Search This Blog

Sunday, April 27, 2014

DarwinDefender of the day

In responding to someone on his LiveJournal blog, Jordan said, and I responded:
Jordan: I sense a huge double standard here.

Vox Day argues dubious science (creationism) on religious grounds, and he argues dubious sociology (Blacks and Hispanics less able to form and participate in civil society than Whites) based on outdated theories of eugenics. He does not, please note, argue for theocracy or for Nazi-like racial wars. ...

Ilíon: "Vox Day argues dubious science (creationism) on religious grounds, ..."

Actually, that part isn't true. The truth is this: "Vox Day argues *against* dubious science (evolutionism) on rational-and-scientific grounds, ..."


Jordan: I get that you're a crank where biology is concerned. I've made an extensive study of paleontology and am very aware of the interconnecting webwork of evidence that supports the age of the Earth and the reality of evolution. Stop trying to muddy the issue -- you're only making your own side look crazier.


Ilíon: And I get it that there are things that you just *will not* think about.

Do you really imagine that it bothers me that someone like that calls me a "crank"?
And come to think of it, the second part of Jordan's statement ("... and he argues dubious sociology (Blacks and Hispanics less able to form and participate in civil society than Whites) based on outdated theories of eugenics") isn't *quite* true, either.

What is it about DarwinDefenders that they *will not* admit that there are valid rational and scientific criticisms to be leveled against what Jordan calls "evolution"? What is it about DarwinDefenders that when they encounter a criticism of Darwinism something causes their DarLogic Module to short out such that all they can then bleat is "Religion! Danger! Religion! Danger!"

4 comments:

RD Miksa said...

Dear Ilion,

Indeed. And what I always find particularly ironic is that these are the very same people that are continuously going on about "being skeptical" and "questioning authority." And yet, when you actually are skeptical of evolution (or any other "sacred cow" that they hold to), they suddenly forget all their previous admonitions and demand that you subscribe to the consensus and "authoritative" view.

The cognitive dissonance is interesting to behold.

Take care,

RD Miksa
www.idontgiveadamnapologetics.blogspot.com

Ilíon said...

RD Miksa,
I'm posting this here (hoping that you had chosen to be notified of new responses) because I can't post on you blog, due to the "dynamic" template or theme to which you've switched.

I suspect that the problem is that I haven't -- and I don't intend to do so -- upgraded the version of IE that came installed on my (personal) laptop. I suspect that I'll eventually just stop using IE altogether.

The comment I did manage to post on your blog the other day was made from my work machine. The machine does have the newest version of IE ... and still was an iffy undertaking to post the little comment noting the changed template.

Ilíon said...

In truth, it's not just that I can't post a comment (using this machine), it's that I can't even see the expanded content of the individual posts.

Nate Winchester said...

Yeah, without fail you can drive evolutionists nuts by saying, "My faith allows plenty of room for Evolution, I have a problem with it on SCIENTIFIC grounds."

Insert your own jokes about Catholics & Popes here. XD