Wednesday, July 18, 2007


Unfortunately, I’m the type of person who has the audacity to confront Darwinists in some of the anti-ID on-line forums when I feel they are misrepresenting me or my position in this debate.

I really should steer clear of these folks because there is ~no~ reasoning with them. From what I’ve experienced, they are extremely hateful individuals who seem to complain daily about the intolerance of others, yet they display the most rabid intolerance I have *ever* witnessed personally.

They continually write posts and articles about religion and politics and complain that the Bush administration has fouled up the war in Iraq, yet they are starting their own war and don’t even seem to realize it. Wars start with words, and from what I can tell, they are *dead set* on taking this culture war to a whole new level. To read some of the things they write is, in all truthfulness, frightening at times.

The latest bit of misrepresentation in regard to my position in this debate that I need to address is as follows:

FtK says that she is looking for the "truth", and acts as if her search for truth includes a scientific seeking. But it is most assuredly not true. Her truths are pre-ordained, and fixed, and she admits in her most recent rant that she doesn't think that her mind will ever be changed. If she had admitted from the start that she was really focused on atheism, and equated atheism with mainstream science, AND that she apparently feels that atheists are less than honorable/respectable/human, she would get respect for her honesty (at least from me). She is not honest about her motives, and that dishonesty is a sure route to getting disrespect from anyone in the scientific community.

Everyone is searching for truth to some degree. Science is not the only source in which to find it. I search for truth from many sources, and both theology and science are important (to me) in that search. I've never stated otherwise. I’ve made many changes in my outlook about both topics from the discussions I’ve had online, but those will remain private.

Then there was this statement...

"... [she] acts as if her search for truth includes a scientific seeking. But it is most assuredly not true",

...the only way a person can make a statement like this is if they believe they have the truth, and can the truth about life only be understood through the eyes of scientists? Some Darwinists believe that since I question them, I cannot be searching for the truth. Their own truths must be “pre -ordained and fixed” to make a statement like that. This particular Darwinist has never shared his beliefs about "truth" other than stating that I’m wrong in regard to my belief that common descent should be examined with a more critical eye by our students. By his own words in various forums and blogs, he obviously believes that religious beliefs are open for ridicule, and that religion is most probably an evolutionary trait that has been passed on for generations.

He accuses me of conflating discussions about atheism/theism with science, but religious and philosophical beliefs are absolutely a major part of this debate. These religious and philosophical beliefs affecting the work of science are not limited to the ID advocates by any means. The writings of Dawkins / Harris / Dennet / Weinburg / Hitchens et. al. have made it very clear that they are out to put an end to religious thought and they mean to do it by ridiculing religion and raising science to a level by which it is the only avenue to truth. PZ Myers plays out this objective every day via the internet.

I do believe that there is a strong surge from a very vocal group of atheists, who have a strong footing in the scientific community, to denigrate religion at every opportunity. I watch them do it *daily*, I've read their books, I've listened to their it's not possible to convince me otherwise. I certainly don’t feel that the majority of scientists feel this way, but I do believe that those Darwinists holding the reins in this debate have a strong influence on what will and will not be considered in the domain of science. I don't know where I've been “dishonest” about my beliefs in this regard. I've been writing both about religion and science since starting my blog.

I’m also not sure what hidden "motives" this individual thinks I have. I can't think of a time when I've ever said that I am only interested in scientific truth. I don't think we are anywhere near the point where science is the only means by to establish *truth*.

He wrote:
AND that she apparently feels that atheists are less than honorable/respectable/human...

Where have I ever said this? This is what you want to believe about me, it's not actually who I am. If I had only to go by the attitudes and the hatred displayed by the majority (not all) of the atheists at AtBC and the horrendous tactics and hate filled rants of atheist bloggers like PZ Myers, then yes, I’d believe that atheists are less than honorable and, in fact, quite hateful and despicable individuals.

But, luckily, I know people personally who do not believe that there is an ultimate creator, and they are no different than my family. But, on the other hand, the atheists I know personally don’t wear their atheism on their sleeve. They have respect for themselves and the beliefs of others, and they aren’t on a mission to do away with or ridicule religion, neither do they treat me like dirt because of my personal religious beliefs.

I have tried very hard to get along with atheists in this debate, and a handful have been kind to me, and I appreciate that more than they’ll probably ever realize. But, the majority I’ve run across on-line are simply nasty, unforgiving individuals who truly *enjoy* the opportunity to treat those whose views they oppose like they are less than human with no feelings or importance in life whatsoever.