Just last week over at the Thinking Christian blog there was a huge stink raised over the alleged inappropriateness of linking ID to creationism. After much argument the anti-linkage people more or less conceded that there were some good reasons to link ID to a somewhat generic definition of creationism (relying on special creation), but still protested loudly about how inappropriate it was to make the linkage, because most people (allegedly) would assume that creationism = young-earth creationism, and linking ID to young-earth creationism was oh-so-wildly unfair.
Well, it’s now a week later, and, what do you know, but right there on the latest blogpost on William Dembski’s Uncommon Descent is a big fat advertisement for a straight-up young-earth creationist conference. And who is endorsing the conference? Dean Kenyon, Discovery Institute fellow, coauthor of Of Pandas and People, and one of the most-cited inspirational figures in the whole ID movement, who is mentioned dozens of times in Stephen Meyer’s new book Signature in the Cell. Here he is, endorsing young-earth garbage:
According to US biophysicist Dr. Dean Kenyon, “Biological macroevolution collapses without the twin pillars of the geological time-scale and the fossil record as currently interpreted. Few scientists would contest this statement. This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”
…proving that, yep, he’s still YEC, as has been his consistent position since at least 1980, even though this was widely doubted over on the Thinking Christian blog, and even though Stephen Meyer and all other ID advocates systematically obscure this fact.
So who is the one confusing ID and YEC? Not me. They do it themselves.
This is from a previous conference by the same people, the Kolbe Center (catholic YEC group).
I’m really quite sorry I missed this:
Well sure: Luther’s anti-semitism is well known (well, except among those evangelicals who like to ignore the embarassing bits of history), and everyone knows that evolution is the root of racism, so.…
The roots of anti-Semitic / Nazi thought are also exposed in the theology of Martin Luther - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the[…]d_Their_Lies
But Nick,
(Begin channelling Tom Gilson) Just because one creationist thinks there’s a link between ID and YECism, doesn’t mean there is one. I mean, he’s only the the primary author of the flagship ID textbook. Its clearly not logical on your part to give his personal opinion more weight than, say, that of a relatively unknown blogging priest who says they aren’t related. (/channeling)
So Dr Von Stockhausen discovered that Charles Darwin stole HG Wells’ time machine in order to influence Martin Luther?
I’m curious how they reconcile this with comments like those of Behe. In “The Edge of Evolution” and elsewhere Behe makes quite clear that he accepts both common descent and an old earth and thinks that not accepting an old earth requires a certain degree of silliness. I wonder if Dean Kenyon and Michael Behe ever talk to each other.
I figure that they consider him an ally for the time being, but, after they’ve conquered everything for Jesus, they’ll probably force him to recant his pro-evolution statements, or be put to death.
Dean wrote:
“This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”
Great Dean, some recent research. Let’s see it. Where is it published? Man you must be famous for overturning two hundred years of research in establishing the geologic time scale. Or maybe you have evidence the the fossil record is all wrong. Yea, that must be it. Everyone else for the last three hundred years is wrong, but you finally got it right. Of wait, it’s not the fossil record that’s wrong, it’s the “interpretation” that’s wrong. Well now, how does having a different “interpretation” constitute research? Man, no wonder you haven’t published anything.
Here is a news flash for you. No one in science teaches any theory as a proven fact. If that is your goal then all you have to do is enforce the current teaching standards. Now why does that require research or interpretation or anything else? Oh wait, you really meant … never mind.
Pfft! Forget that, Dean! Scientific publications don’t pay squat.
But image what that information is worth to people like energy companies!
All these years their exploration model has been wrong! It’s always assumed organic deposits accumulating in shallow seas and warm swamps millions of years ago.
But you, Dean, You see that there was no “millions of years ago”!
For years the entire exploration strategy of these companies has been based on finding these long-lost seabeds and swamps, now inconveniently buried under eons of camouflage.
But you Dean, you are ready to blow the lid off this thing!
Only you truly understand how geology works - those legions of petroleum engineers laboring in remote locations with their test bores and echolocation and satelite tools for decades - ignorant pikers.
You Dean, you are poised to be a freakin zillionaire, bro!
Paul Nelson is also a YEC. If you had asked me a year ago I would have thought that most IDers were OEC but reading the Uncommon Descent blog lately, I think that most of them are in fact YEC. In fact I have a hypothesis that there are very few OEC people out there.
I wonder if once you accept the earth is old that it is a slippery slope to becoming a theistic evolutionist.
What *I* would like to know is: Are they now admitting they were lying (YECs pretending to be OECs), or is there some “evidence” that changed their minds? What a colossal farce! The term I learned here at PT a few weeks ago comes to mind: pseudoskepticism.
There was a time when the YECs and OECs argued, then they said ‘Let’s not argue now, get creationism into the schools, then we can discuss the age of the earth.’ Does this represent another change to circle the wagons for political purposes?
Ten years ago Nick, was basically wrong to equate YEC and ID, but consistently since then ID has become more YEC.
Consider the YEC bias of Uncommon descent and the way many YECs appeal to Design as they do in Britain.
I now see them as very similar on the age of the earth though some like Behe still accept an ancient earth
Few scientists would contest this statement.
Dawkins does - in his most recent book he is adamant that without the fossils, the genetic evidence alone proves evolution.
In fact, he may be too late! Someone’s beaten him to it!
The only surprising thing is that there hasn’t been an exclusive ‘investment circle’ among church groups based on this wonderful discovery (all for the benefit of Our Mission in Pikyah-Pokit, of course) which has run into unforeseen problems that will nevertheless be resolved if we can just raise a few more bucks from the rubes ^h^h^h^h faithful…
If anything I have always thought that linking ID to YEC, if done hastily, is too generous to the ID activists. YECs at least make testable statements regarding “what happened when,” while IDers increasingly pander to the big tent, whatever they believe. YEC just happens to be the biggest market, so ID language has to be YEC-friendly, even if most ID activists have made it clear in the past that the find no evidence to support YEC or anything close to it (e.g. old-earth-young-life). I’d bet that ID would be much more OEC-friendly had the Bryan-era creationism not been replaced by the Morris-era version.
If they do, it’s probably only about all the “weaknesses” of “Darwinism” they agree on, and nothing about their irreconcilable differences. Besides, Behe has admitted that, although he accepts common descent, some IDers (unnamed of course) who reject it are, in his opinion, “more familiar with the relevant science.” If he hasn’t yet made a similar pathetic disclaimer about YEC, give him time.
That’s it…there is clearly no consensus on this. I mean…if they can’t even agree amongst themselves then the theory of creationism must be full of holes. I demand that they start teaching the YE/OE Controversy in Sunday School.
To those discussing Uncommon Descent:
I haven’t lurked there much in the past 2-3 years, but it would not surprise me if UcD commenters are mostly YEC or old-earth-young-life. IOW some sort of Genesis-literalist. Few others (e.g. Raelians) take ID seriously.
As for the “leaders,” IIRC, DaveScot, who defended common-descent, is still banned (his banning had nothing to do with his acceptance of CD), and Denyse O’Leary is one of those YECs who got on the “don’t ask, don’t tell what the designer did when” bandwagon. Dembski has consistently conceded old-earth-old-life, and has been “agnostic” about CD (though strictly against any Darwinian version). But he has made it clear that his political sympathy lies with YECs. But as Behe did with CD-deniers, it wouldn’t surprise me if Dembski has complimented some YECs for being more familiar than he is with the relevant science.
If my thoughts above require some updating, I’d appreciate it. But note that I’m not interested in what anyone might believe, only what they are trying to promote, and what strategies they are using to do it.
At least one of the current contributors/moderators at UD, Clive Hayden, is clearly a YEC, as evidenced by this recent comment:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte[…]-start/#comm ent-337843
I believe the same is also the case for Cornelius Hunter, and it is clearly the case for a large number of regular commentators. Pick almost any thread and read down through; you will find many of the regular commentators expressing views that are clearly those of committed YECs. Over the past year, there have been threads at UD that have eventually degenerated into nitpicking arguments between a small cadre of YECs, who argue about arcane details of the YEC creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 (and related versions).
This is not to say that the two most notable contributors at UD, Michael Behe and William Dembski, are YECs. Behe has consistently and repeatedly denied that he is a YEC (indeed, he says he “strongly” believes in common descent). Dembski has asserted repeatedly that he is strongly sympathetic to the YEC viewpoint, but cannot adopt it because the empirical evidence for an old Earth is so “strong”…at least he cannot adopt it publicly, and still retain any credibility as a scientist.
BTW, in searching for the names of contributors and moderators at UD, I discovered that there is no longer any publicly accessible link to such a list. This means that the only way anyone can figure out who is a contributor/moderator at UD is to pay attention to the background color of a comment; those that appear against a white background are those of a contributor/moderator, while the hoi polloi’s comments appear against the usual olive drab background.
I find this very interesting; why don’t the contributors/moderators at UD want the public to know who they are? The contributors/moderators at Panda’s Thumb are quite publicly listed under the button in the right menu bar labeled “Select an Author”. Do the contributors/moderators at UD have something to hide?
Several posters here have noted that both Dr. Behe and Dr. Dr. Dembski have denied to one extent or another YEC, yet have expressed sympathies for it.
I’m trying to imagine an actual scientist saying something along the lines of, “I acknowledge that all the evidence points to the existence of atoms as the constituents of matter, but my sympathies lie with those who say that Earth, Air, Water, and Fire are what matter is made of.” Or, “Of course, I accept the data that show that the Sun is at the center of our solar system, but I concede that there are Geocentrists that know more than I do about the topic.”
This, as much as anything else, shows that these self-identified scientists have no idea what science or the scientific method is, and are totally out of touch with reality.
Over at Thinking Christian, Tom Gilson has picked up on this posting. But incredibly (or perhaps not…) he doesn’t comment on the substantive issue of Kenyon’s explicit endorsement of YEC; instead he moans that this is all the fault of the anti-IDers, and that we’re really just hurting ourselves.
I’ve dumped the steaming pile of his hypocrisy into the comments thread; it will be amusing to see where this goes. Watch him twist, watch him feint…
(I tried to include a link to the TC thread, but Movable Type doesn’t seem to like hyperlinks.)
What makes you think this doesn’t already occur? Since {YE or OE} is clearly scriptural, while {OE or YE} is clearly a misinterpretation, it’s a fine topic for discussion “in house.”
Frank J -
Here’s how I resolve the relationship…
All modern, educated creationists of any sort are being dishonest or are deeply misinformed and ignorant (possibly due to emotional bias). I know that sounds almost like a quote from Dawkins, but it is clearly true.
Openly YEC types who make testable statements, although dishonest and/or severely ignorant, are less dishonest than types who stick to ID babble.
However, a major point of creationism in the US is ultimately to support an authoritarian social/political agenda, by claiming that “the Bible is literally true”, and then further claiming that unpopular or inhumane policies are required because a “literal” reading of the Bible shows that God commands them.
“OEC” has very little appeal to anyone, for an obvious logical reason. If parts of the Bible metaphorical or symbolic, then it isn’t contradicted by evolution. (But then, it’s useless for the advancement of a harsh social agenda.)
OEC does appeal to a tiny subset of narcissistic cranks who want to prove their “genius” by either independently overturning a powerfully established scientific theory, or “logically proving the existence of God”, or both. Behe, Charlie Wilson, and possibly “the Thinking Christian” fit in this category, as surely do a few dozens or hundreds of others, but they should be seen as akin to deniers of relativity and the like. As Stanton mentions above, they are tolerated by other creationists now only because they are fellow “critics” of evolution.
The real red meat is advancing a “literal” reading of the Bible, because that is claimed to support, indeed command, a brutal social agenda. The vast majority of people who support “ID” do so as a coded and (it was once hoped) “court proof” way of signaling support for Biblical literalism and harsh social policy.
(*I should add that the “average” American claims, in polls, to believe that bacteria and plants evolved, but to question, in relatively large numbers, that humans evolved from hominids, and generally refuses to “contradict” any statement that is presented in a religious way, regardless of their underlying beliefs. On the other hand, juries and electorates of the same people consistently reject creationism in schools. This relative incoherence is unsurprising in polls of the general public on complex topics - an emotion-biased set of responses that reflect inhibitions, but are broadly supportive of science. Under no circumstances should we conclude from this that the majority of Americans either have a full understanding of the theory of evolution, or support ID/creationist denial of evolution. This is important, because this is a large part of what motivates the DI and other creationists - although arguably they are more about taking money from the believers who exist now than about making new believers*)
Update: Tom doesn’t like my comment, and announces that he will edit it. Just for the record, I wrote:
Tom Gilson’s apparent tactic is to edit out any comments that address the increasing YECness of the (rapidly failing) ID movement. Not surprising, I suppose, but unfortunate, especially as it simply reinforces the impression that ID supporters (such as himself) are not interested in actual debate, but rather in “arguments by assertion”.
I’d bet that it’s very rare, but for a different reason that anti-evolution activists hate to debate their differences. YEC and OEC are, like ID, mainly arguments against evolution, so it’s bad for the big tent to show weaknesses and/or contradictions in any anti-evolution position.
OTOH, with exception of the most radical fundamentalist ones, Sunday Schools probably just ignore evolution (why call attention to it?), and discuss Genesis mostly as it applies to humans, which means that most events occurred in the last ~6000 in OE or YE versions. Plus most of the non-fundamentalist ones might approach Genesis in the same politically correct way that TV treats flying reindeer - state it as fact, knowing that the older children will take it as an allegory.
I think any post that begins “Thank you, Larry Fafarman…” can safely be ignored.
Having said that, I won’t. :) Tom’s argument seems not to have changed. He demands everyone limit debate to his definition of ID without any consideration of how the term ID used in the actual world by others, and historically.
To the extent that his argument is sound, its also irrelevant: it is the real world use and understanding of the term ID that matters for court cases, biology classes, etc… Not Tom’s personal definition.
After we get rid of the Romans, with their hated working sanitation systems, efficient agriculture, and practical transportation, well, then the Judean People’s Front is finally gonna get what’s coming to them!
I agreed up to that point, and maybe with that too if you mean the more “progressive” old-earth-old-life versions (with or without common descent) as having very little appeal. But there’s nothing special about YEC, other than it being the first attempt to sound scientific. I’m not sure about flat-earthism, but if you really want to be literal, I think you’d have to go with at least geocentrism.
It could be that, if the activists ever get their theocracy, they’ll all embrace geocentric YEC, maybe even flat-earthism. But I think it’s much more likely that they’ll keep the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach and do what they do now - subtly encourage the audience to believe whatever it’s comfortable with, as long as it’s not “Darwinism.”
I got kicked out of TC last week or so (after having posted criticism there for more than year) over exactly this issue. TC seems to want to ignore the recent history of ID’s strategy of deception and to (in a way that seems typically a case of psychological projection) while branding the IT antagonists as the ones who are using imprecise language to disguise reality.
When I brought up the false summary he posted following the initial discussion, and cited the contradictory instances of his defining ID scientific but not a science, etc., he booted me out. (I join a select company, so it’s really quite an honor.)
For a nutshell summary of the reality-denial (and psychological projection and authoritarianism) that it appears ID proponents must adopt in order to argue their case, I’d look at this post ( http://www.thinkingchristian.net/20[…]-postscript/). The discussion is in comments: 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27.
If this is the kind of conduct we can expect from the most “thoughtful” of the ID proponents it doesn’t bode well for the movement broadening its reach anytime soon.
Stanton, if you want me to leave, stop replying! You are right. I am more interested in your soul than in evolutionary theory. Here’s my weak analysis: Evolution is an explanation of the facts. Creationism is an explanation of the facts. Neither are science. Both are speculation. Evolution speculates new species based on observed variation within a species. Speculation is philosophy, not science.
If that’s the case, please fuck off: the matter of my soul is the business of God and myself, ALONE. Or, are you arrogant enough that you can meddle in this without God’s or my permission?
There, fixed for you.
That, and Creationism does nothing about explaining facts, moron.
Among other things, this is a blog and messageboard about discussing Evolutionary Biology. If you want to discuss saving some internet twit’s soul, why don’t you go infest some Christian-themed messageboard, then?
Secondly, you’re not an ordained priest, minister or preacher, and given as how you’re so willing to lie repeatedly and shamelessly, as well as be so eager pry into other people’s spiritual matters without invitation, even though that is a mortal sin, you’re the sort of person who could not be physically trusted to throw a used tissue away.
I didn’t know prying into personal spiritual matters was a mortal sin. Shoot, and I thought I was going to heaven! While I am concerned with your soul, I am concerned with souls in general and I hear stories of how the theory of evolution causes people to lose their faith. So, I am interested to know if it caused people like you to lose your faith. And I am an apologist for Christianity and want to defend the faith, especially if people on this site were formerly Christians. Dawkins is a proseltyzing for atheism. He is trying to destroy faith in God, and he is the most well-known advocate of evolution.
Jonesy said:
Jonesy replies:
Jonesy, an MRI is not evidence of a miracle, but of a natural event, namely spontaneous remission. As has been pointed out to you, people once had no explanation for lightning or rainbows or eclipses, and so they made up explanations that required divine origin and intervention. That was an error. Same here. You are not entitled to assume a miracle just because you have no other explanation.
As to what I believe or how I came to conclude that the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection are unconvincing, the matter is boring to others and irrelevant here.
If you actually read your Bible, you’d know that a person’s relationship with God/Jesus is with God/Jesus alone. Your uninvited prying is alot like a boorish stranger breaking into someone’s home to give bad and unwanted sex advice. And since you’re only concerned with lying about evolution, and parading around your pitifully weak faith, get lost.
Evolution never caused or causes me to lose faith: I find the idea that a natural process can somehow undo or negate God to be so laughably absurd so as to be insulting. Like I said before, it’s people like you who threaten my faith, by demanding that I need to have a pitifully weak faith that has to be buoyed by lies and ignorance, and that’s always threatened by natural processes and learning.
If you ever bothered to remove that beam stuck in your eye, many of the people on this site still are Christians. And you’re doing a positively crappy job defending faith with the way you keep parading around how your pitifully weak faith is threatened by a natural process, and how you have to support it by lying, as well as sticking your nose into other people’s spiritual affairs uninvited.
Bullshit. There is no relationship between atheism and evolution, and if Dawkins threatens your pitiful faith so much, why don’t you go infest his messageboard and leave us alone?
Bzzzt! Nope, sorry, wrong.
Methodological naturalism procedes as if the universe is natural, consistent, and not lying to us, and is measurable and understandable.
It says nothing about anything supernatural except that “we have not been able to measure, detect, or find a use for it”.
You are free to use your religious text as cultural, moral, and spiritual guidance, but even Mike Behe says using the Bible as a science book is “silly”.
Jonsey,
We have covered this already. Move on. If you simply cannot understand, then just leave. No one will be convinced no matter how many times you repeat your nonsensical crap.
The ToE didn’t cause me to lose my faith. Reading the Bible did that. And if you understood anything about what “theory” means in science, you’d know it is NOT mere speculation. The word for that is “hypothesis”. Only when a hypothesis is repeatedly verified through independent observation (look up “Tiktaalik” for a grand example), does it get elevated to a theory.
Don’t worry Jonesy, the TOE only causes people to lose wrong faiths.
Empricism is nice that way - when a prophet (or book) claims to have some God-given truth, test it. If the “truth” turns out to be demonstrably not true, you’ve been handed a pretty good indication that said prophet (or book) is not a true prophet. :)
Are you serious? What empirical test proves that man evolved from an ape? Have we seen this in the lab?
Jonesy, an MRI is not evidence of a miracle, but of a natural event, namely spontaneous remission. As has been pointed out to you, people once had no explanation for lightning or rainbows or eclipses, and so they made up explanations that required divine origin and intervention. That was an error. Same here.
You are not entitled to assume a miracle just because you have no other explanation.
I am entitled to call it miracle if science can’t explain it. You are assuming that science will one day be able to explain it. You presuppose naturalism which excludes the possibility of miracles and leaves God as a watchmaker who watches the world He made to see what will happen, but does not intervene. Therefore you are safe and inoculated from the possibility of a personal God who wants relationship with His subjects since no event will convince you that a miracle occurred. That, my friend, is close-minded.
I am entitled to call it miracle if science can’t explain it. You are assuming that science will one day be able to explain it. You presuppose naturalism which excludes the possibility of miracles and leaves God as a watchmaker who watches the world He made to see what will happen, but does not intervene. Therefore you are safe and inoculated from the possibility of a personal God who wants relationship with His subjects since no event will convince you that a miracle occurred. That, my friend, is close-minded.
Humans and chimpanzees’ genomes are at least 99% identical, as well as the facts that there is a good fossil record of humans, and that biologists, namely one Carolus Linnaeus, determined that humans are apes over three hundred years ago.
It isn’t close-minded when someone asks for verification of your wacky and nonsensical claims, Jonesy.
Furthermore, you don’t get to redefine words, then demand that we bow to your new definitions. As was stated to you repeatedly, “naturalism” in science means that one must proceed without taking supernatural forces and or entities because there is no way to detect or test for supernatural forces or entities because supernatural forces and entities exist outside the realm of nature. If we had to take into account the whims of God, like you unreasonably demand, no science would be done, period.
And now that you’ve outed yourself as a religiously inspired anti-intellectual idiot for the umpteenth time, Jonesy, please get lost. You continue to make a moronic fool out of yourself, and an appalling mockery of your faith with each further post you make.
Jonsey wrote:
“Are you serious? What empirical test proves that man evolved from an ape? “
Glad you asked. All of the results from palentology, comparative anatomy, genetics and developmental biology confirm that indeed humans are descended from apes and that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. Here is a partial list of different types of evidence. The important thing to realize is that all of the independent data sets give exactly the same answer.
1) Chromosome banding patterns
2) Centromeric sequences at chromosome fusion points
3) Mitochondrial DNA conparisons
4) Globin gene comparisons
5) Whole genome sequence comparisons
6) SINE insertions
7) Developmental studies involving regulatory genes
8) All of the palentological evidence
Of course I can provide references from the scientific literature for each of these types of data. But what are the odds Jonsey will read them?
Jonsey wrote:
“I am entitled to call it miracle if science can’t explain it.”
You sure are. Of course, in the entire history of the world, that approach has never proven to be productive or informative. Every time miracles are claimed, science inevitably has explained them. So yu can stick to your superstitious nonsense until siene reduces your small little God to a small cornor of the world where he can do absolutely nothing, or you can embrace the scientific method and discover the true wonders of the natural world.
Assuming that natural explanations can in any way dimiinish the role of God, now that is closed minded. No wonder Galileo had so much trouble.
To which jonesy replied:
A classic “god of the gaps”.
In the first place, there will always be gaps. It’s a bit like the fossil record. Gaps in human understanding will always exist. They must; our minds are finite.
So I’m not assuming that science will ever explain everything. Quite the contrary. But I am saying that assuming that miracles fill any of the gaps is unjustified, and my evidence for this is that it was unjustified in the past.
If assuming miracles is unjustified, we are left with methodological naturalism, the idea that nature should be investigated assuming natural causes. This is not to say that everything necessarily must have a natural cause. It is only to use natural causes as a starting point for investigation. But can such an investigation ever completely eliminate a natural cause and establish a supernatural one?
Well, no. When is an investigation truly exhaustive? The answer is that it never can be, unless we are to say that knowledge does not advance. Advances in knowledge open up other avenues of investigation. No investigation in science is ever truly exhaustive - this is a sort of corollary of the understanding that no absolute ‘proof’ exists outside of mathematics.
But knowledge does advance, and here is the other argument for methodological naturalism: the pragmatic one. That is, it works. By using it, we have found out vastly more about the Universe in the last few centuries than in all the rest of human history, and our lives have been immensely improved thereby.
Philosophical naturalism, or, if you like, materialism, is the belief that there is nothing divine or supernatural; that all causes are material. Jonesy dismisses it. Fair enough. I have nothing to say about it, except that I have seen no conclusive evidence. On the other hand, methodological naturalism is justified from logic and from practical results. We are unjustified in assuming miracles, and we are justified in continuing to investigate assuming natural causes.
Yes, yes you are.
But that circle is getting mighty small.
Oh, and by the way, evolution isn’t inside it.
How do you reply so quickly? Do you get an email?
Are you so utterly dim and clueless that the possibility that we were browsing the same website at the same time eludes your bigoted little peabrain?
Then again, the answer is probably “yes,” given as how we’re dealing with a person who thinks God and faith are threatened by understanding a natural phenomenon, as opposed to using one’s faith as an excuse to act like an anti-intellectual idiot.
That, and why do you find it so horrifying to get fast responses to your idiocy?
Or, are you just shocked that we aren’t so awed that we’re moved to worship you and offer our virgin daughters to you as thanks for your babbling?
It’s all part of the Darwinian conspiracy. Those of us who are lurkers communicate with the regular posters and do research for them so that they can answer the saintly anti-darwinian posters. It’s a vast network of evil-doers. We have membership dues ($6.66/year), funny hats, and a secret handshake. We each are required to have a statue of Darwin that we hide in a closet and only let other initiates see and worship. Ve vill rule de Vorld! Bwa haa haa!
Oops! Did I reveal too much?
You didn’t mention that the Pope is in on it, or the obligatory baby-eating rituals.
Oops.
Update