moderated to remove spam and duplication. Please be patient; your comment will usually appear within 12 hours.
17 comments:
It seems that O'Leary purposely put the word "evolution" in quotes (in her admittedly clunkily-worded piece) for a reason that went over your head.
Umm, no. I know full well the "distinction" (in quotes, see?) that O'Leary was trying to draw. It's just that it's a bogus distinction.
Don't assume that everyone is as stupid as you and Denyse, Mr. Underminer.
It looks like she's quite open to textbooks discussing "genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, symbiosis, and natural selection." In your blindness (not stupidity, just blindness), you must've missed that.
Again, Mr. Underminer, you assume others are as stupid as you. Bad assumption.
First it was "everyone", then it was "others."
No, just you.
Heh, just kidding. Now, it's hard to tell exactly what O'Leary was intending to say in that terribly-written article, but there's one thing that's pretty clear: it's impossible to declare that her "desire" to ban "evolution" in textbooks (which was worded as a question rather than a statement) was anything more than rhetoric. If you're going to take her words literally, you might as well take the fellow she quoted literally: "I would like to cut off the heads of these fanatics and spit in it.. no pity for such ignorant scum who are destroying the earth in the name of a fairy tale god"
Underminer: since you have nothing to say, why not say it somewhere else?
I asserted that you misread O'Leary, (that's something) and you responded with nothing that supports your original contention. Speaking about "having nothing to say"!
(Oh, and your title says "Creationists'" when all you can really argue is "Creationist's.")
Nothing I could possibly say could convince you. Creationists are like that.
Now get lost.
Jeff, you missed the more interesting post from O'Leary in which she more clearly expresses here desire to censor and suppress evolutionists.
Our friend Underminer was wrong when he said O'Leary quoted a fellow saying "no pity for such ignorant scum who are destroying the earth in the name of a fairy tale god"; in fact O'Leary did not quote that in the post you linked to, but she did quote that in another post where O'Leary demands censorship of evolution more clearly.
In the post you linked to, O'Leary lies and slanders the Texas Freedom Network by accusing them of writing an "encomium to rationality", which she links to the quote, "I would like to cut off the heads of these fanatics and spit in it." Of course no one from TFN ever wrote that; that is from an anonymous comment at their website, written by an anonymous person who is apparently not a member of the TFN, and I suspect may not even be pro-evolution, but may be a fundie posing as an evolutionist.
At the TFN page, the hot-headed "pro-evolution" comment is opposed by four other comments from real evolutionists.
This is quite a contrast to the behavior of creationists; everyone who argues with creationists knows that they often use threats of violence and threats are tolerated from the regulars at Uncommon Descent; not to mention people like Dennis Markuze/Dave Mabus, Michael Phillip Korn, Gabriel Tanejo, Sara Ahlmark, etc. who make a career out of creationist death threats.
Nevertheless, O'Leary sees an opportunity to slander TFN and then turn her lie into justification for censoring evolutionists: O'Leary asserts that because the Texas Freedom Network "promotes, encourages, or tolerates hatred or violence" they must be denied access to public facilities. Of course Intelligent Design creationists promote, encourage, or tolerate hate AND violence and are never banned from Uncommon Descent, the blog moderated by O'Leary herself!
O'Leary: "...if this sentiment is tolerated at TFN [Texas Freedom Network], a question arises as to whether the group should have access to public facilities. "
No Denyse, no such question arises except in your Inquisitional fantasies. Sure you'd like to silence evolutionists circa Tennessee 1925, but the TFN "tolerated" no such behavior to begin with. You just lied about it.
O'Leary: "No group that promotes, encourages, or tolerates hatred or violence should have such access."
OK then Denyse, by your logic you and other Intelligent Design proponents should have no access to public facilities because YOUR website, Uncommon Descent, tolerates, indeed encourages, hatred and threats of violence from the regulars towards evolutionists.
O'Leary: "TFN may be entitled to tolerate or even encourage that type of opinion (it’s a legally dicey area, actually*), but not to public support or subsidy."
TFN did not "tolerate or even encourage" threats of violence, but YOUR website, Uncommon Descent, tolerates and encourages hatred and threats of violence.
O'Leary’s next fantasy is that IDiots launch a McCarthyite, Birch Society, Breitbart-type investigation to catch the evolutionists:
O'Leary: "Surely, the best solution for TFN’s opponents is to sign up for the programs in public places and listen carefully, without comment. Make a record of public statements that appear to promote hatred or violence, and make them a political issue."
O'Leary here dreams of getting evolutionists arrested, like when William Dembski reported Eric Pianka to the Dept. of Homeland Security as a terrorist and tried to get him arrested.
That's funny-- evolutionist organizing is always open to the public and above board, while DI activities, indeed even their "courses in Intelligent Design", are open only to those with letters of rec proving that they're ALREADY true believers in the one true faith.
Bondage fantasies like those of William "Vice Strategy" Dembski and O'Leary are common among ID proponents-- they want scientists in camps or, barring that, hand-cuffed to the radiator in their basement.
"Our friend Underminer was wrong when he said O'Leary quoted a fellow saying "no pity for such ignorant scum who are destroying the earth in the name of a fairy tale god""
Gee, was I ever wrong! O'Leary linked to the quote instead of quoting the words in that post. I'm just wronger than wrong.
"O'Leary asserts that because the Texas Freedom Network "promotes, encourages, or tolerates hatred or violence" they must be denied access to public facilities."
Err, no, she said if they do. You actually quote her accurately in your subsequent paragraph.
Despite what I just wrote, I think your "pot calling the kettle black" thrust of your comments was just fine.
Motivations are important and accusations about them fair and square as long as the accusers motivations are fair to question.
creationisms agenda is to seek and teach the truth on origins .
Yes it can lead to the true faith and heaven and stop missing it.
Yet also just because it is a insult to man to have wrong ideas about origins.
It makes us look dumb.
One day the error of evolution will need to cease its place in schools but as long as people think its true it can stay. likewise creationism must be allowed.
Fair and square in nations that agree to disagree and where the people are the boss.
Creationism has the fun of being the persecuted good guys in the present movie.
We shall overcome.
Reading Byers is like watching a toilet overflow. It's appalling, but you stand in fascination as it reaches the top and floods the room with its odiferous effluent.
Wake up both Darwin and ID guys. Both theories are full of holes. I am waiting for a cogent 3rd theory which is devoid of childish and untenable arguments.
Both Darwin and ID theories are full of holes. I am waiting for a cogent 3rd theory.
Sel:
I am willing to bet you have never taken a university-level course in evolutionary biology.
Jeff, have you seen this post at UD?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jeffrey-shallit-second-grader/
Note that comment 2 rages at evolutionists for "name-calling and insults":
"...evolutionists, for the most part, are not interested in the truth, are not interested in an intellectual dialog, are simply unable to see past their blinders and when their sorry ToE is pinned against the wall they generally resort to name-calling and insults."
Right. Name-calling and insults. ID proponents don't do name-calling and insults.
The title of the post is "Jeffrey Shallit, Second Grader."
Post a Comment