I am not a Darwinist

2/08/2008 | 1:42 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Cretins showing off their stupidity have been having a field day throwing around the label 'Darwinist' and 'Darwinism' in their sorry attempts to construct an argument. This nonsense is not limited to internet trolls, as the IDiots use the term Darwinism to imply that evolutionary biology is on the same level as their religious creation myth.

The IDiots, in their books and their Uncommonly Dense site throw this term around as they try to suggest that scientists are still desperately clinging on to Darwin's outdated ideas. They are either too stupid or too dishonest to understand that modern evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond anything Darwin could have ever imagined. As their IDiotic ideas are religious myths and not science, they try to portray Darwin as the messiah of evolutionary biology the same way Jesus is the messiah of their silly cult of lies. They are dishonest dumbfucks who want to sneak their religious ideas into science, and thus feel the need to portray evolution as another religion.

The funny thing is, no cretin/IDiot/theist ever refers to people who accept the theory of gravitation as Newtonists.

A lot of Darwin's ideas are outdated and plain wrong. Therefore, when the IDiots trumpet their silly list of 'scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism', it is clear that they are either liars or people who have no clue about what they are attempting to argue against.

I am not a Darwinist. Darwin is not my messiah - the same way that Newton is not my messiah although I accept that gravity keeps my feet on the ground. I do not believe that natural selection is all there is to evolution. For once, I will give the creationists the benefit of the doubt. They may have been using the term Darwinist on my blog because they were simply ignorant. Now, the cretins have no excuse. Any cretins who starts blabbering about 'Darwinists think that.....' or 'Darwinism is evil.....' or any variation of the term are now are simply dishonest liars for their imaginary god.

If you enjoyed this post Subscribe to our feed

6 Comments

  1. gruntled atheist |

    I wonder if there is a short, current, clearly stated description of evolution theory that one could use in discussions with theists. That could be useful.

     
  2. Tatarize |

    Evolution is preserved luck bootstrapping its way towards the infinite and unknown.

    I don't think they care, but if you could figure out a quick explanation of it that makes sense. Some of them are probably just ignorant. Like a game of Yahtzee it's really hard to roll a perfect game but if there were no limit on the number of rolls you were permitted you'd do so fairly trivially. Same concept, except we're dealing with nucleotide sequences which code for proteins and cause slight developmental tweaks.

     
  3. the mad LOLscientist |

    The other night one of my friends referred to himself as a "Darwinist." I said, "Calling yourself a Darwinist is like a theoretical physicist calling him/herself an 'Einsteinist.' Einstein set the ball rolling, but physics has come a long way since then. The same thing applies to Darwin and evolutionary theory."

     
  4. TLP |

    gruntled: The Theory of Evolution Made Easy
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3SAGDZXLxI

    For more, check out that guy's channel.

     
  5. Intergalactic Hussy |

    Some theists just don't understand what its like to know something and not take it on faith.

    Its like when creationists say we "believe" in evolution... No, we accept evolution and you deny it.

     
  6. Sinbad |

    Among the "cretins showing off their stupidity" include the following.

    Stephen Jay Gould: "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs -- and equally compatible with atheism."

    Richard Dawkins: “As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it.”

    Daniel Dennett: "The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists."

    Sam Harris: "Unfortunately, anti-Darwinism keeps playing minor variations on the same negative themes and adds nothing to our understanding of life. Many scientists who are upset by the ongoing lobbying insist that it is bad science or pseudo-science."

    Oops.

    *snicker*

     

Post a Comment