LA among the Darwinians
(Note: Alan Roebuck and Kristor have come in on the anti-Darwin side in the thread at Secular Right.)
I engaged in the following exchange at Walter Olson’s blog at the atheist website Secular Right.
I’ve slightly revised my comments.
February 8th, 2009 at 17:47 | #22
Lawrence Auster writes:
Cornelius J. Troost writes: “Even the brilliant Lawrence Auster has doubts about Darwin. All of these thinkers have high enough IQ’s to grasp basic science but they don’t for personal reasons such as emotional barriers. There will always be such odd types who should know better but don’t.”
Two corrections: One, I do not “have doubts” about Darwin. I have argued over and over that the Darwinian theory of the origin of species via random genetic mutations plus natural selection is inherently impossible. My articles on the subject are collected here.
Second, when someone lays out his position and his reasons for that position with maximum clarity, as I have done, for you to say about that person that he disagree with your position because he has “emotional barriers” that prevent him from seeing the truth, rather than because of the reasons he has given, is to talk like a totalitarian. How about giving me the minimal respect of saying, “Auster rejects Darwinism, for such and such reasons.” If you’re not willing to do that, that shows you live in a closed mental universe and are not considering evidence and arguments.
February 9th, 2009 at 04:11 | #23
Second, when someone lays out his position and his reasons for that position with maximum clarity,
Oh! Yeah! Creationists have maximum clarity… as lousy cheaters…
February 9th, 2009 at 06:05 | #24
Grant Canyon writes:
“Second, when someone lays out his position and his reasons for that position with maximum clarity, as I have done, for you say about that person that he disagree with your position because he has ‘emotional barriers’ that prevent him from seeing the truth, rather than because of the reasons he has given, is to talk like a totalitarian.”
Nonsense. When someone who is described as “brilliant” posits reasons for disbelieving Darwinism which anyone with the desire and the ability to examine any number of Internet sites (let alone more scholarly work and original research) can see are without scientific basis, and whose writings reveal, at heart, a screeching desire to hold onto the deity fantasy, describing that approach as involving “emotional barriers” is nothing but a polite way of describing the situation. A more direct way of describing it probably wouldn’t get past the mod.
February 9th, 2009 at 22:10 | #25
Lawrence Auster writes:
Grand Canyon’s reply perfectly expresses the bigotry that has taken hold over Darwinians in recent years, and that I referenced in my previous comment. With such bigotry in the saddle, any useful discussion becomes impossible. From the point of view of those such as GC, a critic of Darwinism who has given evidence and reasons for his position is not a person who has given evidence and reasons for his position; he is an ignoramus driven by “a screeching desire to hold onto the deist fantasy.” This is language that is unsuited for, and that precludes, civilized discussion.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 10, 2009 09:08 AM | Send
The closed, totalitarian universe of the new Darwinians is further seen in the following argument, which one sees over and over: “If a person disagrees with Darwinism, he’s saying that something beyond matter exists; and since we Darwinians know that nothing beyond matter exists, the arguments against Darwinism can be dismissed and ignored. End of subject.”
Thus the Darwinians, instead of following the evidence and arguments where they lead, only allow evidence and arguments that fit their pre-set conclusions, and treat with contempt all other evidence and arguments. The Darwinian project has thus ceased being scientific; it has itself turned into the rigid superstitious dogma which it falsely ascribes to its critics.