Hypocrisy all the way to 11


Tom Gilson is a muck-a-muck with Campus Crusade for Christ, and though claiming he is Christian he has no compunction calling Charles Darwin an accessory to murder and otherwise promoting the canard that evolution caused Hitler to go nuts and murder millions.

Making the link to Hitler in an era when Godwin’s Law has a well-visited entry on Wikipedia imposes on one a duty to check the facts.  Doesn’t faze Gilson:  Damn the facts, full calumny ahead.

Which is worthy of comment at the moment only because he’s banned my comments.  I was trying to figure out where he was coming from, and I followed his links to a column he wrote on Chuck Colson’s “Breakpoint” site, in which he discusses his struggles in debating scientists and others who understand evolution.

As one who does a lot of web-based debating against naturalistic (atheistic) evolution, I know I wouldn’t stand a chance if I weren’t studying what the best atheists and evolutionists have written, or without reading the most thoughtful Christian or ID-based responses.

The second protection against such an error is to know what we don’t know, and be willing to admit it. Evolution and ID involve specialized studies in paleontology, radiometric dating, geology, biochemistry, genetics, and more. Does ID challenge some of the prevailing wisdom in these fields? Yes. Can we read about these challenges on the web, or find a good, trustworthy book about them? Certainly! Will that make us qualified to “pronounce” on them? Well, no.

But that’s okay. We don’t all have to be experts. It will take many years (at least) for those who are to work out their differences. We can still know what we do know. We know that God created the heavens and the earth and all that lives in them. The details and the debates go far deeper than that. We should dive into these discussions only as deep as we’re prepared to swim—while at the same time always equipping ourselves to go to greater depths.

Excuse me, but I’d just come from another site that had the works of Hitler, discussing his own struggle — “mein kampf” in German.  I noticed a few parallels, and I called attention to them, sorta hoping Gilson would blush and back away from the claims.  Gilson’s stuff is mild, really.  He’s got a tin ear for science and a very narrow view of history, it appears to me.  Were he not so earnest in impugning others, I’d have just laughed it off completely.  That’s what I expected him to do.

But no.  He got huffy and banned me.  Censorship, refusing to discuss with critics, are just tools Gilson has to use in his struggle against evolution.  Only Tom Gilson can make wholly unsubstantiated claims in error against great men — no one else is allowed to question the Man Behind the Curtain.

If irony killed, there’d be no creationist left on Earth. If irony were science, creationism would win several Nobels a year.  If irony were worth a pitcher of warm [spit], creationism would have a permanent hold on the vice presidency.

But irony is not a response.  Ain’t it odd to hear these guys go on about their struggles, all the while they impugn the reputation of a good man like Charles Darwin, and all the time they have not got an iota of science to back up their position?

Gilson argues evolution played a role in the Holocaust.  He’s not sure how, and he doesn’t know anything about what evolution theory is nor the history of the Holocaust, but he’s sure that if he just reads the Bible earnestly enough . . .

If this completely unsupportable claim is the best we can expect from creationists, isn’t it frightening that anyone gives them credence?

Gilson will see the links.  Tom, if you come here, you’ll find someone who is willing to discuss with you your errors and why you should repent.  Bet you won’t.  Bet you can’t.

Update:  P. Z. Myers found this guy, Jeff Dorchen.  Gilson, he’s got Stein pegged, I think.  What say you?

All Ben Stein would have had to say to support the Nazis back then is what he’s saying right now.

Shut up, Godwin.

Just because George W. Bush won’t be in office next year doesn’t mean we’ve dodged the bullet of a white Christian supremacist dictatorship. We are not out of the woods yet, my darlings. That a man, let alone a Jew, could, without shame, walk on the graves of Holocaust victims and claim the theory of evolution was at fault, let alone a man whose nationalism, social darwinism (which is not Darwinism, by the way), anti-intellectualism, and disregard for the truth are beyond doubt – it’s like some ghastly executioner’s joke. If the message of Expelled weren’t being taken seriously by a religio-political movement that has already caused two presidential elections to end in disaster, it would be merely obnoxious. Instead, it’s chilling.

Can he sink any lower? Never underestimate the depths of degradation a Ben Stein might sound. My money’s on Ben Stein to be the first human being to reach the Earth’s core. 

About these ads

16 Responses to Hypocrisy all the way to 11

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    At least one of my posts has disappeared. At least two others never showed up that I could see.

    Gilson complained because I used the phrase “bovine excrement” to describe his claims. This is what makes me, to him, “unreasonable.” There has been zero substantive response from him, other than to complement the Christian Identity posts claiming to quote Hitler citing Darwin.

    So, it’s okay for Gilson to profanely accuse Darwin of all nature of evil. It’s fine for Gilson to claim that evolution leads children to grow up to want to gas and bake humans, which must be some sort of functional definition of profanity.

    But if one points out that such charges are completely bogus, digested grass passed through the gut of an Angus bull . . .

    I think murder and lying are problems. Gilson tossed decorum out the window when he decided to falsely link science and murder. I think he knows it, which is why he’s now sending stalking horses here to try to defend him, like character witnesses to the sentencing hearing.

    Hey, I haven’t even laid out the evidence yet. Character witnesses may want to rethink.

    See the updated post, with the link to the guy who notes Ben Stein walks on the graves of the Holocaust victims. I’m much more of that persuasion at the moment. Supporters of Ben Stein should not expect to be able to use the Nuremburg defense or any corollary of it.

    Like

  2. Tony Hoffman says:

    Actually, one addendum to my defense of Tom: I thought you had been temporarily banned there. If you are in fact still banned I would offer no defense of Tom’s general fairness.

    Disagreeing with someone is one thing; silencing their voices on topics you are portraying as open to discussion is wrong, and I have no defense of Tom if that is the case.

    Like

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    Tom runs a generally civil forum. He has said some nasty things about scientists, about science, and historically inaccurate things about the origins of World War II and the Holocaust. It doesn’t matter how nice he is when he persists in bearing false witness.

    I’m sure he generally sets a good example. That does not give him the privilege to mislead people about science and morality. I’m sure Tom thinks he’s just following orders — probably from on high. That’s not a good excuse anymore.

    It doesn’t matter that Tom Gilson is generally a nice guy when he spreads scurrilous disinformation about history and science. What he is doing is wrong, Charlie. Go tell him. He won’t discuss it, and if you lay it out for him, he’ll probably ban you, too.

    Like

  4. Charlie says:

    You are wrong, and willfully so, about Tom Gilson.
    Tom’s always run a fair and civil forum and exercised great patience with those willing to dialogue.
    He sets a great example that I try to live up to and unfortunately often fail. I’ve commented on this very aspect many times over.
    You should set your standards so high.

    Like

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Tony, Tom has maligned me personally, taken faux offense while offering some of the most fantastic and derogatory claims himself. It’s nice to know he’s got friends on both sides willing to stand up for him — but as you acknowledge, his ideas won’t.

    All I said was the claims Tom makes are bovine excrement, as they are. Rather than defend his position, he has banned me from his site, maligned me here and at his site, and now recruited some of his semi-homeys to stand up for him.

    Truth wins in a fair fight, Ben Franklin used to say. I say, let’s keep the fight fair. (That’s why we have evidence rules in federal courts, and why creationists almost always lose so badly there. No, let me rephrase that: That’s why creationists always lose so badly there.)

    I’m sure Tom doesn’t personally bite the heads off of chicks. No matter how nice a guy he is, his claims are scurrilous and wrong. He won’t defend them.

    That says a lot.

    Like

  6. Tony Hoffman says:

    Ed,

    I’m a more recent visitor to Tom’s site, having been led there through my discovery and personal outrage over the controversy surrounding the release of the movie Expelled. (Not a supporter of the movie, to say the least.) Tom recently e-mailed a small number of us to ask us if we’d support him in the disagreement between the two of you, and I have obliged.

    Here’s my take: Tom does struggle to be fair. He is certainly partisan, and of course deeply, deeply misguided (kidding, Tom) but on some occasions he has has apologized and agreed with criticism. This is, sadly, refreshing in my encounters with those with whom I disagree on this subject.

    There are lots of idiots on the wrong side of the ID debate. Tom is not one of them. Personally, I am less concerned about proving myself right in this debate than I am in understanding how and why the opposite side feels the way they do. Tom and his site are, from my research, the best way to learn and appreciate what the opposition holds to be true. I am not giving him a voucher for fairness and truth, but I do think he struggles to be honorable.

    I agree with the things your site holds to be true. I support your efforts. But I think that failing to engage Tom and all of his beliefs and concerns does our side no good, so we have to remain attentive and try, even though we know we’ll fail, to persuade one another. For me, at least, it’s the only correct and honorable thing to do.

    Like

  7. Tony Hoffman says:

    Ed,

    I’m a more recent visitor to Tom’s site, having been led there through my discovery and personal outrage over the controversy surrounding the release of the movie Expelled. (Not a supporter of the movie, to say the least.) Tom recently e-mailed a small number of us to ask us if we’d support him in the disagreement between the two of you, and I have obliged.

    Here’s my take: Tom does struggle to be fair. He is certainly partisan, and of course deeply, deeply misguided (kidding, Tom) but on some occasions he has has apologized and agreed with criticism. This is, sadly, refreshing in my encounters with those with whom I disagree on this subject.

    There are lots of idiots on the wrong side of the ID debate. Tom is not one of them. Personally, I am less concerned about proving myself right in this debate than I am in understanding how and why the opposite side feels the way they do. Tom and his site are, from my research, the best way to learn and appreciate what the opposition holds to be true. I am not giving him a voucher for fairness and truth, but I do think he struggles to be honorable.

    I agree with the things your site holds to be true. I support your efforts. But I think that failing to engage Tom and all of his beliefs and concerns does our side no good, so we have to remain attentive and try, even though we know we’ll fail, to persuade one another. For me, at least, it’s the only correct and honorable thing to do.

    Like

  8. Ed Darrell says:

    I was reasonable. I even used a soft euphemism for the profanity that would have fit. Tom complained about the euphemism.

    If he wanted to discuss and keep it civil, he could have started out civilly instead of shoveling manure. (“Don’t complain,” Mrs. Truman said. “It took me more than 25 years to get him to say ‘manure!’”)

    Like

  9. Jordan says:

    Tom’s blog is remarkably tolerant of dissent, in my opinion, especially compared to some of the other religious blogs I’ve come across. I’ve disagreed with him numerous times, and not once has he threatened to ban me. You just have to be reasonably respectful (it is, after all, his blog).

    Like

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    Oh, I’ve found the rules over there to be generally reasonable, too — except on this issue, where Tom is so outrageously out on a limb. It’s a mystery to me.

    These guys are particularly sensitive in areas where they don’t know what they’re doing. There’s another guy in Houston who banned me. He suggested Darwin was also behind Stalin — I pointed out Stalin assumed what was rather the creationist position, persecuting Darwinians, and the guy went all Stalin on me.

    I’ve learned I’m just that sort of lightning rod.

    Still doesn’t make Tom right.

    Like

  11. Ed,

    I have fought with Tom at TC for years, and found the rules of engagement there to be relatively reasonable. As home field advantage goes, it’s pretty mild. (I’m sure you’ve witnessed the total disgrace over at Uncommon Descent and Telic Thoughts.)

    So, I will stick up for Tom’s rules, even though I agree with you on most of the issues under discussion here. (Christians in Europe found plenty of reasons to slaughter Jews before Darwin and Hitler showed up. Hitler’s followers were obviously influenced far more by Christianity than by evolutionary biology. And, ironically, Expelled advocates precisely the kind of anti-intellectualism that the Nazi’s leveraged.)

    Like

  12. Ed Darrell says:

    I wouldn’t mind an intellectual debate, David. I mind the mind-numbing, colossal insults rendered at scientists, anyone who studies science, and Darwin, and then the faux sensitivity when anyone questions. I mind the phony intellectualizing over claims that PETA is just like Hitler, when such a claim is absurd on its face (PETA argues for more rights for animals; Tom and the crew over there say that makes PETA “ontologically” Hitlerian; both “PETA” and “Hitler” have an E and a T in them, too — that’s not enough to establish a relationship for reasoning folk).

    Tom Gilson makes scurrilous charges. He doesn’t like it when they are typified that way, but he won’t (I suspect can’t) defend them any other way. You may call it a gentleman’s discussion; it’s false claims badly disguised as intellectualism.

    I’m no philosopher. The word “ontological” doesn’t carry a lot of meaning to me, especially as fuzzed up in most internet discussions. That makes no case against Darwin, nor does it excuse gross distortions of history and science that are being defended by Gilson. No discussion of the ontology of an argument excuses the errors of science and history.

    And — irony is really rich — they’re carrying on the discussion in order to dehumanize Darwin and “evolutionists,” to justify the calumny.

    For crying out loud, David. Someone who bills his blog as “Thinking Christian” should try to think, and try to follow Christ.

    And then I stumble on to Gilson’s piece where he discusses his struggle with evolutionists! Had Tom written that unconsciously, it would have been humorous and quickly dismissed. My noting it hit just too close to home, I suspect.

    Darwin was a good man, a model Christian. He was a great father, a loving husband. He tithed, raised his children as Christians (though thinkers — that galls a lot of people), and he was active in parish affairs to his death. Darwin railed against racism, slavery, and wrote strongly against genocide in his life. He defended Christian morality as essential to the survival of our species.

    You don’t get that idea from the movie, nor from Tom’s blog. Tom doesn’t bother to correct anyone on the errors, either.

    Nothing in evolution supports murder. Only a gross misunderstanding of either murder or evolution could support the confusing of the two that is defended in the mockumentary “Expelled!” And that is what Tom sets out to defend.

    I cringe to think such crassness could be called “intellectual.” I think someone either misunderstands or misuses the word “intellectual.”

    Like

  13. heddle says:

    For crying out loud Ed, Tom’s blog has never been a Panda’s Thumb or a Pharyngula free-for-all where people can drop tiny (or even large) turds in the comments with impunity. Nor is it an Uncommon Descent that doesn’t tolerate common dissent. It has always been an intellectual-debate-like blog, and Tom has always allowed extreme disagreements with his views, provided you followed his Marquis of Queensberry rules. And he has applied the same rules of etiquette to those who agree with him as well. I tend to be a bit earthy and snarky, but I know that Tom’s blog calls for a higher (compared to the cesspools like Pharyngula) standard. But it is a fairly and uniformly applied standard. Comparing his post to Mein Kampf and calling it frightening, with no scholarship to support your claim, is exactly the kind of mindless, unintellectual, content-free, vitriolic comment that he has always said he would not permit. Your Dembski-esque cries of persecution are rendered implausible by the many comments on Tom’s blog that argue passionately but civilly against his positions.

    Like

  14. Tom Gilson says:

    Tom, if you come here, you’ll find someone who is willing to discuss with you your errors and why you should repent. Bet you won’t. Bet you can’t.

    I won’t do it under these conditions of distortion and character assassination. It’s not a matter of “can’t,” because I’m actually discussing these alleged errors in an ongoing way with several others. The difference is in the quality of the discussion they are carrying on.

    Like

  15. Tom Gilson says:

    I should have copied this in to that last comment as well, because in light of the above, it’s just ludicrous:

    Censorship, refusing to discuss with critics, are just tools Gilson has to use in his struggle against evolution.

    Like

  16. Tom Gilson says:

    Only Tom Gilson can make wholly unsubstantiated claims in error against great men — no one else is allowed to question the Man Behind the Curtain.

    Ed. Look. Everybody look. The discussion there is continuing to rage. Tony Hoffman, disagrees with me vehemently. He hasn’t been banned. Steven Carr disagrees very strongly. He hasn’t been banned. doctor(logic) has disagreed with almost everything I’ve written for years. He hasn’t been banned. Same for Paul. He hasn’t been banned. Jordan disagrees, and has repeatedly over many months. He hasn’t been banned. TTT disagrees. He hasn’t been banned. John Stockwell disagreed. He hasn’t been banned. Craig Chilton disagreed. He hasn’t been banned.

    You are misrepresenting the situation again. It was not your disagreeing with me that got you banned. It was not any attempt on my part to limit discussion or disagreement that got you banned. It was just this sort of distorting of reality, and falsely impugning my character, that got you banned.

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,155 other followers

%d bloggers like this: