Posted by: Dan | August 12, 2006

A Creationist Whiner

This is just too amusing… for weeks now, I’ve had an amusing creationist/ID visitor, “Roger Rabbit,” commenting on my ID-related posts. His modus operandi: whine about how he has something intelligent to say (but not actually say anything about biology, only my treatment of creationist idiots), and tell me to turn this into a teaching moment (again, without any specific point for me to teach him on).


The last few threads that he’s commented on can be found on:
What IDers need to get through their thick heads
The Design Analogy
and Are all IDers Inane Creationists?

Please, Roger, if you’d like to learn something about biology, you can start by asking a specific question about the molecular basis of evolution, or how cells migrate (I can’t waive a wand and explain the entirety of biology to someone in an online discussion). Likewise if you want me to think that you have something intelligent to say about biology.

Resolve this stupidity here, or be banned.



  1. LOL!

    Dan, feel free to ban me. Or even to ask me not to post here anymore, although the latter isn’t nearly as fulfilling to your oversized ego. I can’t see any great loss to myself in such actions.

    Your characterization of the exchange we’ve briefly had here is rather amusing. It is something I’ve come to expect from Darwinists, although the initial realization that so many voices of “science” could be so ignorant and illogical was rather stunning initially. But, now it is just the expected. It is rare that one encounters a thoughtful Darwinist.

  2. That’s fine – but just as you’ve never encountered a “thoughtful Darwinist” (incidentally, didn’t you know that modern evolutionary biology differs a bit from Darwin’s original idea), I’ve never met a scientifically literate creationist.

    Go figure.

  3. Interesting how I type “rare”, yet you see “never”.

  4. Never indeed.

    I also note that you use the term “Darwinist” instead of “biologist.” Why not just go all the way and call me an “evil amoral communist,” as some creationists also refer to “Darwinists” as?

  5. Dan,
    Great new blog digs. Some of the posts are quite over my head, but the rest is great. BTW my skepticism re: climate change has been greatly reduced following recent research announcements.

    I’m not a scientist of any stripe, just a layman who’s read a lot of literature on evolution and creationism, written by both camps. All I can say is, the evolutionists, when they quote the arguments of creationists, go out of their way to put them in context and summarize them fairly, before savagely reducing them to the piles of fact-averse illogic that they are. Creationists, on the other hand, will resort to rhetorical flourishes that embody such millennia-old logical fallacies as undistributed middle (i.e. they change the meaning of a word, or use a word in two parts of an argument in different senses but pretend that that’s o.k.) I once engaged Kent Hovind in an hour-long discussion following a presentation, and came to see that he was utterly unable to grasp some of the basic concepts of modern biology and physics. And they have to be basic, if I can understand them.

  6. Tor says:

    All I can say is, the evolutionists, when they quote the arguments of creationists, go out of their way to put them in context and summarize them fairly,

    How you can post this right after Dan makes the comment implying that use of the word “Darwinist” means something similiar to “evil amoral communist” is beyond me. You do realize any rational person reading this will have no choice but to conclude you are an unreliable witness, don’t you? As Scott Adams said:

    The people who purport to have evidence of evolution do a spectacular job of making themselves non-credible.

  7. Thanks Tor, I notice you’ve done some nifty changes over at your site as well.

    Well then why do you choose to label me a Darwinist? (as if that was the focus of my philosophical doctrine and not merely an incidental point, and not refer to me as a biologist, which is more to the point; i.e. do you refer to physicists, for instance, as Einstienian Relativists these days?) I should hope not, because scientists’ acceptance of the dominant paradigm in their field, which has been demonstrated to the experts of said field beyond doubt, is incidental and a matter of course.

  8. RR,
    As a little more background on the question of whether I’m a “biologist” or a “darwinist,” let’s look up the popular description of what a Darwinist actually is, shall we?:

    There’s two sides to it, describing Darwinism as a philosophical doctrine, or as someone accepting of Charles Darwin’s theory of speciation by natural selection. As I’ve said, the latter – acceptance of natural selection as a mechanism for speciation – is well-proven beyond all but a fool’s doubt, such that all remotely credible life scientists (biologists) implicitly accept it. In this sense, it seems more appropriate to label such a scientist by their field of study, not by their acceptance of an implicitly accepted theory.

    As a philosophical doctrine, however, Darwinism is frequently a label used by creationists in conjunction with nihilism and eugenics – philosophical views that are not implicitly suggested by the label “biologist,” and therefore are unnecessarily derogatory and make false caricatures out of their targets. Yes indeed, the label “Darwinist” is often followed by the descriptive terms “evil” and “communist” by creationists, which are clearly absurd suggestions.

    On the other hand – we can look at my use of the label “creationist”: I use that label to describe young-earth creationists (aka biblical literalists, religious apologetics, etc. – a non-derogotory label, I would think) and old-earth creationists alike (still not a derogotory label, I don’t think), with the common view that they accept the concept of Special Creation, regardless of the age of the earth. And indeed, most IDers seem to fit this mold, and the ID textbook Of Panda’s and People, I think, still retains descriptions of Special Creation. I (and others) often describe creationists as “stupid” or “inane,” but not “evil” or various other non sequitur slurs, and I stand by those descriptions – indeed, I’ve never met a creationist who had even a minimal understanding of biology or the scientific method. Clearly you disagree, but then again you don’t have anything intelligent to say about biology or evolution either – not that you’ve demonstrated, anyway – but regardless of whether you agree with being labeled an “inane creationist,” I’m sure anyone with any common sense will agree that Creationist is a fair description of some people’s theological views, but Darwinist is mischaracterization of one’s scientific views on biology as irrelevant social and philosophical ideologies.

    Note: I think that the alternatives of “Front-loading ID” and “Theistic Evolution,” etc., do not strictly fit the description as creationist, but most FLID and TE positions also distinguish their telic speculation from actual science (a critical acknowledgement if one is to simultaneously persist in their telic views, and cease to be scientifically illiterate).

    Note #2: For general purposes, it seems that Neo-Darwinist = Darwinist most of the time, except when referring specifically to Mayr and other architects of the “Modern Evolutionary Synthesis” that took place in the first half of the 20th century. Strictly speaking, Neo-Darwinism, like Darwinism before it, has been superceded by more recent developments (in molecular and developmental biology in particular), but creationists and IDists don’t regularly use either label with this in mind.

  9. I believe I have seen Roger Rabbit’s moiker at Red State Rabble making troll comment there.

    Stupid is as stupid does as Momma used to say.


  10. Dan says:

    Well then why do you choose to label me a Darwinist? (as if that was the focus of my philosophical doctrine and not merely an incidental point, and not refer to me as a biologist, which is more to the point; i.e. do you refer to physicists, for instance, as Einstienian Relativists these days?)

    I label you as a Darwinist because that is the position you take in this discussion. It isn’t an “either . . . or” issue. One can be both, neither or either one. I might indeed refer to a physicist as a string theorist, or a skeptic thereof, if that was the issue under discussion.

  11. No, I didn’t say String Theorist, I said Einstienian Relativist – unlike Evolution, there is actually no scientific evidence supporting String Theory, and there are a reasonable number of physicists that think it is incorrect. A better comparison to evolution in physics would be something along the lines of the theory of Relativity – a theory that few, if any, physicists are in dispute upon.

  12. Another example would be calling geologists Lyellists, after Charles Lyell, the “Father” of modern geology, who was among the very first to question the age of the Earth and criticize catastrophism and biblical accounts of the history of the Earth.

    “Lyellism” is probably a much more appropriate analogy to Darwinism than anything in Physics, because the two directly contradict biblical creationism, and both are implicit in the labels “geologist” and “biologist,” respectively. It is indeed impossible to find an example of either type of scientist who has an active research career and is a creationist.

    Roger – Regarding your String Theorist comparison – You really need to stop using such fallacious use of analogy.


%d bloggers like this: