Because anyone who raises problems with Darwinism is slapped down as a neanderthal (no pun intended), as a "religionist," as an adherent to backwood superstitions, is typically silenced in academia, run off, shouted-down, scorned, looked-down upon, sued by the ACLU, despite the real problems that Darwinism has. In other words, Darwinism isn't a science, but is a worldview that is protected by a fortress mentality. It doesn't answer objections, but only attempts to destroy its detractors. It neither welcomes nor entertains serious challenges.
36 comments
Right back at'cha.
"Religion isn't a science, but is a worldview that is protected by a fortress mentality. It doesn't answer objections, but only attempts to destroy its detractors. It neither welcomes nor entertains serious challenges."
Mirror, big time.
Poor, poor persecuted you.
I also think that you are not giving the complete picture. You say all of this derision arises when you raise "problems with Darwinism"? I assume you are talking about the evolution theory since 'darwinism' is another made-up fundy word. I don't believe anybody who adheres to the theory of evolution would be so pig-headed as not to hear out an adhanced or alternative theory, I think you most likely tell people that the earth is 6000 years old and by that statement you are dismissed as being unworthy of serious discussion. Also, if you consider reality to be a "fortress mentality" then you are right. It sure is hard to convince someone that grass is pink when they are looking at it and it is obviously green.
"It (darwinism) neither welcomes nor entertains serious challenges."
The TOE does welcome serious challenges, however, the bible is not one of them.
Science welcomes all serious detractors and is totally open to serious challenges. However, if the challenges come from a pseudoscience or from superstition, then they are, by default, not serious.
This post has got some serious Mirror Award potential. Or, if that gets taken by another worthy candidate, maybe we could opt for a parallel idea and grant this one a Projectionist Award. Either way, the principle is the same.
~David D.G.
"In other words, Darwinism isn't a science, but is a worldview that is protected by a fortress mentality. It doesn't answer objections, but only attempts to destroy its detractors. It neither welcomes nor entertains serious challenges."
Unlike bible-beating fundamentalist christianity which is not at all dogmatic, repressive, fragmented and taken out of context by the very people who claim to believe the truths in said bible.
Nope, no fortress mentality with *those* folks!
This sounds like some of the "Patriot" tax protestors I've run into.
"Why won't the IRS answer my questions?"
Answer: Because (A) your questions are nonsensical, and (B) the assumptions that have obviously gone into your questions have already been addressed by the IRS, legal scholars, the Federal courts, etc..
Well, it is theoretically possible that problems can be pointed out in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. That said, the people who raise alleged problems in the Theory of Evolution are theists who are adherents to backwoods superstitions...
Anyone who spouts nonsense without producing any evidence to back up the claim, is silenced in academia, stupid.
To be sued by the ACLU, you have to threaten the Constitution and what it stands for.
Darwinism isn't a science, it's a straw-man erected by fundies.
What's "backwood" superstitions? Is there a "frontwood"?
Stop dissing the Neanderthals! They had as much cranial capacity as we Cro-Magnons, so they were just as smart as we are. Comparing them to fundies is uncalled-for when for all we know, they would have been leading the fight against creationists. (And beating them to a pulp, because Neanderthals were built like pro wrestlers.)
But you don't raise problems with Darwins Theory, You lie about it. Behe lost at the Dover trial because he claimed evolution theory had problems, they really don't but where there is dispute isn't canon and isn't locked in to the theory yet. This is all you asses bring up besides lieing about "discoveries" or "agendas".
Behe went as far as redefining science as : Every concept being on equal footing. BULLSHIT BEHE! You've got to have not only something but evidence of such. Assertions are never accepted without evidence.
Evolutional Theory has shitloads of evidence, ID has nothing. Creationists (even your best, most highly educated and recognized in the field, which is Behe ) have to put up something valid. Behe is educated enough to be the one that finds such but guess what, he has nothing, and tries to change the rules to WEDGE superstion in.
"Darwinism"...er...evolution (long past Darwin's time) is a science. But scientific differences don't consist of some guy sitting in the back of the room shouting "I disagree!". When you gather a whole lot of evidence for creationism, and that evidence is peer-reviewed, and it explains the observed world in a better way than evolutionary theory, THEN we can discuss it. In other words, unless you can do that it cannot be called a "serious challenge" in any sense of the word. Until that time, you can expect to be "silenced in academia, run off, shouted-down, scorned, looked-down upon" by real scientists.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.