Friday, February 20, 2009

Darwin Believers Hide Fears of Intelligent Design Behind a Wall of Denial and Ridicule

Good Article by Casey Luskin.

"Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself.

Over the years, Darwinists have evolved a variety of strategies to accomplish these goals. We see each of these strategies in play in the op-eds and comments by Darwinists in this present forum on U.S. News and World Report. I'll discuss how my opponents on this forum use the strategies of (1) Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination; (2) Equating Darwin-Skeptics with Religion; (3) Persecute Darwin-Skeptics; and (4) Pretend There Is No Scientific Controversy Over Evolution in order to try to dissuade you, the reader, from thinking for yourself on this subject."



  1. Christians should demand that evolutionists defend their atheistic beliefs from the beginning. This would mean they would be required to explain the beginning of the universe. Science and Christians are in agreement that the universe had a beginning. Atheists assert that time, space, and matter popped into being mysteriously at the big bang and Christians say it popped into being due to a creator God. One (atheists) claim is based on nonsense and the other (Christians) is based on an uncaused cause that begins a chain of cause and effect. The Christian creator God not only began the process, but is in complete control of every detail on an ongoing basis and has the power to make things work exactly as he desires.

    It will be God that decides when the sun becomes a red giant and consumes the earth and no gamma ray burst from some super nova will harm earth apart from the will of God.

  2. Skeptimal: "The author has the melodrama to call it “persecution” when a “theory” lacking in any science is not taken seriously, then to claim he is not complaining about the way he’s been treated. Newsbreak: scientists criticize *each other.* What do you expect when you’re not even a scientist?"

    Skeptimal, you know better than that. Criticizing is one thing. Denying tenure and attacking the person is another. Surely you know the difference.

    Skeptimal: "Really? So is the round-earth theory controversial because there are still people who claim the world is flat?"

    Like the author said, ridicule and pretend, and use a false analogy.

  3. "And my comment about the round-earth "controversy" is not ridicule. There is no qualitative difference between that and creationism. Calling evolution "controversial" doesn't mean creationism has any scientific basis."

    It has every bit as much scientific basis as abiogenesis and other Darwinist Faith Tenets.

    Of course, you have yet to justify the use of science without assuming God's Providence over creation, but that is another debate.