Sunday, September 4, 2011

Why the CSC Case is Important

Two years ago a group booked the California Science Center’s IMAX theater, in downtown Los Angeles, for a screening of Darwin’s Dilemma, a film that questions evolutionary theory. Furious evolutionists quickly censored the showing and canceled the event.

After being sued for censorship the CSC constructed a cover-up lie. The evolution lie was that there was no censorship. Instead, as the lie contended, the CSC cancelled the event because of a press release. This lie was in stark contrast to internal emails. One CSC Vice President wrote that the main problem was that the event was sponsored by “an anti-Darwin/creationist group.” And as the CSC Vice President of Communications explained, the CSC Chief Executive Officer instructed his staff to find a false pretense:

Jeff just called and is wondering if they violated an agreement -- like was this supposed to be a private screening or did they say it was a public screening? If they misrepresented the event, then we can cancel them.

So first the evolutionists censored the event, and then they lied, in order to cover-up their censorship. Next the evolutionists lied about the press release, claiming it implied the CSC was a sponsor of the event. But the press release said no such thing. In fact it explicitly stated that “The screening is sponsored and hosted by the American Freedom Alliance.”

Next the evolutionists lied to cover-up their cover-ups. This evolution lie was that there was no censorship because, after all, they originally were willing to book the event. Again, internal emails shine a light on the lie. They reveal that the booking was accepted only because there was a lack of vigilance. As one CSC Vice President wrote:

This screening event was booked through the Events Dept., and they were unaware of the nature of the groups involved. It has come to Jeff’s attention and he is “working on it.”

Similarly, another evolutionist from the nearby Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County concluded:

Apparently the IMAX was booking events without CSC knowing about all of them, and when they found out they immediately cancelled the event.

The next evolution lie was about the court case. This was one case where the evolutionists could not fool the judge and lie their way through a trial, so they had to settle. So they lied about the settlement, saying they were right all along and that the sponsor and the Discovery Institute have not “learned their lesson.” So after a long trail of lies the CSC casts judgment on the sponsor, saying they have not “learned their lesson.” Oh, what a web we weave.

Not your garden variety theory

But is this anything more than the sordid tale of a rogue department gone wrong? Were not the usual lines of authority broken and was not this department operating independently of the greater evolution movement? Surely there is plausible deniability and we cannot equate their many lies with evolution itself. Right?

Wrong. Unfortunately, the CSC case is typical. This is evolution in action. The only difference in this case is the evolutionists were found out. To understand why CSC is representative and not a loose cannon, one first must understand evolution itself.

Evolution is not your typical scientific theory that makes predictions for evaluation against empirical findings. If that were the case it would have been dropped long ago as evolution is, if anything, a contra indicator. Practically all of evolution’s fundamental expectations are in the red. Whatever it says, go with the opposite.

Far from an innocent scientific theory, evolution is a metaphysical commitment. For if evolution is wrong then the specter of teleology is raised. Final causes are back in the fight and perhaps design is detectable. All kinds of unthinkables must now be thought and unquestionable truths must now be questioned. For evolutionists that is unacceptable, no matter what the evidence.

So evolution is not common descent, or gradualism, or selection acting on random biological variation, or a dozen other spin offs. In Lakatosian terms, those are all auxiliary hypotheses making up the protective belt that surrounds and shields the theoretical core. And what is that core? Evolution, at its core, is naturalism.

It is not atheism, as often is charged. Nor is it bad science as is equally as often charged. Would that those were evolution, for the problem would be far simpler. But those are both merely consequences. At its core evolution is a metaphysical commitment to naturalism—it must be true.

It is no surprise that evolutionists are so insistent that their idea is a fact. The fact of evolution is at its very core. Evolution was not declared to be a fact after boat loads of evidence endlessly corroborated a theoretically sound idea. That is a fiction. It never happened. Not only is evolution at odds with the data, the declaration of its certainty was at the very beginning.

We can go back to the formalization of neo Darwinism in the twentieth century, or back to Darwin himself, or to Kant, or Hume, or Leibniz, or we can go farther back in antiquity to Lucretius and the Epicureans. Wherever your resting place, you will find metaphysical certainty amidst empirical confusion.

The consequence of all this is, yes, lies. The science is misrepresented to fit the mandate. The philosophy of science is misrepresented to arrive at the predetermined truth. The education and law are twisted and force fit to support the fiction, judges are misled, photographs are altered, data are misinterpreted, and at the National Center for Science “Education,” dissenters are blackballed. All of this to promote the dogma that the world and everything we see must have arisen spontaneously, by itself. For it must have, there is no other option.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

27 comments:

  1. Garbage in, garbage out as the saying goes. Or in the case of evolution, lies in, lies out. It is not surprising to find this type of behaviour. Evolutionists must be capable of living in an environment of lies. It is hardly surprising that they should exhibit this behaviour when dealing with the world outside academe. This makes for a wonderful case study in self delusion.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Creationist leader Kent Hovind is doing hard time for tax evasion, so therefore all Creationists are liars and tax cheats.

    The Church is actively engaged in covering up the actions of a number of pedophile priests, so therefore Christianity is a religion of liars and pedophiles.

    One nuisance lawsuit gets settled out of court, so 150+ years of positive cross-corroborating evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines is all wrong.

    You clowns are too funny!

    ReplyDelete
  3. If there was any doubt that ID Creationism is a political movement, this lawsuit should convince skeptics. This kind of media-driven theatrics - suing for publicity - lays bare the intellectual bankruptcy of the movement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pedant:

    "If there was any doubt that ID Creationism is a political movement, this lawsuit should convince skeptics. This kind of media-driven theatrics - suing for publicity - lays bare the intellectual bankruptcy of the movement."
    ====

    I totally agree, it no doubt is a political movement and political pressure group as is creationism as is the modern day morally bankrupt ideology of your side.
    BTW, thanks for admitting you think lying is okay if it is used to justify and further promote the Darwinian cause. Since Darwinian Evolutionism is apparently true and there is no God, then in our Amoral world we live in lying should not be considered wrong or immoral especially when used to further the correct worldview. Isn't no shackles freedom wonderful ???

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eocene:
    BTW, thanks for admitting you think lying is okay if it is used to justify and further promote the Darwinian cause

    Maybe Thorton's post confused you. I believe he was pointing out correctly whether CSC lied or creationists avoid taxes have nothing to do with validity of their science. Thorton has repeatedly and unequivocally made his feelings toward lying known. And btw " the ends justify the means" is used by all sides whether godfearing or not.

    ReplyDelete
  6. CH :
    But is this anything more than the sordid tale of a rogue department gone wrong? Were not the usual lines of authority broken and was not this department operating independently of the greater evolution movement? Surely there is plausible deniability and we cannot equate their many lies with evolution itself. Right?
    Wrong


    The greater evolution movement? Lines of authority? You've cracked the code,CSC is the front for not only all evolutionary propaganda dispersal but it is the lynchpin of the cult of natural explanations. This egregious lying about canceling a movie and lest we forget a discussion group afterwards will show all fair minded folks that we are teetering on the abyss. From tiny acorns mighty oaks grow. No longer will the divine be excluded from explaining the world around us. Car broke? Bad battery or god's divine will ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why are you so sure the CSC would have lost in court? You can't just naively believe everything the DI says without looking at the other side.

    (a) The event was cancelled after improper promotional materials came out implying endorsement by the Smithsonian and the CSC, which is something the CSC's prior policy forbid;

    (b) science museums *can* and *do* have a right to viewpoint discrimination in general; that's the *whole point* of being a *science* museum. Whether or not it was appropriate given that CSC had already signed a contract, apparently without realizing what they were doing, is a more complex question. But all a settlement really proves is that it was cheaper to settle than to fight it in court. If the creationists had been truly confident they would win, they wouldn't have settled.

    (c) If a museum established a policy that said all movies (or whatever) have to be scientifically reviewed, this would be completely legitimate. It sounds like the rentals at the CSC were being run by the business office, so arguably then they would be obligated to rent to the KKK if the KKK wanted to rent the theater -- but a science museum has an obvious mission to promote science, and this *necessarily* means that "viewpoint discrimination" is happening everywhere in the museum, and could easily be extended to movies in their theater if they wanted.

    Good luck overturning this last principle in court. The creationists tried exactly these arguments against the Smithsonian in the 1970s and lost horribly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Interesting to me in these and other comments following Dr. Hunter's posts is the critic's refusal to actually address the argument Dr. Hunter makes whatever that argument may be. Here Dr. Hunter asserts that CSC's lie in this case is consistent with the Big Lie of Evolution in general.
    The rebuttals?
    1) No. CSC's lie is just an aberration not consistent with the truth of Evolution; no response whatever to Dr. H's evidence of the "must be so" metaphysics underpinning Evolution.
    2) No. CSC wasn't lying. An assertion that the lie was not a lie.
    3) Creationists are just as bad! A tacit admission that both the CSC lied and Evolution is a lie!
    I LOVE THIS BLOG!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Red Reader:

    ...no response whatever to Dr. H's evidence of the "must be so" metaphysics underpinning Evolution.

    What evidence? If you can find anything that might qualify as evidence among the bald assertions in Dr Hunter's OP, it would be a kindness and a service if you would identify it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Be patient Red, there will be time to address to this
    So evolution is not common descent, or gradualism, or selection acting on random biological variation, or a dozen other spin offs. In Lakatosian terms, those are all auxiliary hypotheses making up the protective belt that surrounds and shields the theoretical core. And what is that core? Evolution, at its core, is naturalism

    Is that the metaphysics you wish to discuss?

    ReplyDelete
  11. CH: The evolution lie was that there was no censorship.

    The "evolution lie"? Again, this seems appears to be equivocation.

    In the case of the 2005 Dover trial, Judge Jones wrote…

    "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony."

    Would it be appropriate to say "the ID lie was that Bonsell claimed not to know where the funds for the of Panda's and People books came from in his deposition"? No, it wouldn't. Should we conclude that you are a liar based on Bonsell's testimony, rather than your own ? No, we shouldn't

    However, I would suggest that the phrase "ID lie" would be appropriate in to changes made to Pandas as a reaction to the 1987 case of Edward vs Aguillard, in which the supreme court found it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in the classroom. Drafts of Pandas that straddle this ruling change from 'creation' to 'intelligent design'.

    In fact, they were sloppy in regards to this change, leaving a "missing link" between creationists and design proponents: 'cdesign proponentsists.' In other words, "The ID Lie was that ID wasn't creationism in disguise."

    So, we have actions of the school board, which was distinct from whether the theory of ID is religious in nature or has the effect of promoting religion. Despite being related, they are separate questions.

    Again, it would seem that you're attempting to conflate facts about evolution as a theory and actions of individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  12. CH: This lie was in stark contrast to internal emails. One CSC Vice President wrote that the main problem was that the event was sponsored by “an anti-Darwin/creationist group.”

    Apparently you've forgotten that the Dover trial ruled that ID is creationism in disguise. Unless it's somehow changed since then, it's unclear how this represents scientific censorship. Nor is it clear that the CSC is obligated to hold any event that misrepresents itself as science.

    Would the CSC be required to hold an event on astrology?

    And where is the actual quote from the VP's email? it's as if you think the mere act of calling the AFA “an anti-Darwin/creationist group” is some sort of smoking gun.

    CH: And as the CSC Vice President of Communications explained, the CSC Chief Executive Officer instructed his staff to find a false pretext:

    Jeff just called and is wondering if they violated an agreement -- like was this supposed to be a private screening or did they say it was a public screening? If they misrepresented the event, then we can cancel them.

    First, I think you mean simply a 'pretext', or perhaps false pretense?

    Second, it's unclear as to whether this email was written before or after the cancelation occurred? If the latter, why does it say "then we can cancel them." as if it has yet to occur. Without the details on these emails in respect to when the cancelation actually occurred, it's not clear what happened.

    Do you know the details? How much of a follow up research have you performed? Have you followed up at all? Why even post these details without the dates of the cancelation and the emails in question? Seems odd that you would post this without having this information as it would be pertinent to creating a false pretense for something they have yet to do.

    Third, the Polices and Procedures page on the CSC website clearly indicates that promotional material must be run the CSC before publication.

    PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS:
    It is required that the Event Services Office approve, for technical and factual accuracy, all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center produced for your event (including invitations, programs, press releases, etc.) prior to printing or broadcast. Please allow sufficient time for this approval.


    This policy requirement was present on the CSC as far back as 2004

    Again, the issues with the press release could have been resolved before they when public. Yet, it's as if the AFA and DI intently wanted to have the event canceled so they could claim they were discriminated against.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Scott:

    Apparently you've forgotten that the Dover trial ruled that ID is creationism in disguise.

    That’s right, amazingly the ACLU, which wrote Judge Jones’ decision for him, lied that ID is creationism. What’s even more amazing is that Judge Jones fell for it, considering that ID doesn’t say the earth is 6,000 years old, doesn’t appeal to Genesis or the Bible, and doesn’t say miracles were involved in creation. In fact it accepts common descent. Even the creationists criticize ID. Yeah that sounds just like creationism. Good thing we have judges to reveal these complex truths to us.

    Unless it's somehow changed since then, it's unclear how this represents scientific censorship

    You’re confusing court cases. The CSC case involved the film Darwin’s Dilemma. Oh right, that’s creationism too. I get it, anything that doesn’t accept evolution’s dogma is creationism.

    Nor is it clear that the CSC is obligated to hold any event that misrepresents itself as science.

    I forgot, evolutionists have solved the demarcation problem. And the solution is …, evolution = science, everything else = not science. That’s convenient. Oh, and by the way, evolution is a fact too.

    And all those religious proofs that make evolution a fact? Forget about ‘em, it’s all just good solid investigative research.

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/06/jonathan-dudley-its-stuff-of-good-solid.html

    Remember, those rascals who talk about the evidence are the religious ones.

    ReplyDelete
  14. DARWINGATE... LOL

    ReplyDelete
  15. Velikovshys:

    "Maybe Thorton's post confused you. I believe he was pointing out correctly whether CSC lied or creationists avoid taxes have nothing to do with validity of their science."
    ===

    What are you talking about ??? I wasn't responding to your girl friend.
    ---

    Velikovshys:

    "Thorton has repeatedly and unequivocally made his feelings toward lying known."
    ===

    Yes Thorton has no conscience problem when it comes to lying. Hijacking Intelligent Designing concepts and attaching evolutionary signage to them and then denying this has been established many times.
    ---

    Velikovshys:

    "And btw " the ends justify the means" is used by all sides whether godfearing or not."
    ===

    Correct. But what you've unwittingly admitted here is that you have no problem with your side doing it since you refused to even remotely address the evidence for the lying which actually took place. And YES, I have problems when BOTH sides do it.

    Again, like Pedant[who I was actually responding too- Not your girlfriend], you feel lying and covering up the lying are acceptable if it ultimately means successfully pimping the politically correct worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  16. CH: That’s right, amazingly the ACLU, which wrote Judge Jones’ decision for him, lied that ID is creationism. What’s even more amazing is that Judge Jones fell for it, considering that ID doesn’t say the earth is 6,000 years old, doesn’t appeal to Genesis or the Bible, and doesn’t say miracles were involved in creation.

    I don't think Jones needed any help from the ACLU in making his decision. Rather, you can thank the publishers of "Of Pandas and People": the Foundation for Thought and Ethics.

    From a 1983 draft of "Creation Biology Textbook Supplements", which would eventual become "Of Panda's and People"

    The basic metabolic pathways of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.

    From a later 1986 draft then titled "Biology and Creation"

    Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.

    A later 1987 draft then entitled "Biology and Origins" made only minor alterations to these phrases. Publication was sought. However, this is when the Edwards v. Aguillard case was decided by the Supreme Court, which rules that teaching creationism violated the US Establishment Cause.

    Another draft appeared that same year, with a yet another title - "Of Pandas and People" - but still used the term "creationists". However specific details of the defense strategy during the Edwards case resulted in additional, specific changes to the book. In particular, the author of the book, Dean H. Kenyon, presented an affidavit during the trial in which he recast "creation science" to mean "origin through abrupt appearance in complex form" , which did not include as essential parts... catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life,... the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts"

    But this strategy failed in the Edwards case. Clearly a new term was needed. And he found it by drawing from a phrase he "picked up from a NASA scientist – intelligent design". He also said… "That’s just what I need, it’s a good engineering term…" Note the use specific reference to "engineering", rather than abstract design.

    So, approximately 150 forms of the word "creation" were changed to refer to "Intelligent Design" - or at least they attempted to. The above sections became….

    Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.

    and..

    The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.

    Whoops! There's "empirical evidence" - a missing link between creationism and ID!

    CH: You’re confusing court cases.

    I'm referencing a precedent set in a Supreme Court ruling, which is common in legal proceedings when relevant to a case.

    ReplyDelete
  17. CH: I forgot, evolutionists have solved the demarcation problem.

    First, that would be "scientists", not "evolutionists". Apparently, you're not a scientific realist. Gotcha.

    And you've solved the problem of induction, along with how to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework? Since you apparently you do it all the time here on you blog, exactly how does that work? Both of these things would be major accomplishments. Why don't you publish this knowledge?

    Again, we have dozens of instances where you make design based assumptions when referring to the statistical likelihood of observations, yet do not disclose them as such. This is the smuggled assumption you share with your target audience. And you continual repeat them over and over again, still undisclosed , as if we never pointed them out in the first place. Nor have you sufficiently addressed the issue.

    CH: And the solution is …, evolution = science, everything else = not science.

    Everything else in this case isn't an explanation. "God did it" isn't any more of an explanation that merely "the laws of physics did it". Nor does "the conjurer did it'" solve the mystery of a conjuring trick. Before someone could perform such a trick they must have the knowledge of how. As such, the origin of this knowledge is the origin of the trick itself.

    Neo-Darwinism explains the biosphere by explaining how the knowledge contained in it's specific adaptations were created. ID merely says the knowledge was previously *located* in an unexplainable mind located in an unexplainable realm. It completely fails to explain how this knowledge was created.

    CH: Oh, and by the way, evolution is a fact too.

    How and to the degree one justify conclusions is an important aspect of that statement. However, you always leave completely unqualified. And when pressed, you refuse to disclose your own means of justifying conclusions as well. As such, this is rhetoric, pure and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Eocene said...

    Again, like Pedant[who I was actually responding too- Not your girlfriend], you feel lying and covering up the lying are acceptable if it ultimately means successfully pimping the politically correct worldview.


    LOL! Says Eocene, the guy who just a few weeks ago was caught defending IDiocy with a blatant lie, claiming he provided definitions of 'information' and 'code'.

    Do tell us more about lying to pimp your worldview Eocene. You seem to be somewhat of an expert at it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The Whole Truth(Thorton the closet IDiot):

    "LOL! Says Eocene, the guy who just a few weeks ago was caught defending IDiocy with a blatant lie, claiming he provided definitions of 'information' and 'code'."
    ===

    If this isn't another example of the warthog shouting the piglet is a razorback. You were the one caught lying and exposed, then you went deathly quiet after your lie & double standard was pointed put to you and the rest of the public. Your only defense appears to be shouting out at the top of your gills with big mouthed diatribes and foul mouthed accusations hoping that your perceived opponant will simply leave the room so you can declare your degenerate mouth the winner.

    Lately most of your rants have received this response:

    Thorton:

    "This post has been removed by the Blog Administrator"

    ReplyDelete
  20. Eocene said...

    The Whole Truth(Thorton the closet IDiot):

    "LOL! Says Eocene, the guy who just a few weeks ago was caught defending IDiocy with a blatant lie, claiming he provided definitions of 'information' and 'code'."
    ===

    If this isn't another example of the warthog shouting the piglet is a razorback. You were the one caught lying and exposed, then you went deathly quiet after your lie & double standard was pointed put to you and the rest of the public.


    LOL! Go ahead liar, link to the place you provided your definitions of 'information' and 'code'. Or provide them again here. You couldn't do it then, you can't do it now.

    You were the one who bailed from the thread for weeks, until it scrolled off the main page. I was right here the whole time, still posting.

    Why you Creationist IDiots think you can get away with lying about things with the instant storage/recall capability of online data I'll never understand. I guess that's why you're Creationists.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Whole Truth(Thorton the hijacking IDiot):

    "You were the one who bailed from the thread for weeks, until it scrolled off the main page. I was right here the whole time, still posting."
    ====

    Sorry, but unlike you, I actually have a life and plenty of responsibility as opposed to stuffing my face with chips and sucking beer while cruising neanderthal forums in search of a perverted kind of entertainment.

    BTW, the subject here is the actual lying by your gang and every single one of you here has avoided addressing the load pointed out in your side's nappy. But of course in your Amoral worldview, lying isn't exactly wrong when used as a survival strategy setting.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eocene said...

    The Whole Truth(Thorton the hijacking IDiot):

    "You were the one who bailed from the thread for weeks, until it scrolled off the main page. I was right here the whole time, still posting."
    ====

    Sorry, but unlike you, I actually have a life and plenty of responsibility as opposed to stuffing my face with chips and sucking beer while cruising neanderthal forums in search of a perverted kind of entertainment.


    So you admit to lying when you said I was the one who went quiet on the thread while you stayed. Got it.

    BTW, the subject here is the actual lying by your gang and every single one of you here has avoided addressing the load pointed out in your side's nappy. But of course in your Amoral worldview, lying isn't exactly wrong when used as a survival strategy setting.

    To recap

    1) The DI makes unsubstantiated claim of lying against the CSC, IDiots get up in arms.

    2) Eocene gets caught in a blatant and demonstrable lie on this blog, hopes everyone ignores his blatant hypocrisy.

    Got it again.

    BTW moron, I don't post as 'The whole truth'.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thorton:

    "1) The DI makes unsubstantiated claim of lying against the CSC, IDiots get up in arms."
    ===

    Wow, actually compounding the lies. The Bearded Buddha would have been proud to consider you his progeny.
    ----

    Thorton:

    "2) Eocene gets caught in a blatant and demonstrable lie on this blog, hopes everyone ignores his blatant hypocrisy."
    ====

    Yes, your continuing ongoing passion for lying has been well documented on these boards. Thanks for the reaffirmation.
    ----

    The Whole Truth:

    "BTW moron, I don't post as 'The whole truth'."
    ===

    Why would it be of concern to me how many unwashed dirty Socks you've got in the Laundry bin ???

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, eocene, you ought to be concerned with getting your facts straight, but I guess that would be expecting too much from you. I'm not Thorton and Thorton isn't me.

    It's not surprising that you're defending deceivers.

    ReplyDelete
  25. TWT:

    "Well, eocene, you ought to be concerned with getting your facts straight, but I guess that would be expecting too much from you. I'm not Thorton and Thorton isn't me."
    ===

    Well it's truly amazing to me, having read both of your historical posts over the months. I mean the literary epigenetic finderprints in both your type of writing styles are identical in content when it comes to vulgarity, insults, foul and filthy terminology. The apparent inability of both to communicate hospitably clearly indicates a similiarity. Birds of a feather I guess.

    It must be true that everyone has a double somewhere on the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  26. That's mighty hospitable of ya, and of course there's no "vulgarity, insults, foul and filthy terminology" in any of the things you IDiots say in your constant attacks on Darwinists, evolutionists, naturalists, atheists, agnostics, scientists, politicians, journalists, bloggers, and anyone else who doesn't agree with your religious beliefs and agenda. Nope, there's none of that stuff. You guys are saints.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Pedant actually made the following statement:

    "If there was any doubt that ID Creationism is a political movement, this lawsuit should convince skeptics. This kind of media-driven theatrics - suing for publicity - lays bare the intellectual bankruptcy of the movement."

    Only in Darwinland will you find reasoning and morality like this. Just imagine what life would be like if the Darwinites got their way!

    * Lying to cover up their bullying in spite of the incriminating e-mails that have been made public. Bold, but extremely shameful behavior, not to mention a terrible example. I guess, given that morality is relative for Darwinists, this is to be expected.

    * Censoring others because they don't agree with their precious hero of Science, King Charles! Just goes to show that certain rights don't matter in Darwinland.

    Then you have people like Pendant actually trying to defend this behavior! Amazing! He wants to blame the victim of the censorship! Only in Darwinland!

    ReplyDelete