Ooooh, I guess I push the buttons on these guys.
I’ve been banned from two more blogs run by smiling Christo-totalitarians, Dr. Doug Groothuis in Denver (second or third banning, I can’t recall), and another pontificator of Christography, Paul Adams in Arizona.
My sin? I dared call their hand as they post false bloviations from the Discovery Institute’s Stephen C. Meyer in Meyer’s national anti-science campaign. Adams claims I violated his guidelines. Since I was polite, but sharp, I assume that they regard any dissent as “ad hominem” or discourteous.
And, since they banned me, they wiped out my posts. No need to answer the difficult questions if they can just pretend the questions don’t exist.
They especially do not like my noting creationism and intelligent design as voodoo science, and the bizarre accounts creationists tell of the origins of evolution theory as voodoo history. Truth hurts too much, I guess.
Creationism might be on its last legs, when otherwise Christian people are driven to totalitarian actions like this, baby camel nose that it is. Christianity generally flourishes when it’s oppressed. When Christianity is the basis of oppression, however, the faith falters. There is a darker possibility: It may be Christianity that totters with creationism gnawing at the legs and tunneling through clay feet of the Christian monolith.
You may have seen with the kerfuffle with the Kommissar of Houston, Neil Simpson, I don’t censor these Christ-claiming yahoos even when they get patently offensive. One, their inability to muster rational arguments to defend their unholy War on Science always exposes them. And two, there is always some hope that they might see the light, open their eyes and take their fingers out of their ears — at least there is hope on my part.
Both Groothuis and Adams are otherwise edified philosophers (which only makes their actions more amusing). What is it about philosophers that makes them try to philosophize away the world they do not like?
On principle I am open to Groothuis or Adams trying to defend their assault on science in comments here, if they can. This is an invitation to them to discuss their claims. I ask them to keep it clean and polite. Since there is no rational or factual basis to their claims of intelligent design, they will have little to say. Nor will they bother, I predict. Creationism, including intelligent design, can only function in a fawning, unquestioning atmosphere filled with ignorance of science.
If you want some good clean fun and you can stand a little aggravation when they get all huffy about it, Dear Readers, stroll over to Groothuis’s inaptly named Constructive Curmudgeon or Adams’s In Christus, and post the facts of science that Stephen Meyer wishes to ignore. Be aware, they are likely to censor comments and ban commenters who assault them with science. Even Christians with Ph.D.s fall victim to Ray Mummert’s disease.
These are two men who should know better. These are two men whose faith claims should prevent them from supporting voodoo science, junk science, and the War on Education.
Vampires of fiction and cockroaches of reality are negatively phototropic. They avoid light generally, they cannot stand sunlight, the light of day. Oddly, creationists share that trait.
Update: Adams, whose philosophy appears to include neither manners nor good science, will not do me the courtesy of saying why he banned me despite two e-mails, but he will respond at his blog when a fellow totalitarian writes in, leaving off any evidence of what he claims is true. Adams said today:
I spent some time crafting my guidelines and intend on holding to them, expecting everyone to do same.
They’re not optional. Perhaps I should change to “Rules.”
In my estimation, Mr. Darnell committed the ad hominem fallacy violating guideline #2 when speaking to Doug’s inability to respond, rather than addressing the content/substance of Dr. Meyer’s presentation.
How convenient that is. Adams can claim that I posted nothing of substance against Meyers’ unscientific diatribe, and then Adams doesn’t have to answer. As best I can figure it, when I note Meyer’s errors, Adams regards that as “ad hominem.” If Adams were consistent, he’d take down Meyer’s piece. Meyer cannot talk without ad hominem, especially since he has no science to back his claims. Don’t take my word for it. Go look at Adams’ blog — warning, he’s unlikely to leave your post up if you point out any of Stephen Meyer’s many errors, or rudenesses, or ad hominem claims — and see for yourself. If you think for a moment or two that Meyer starts making sense, keep that thought and go look at a serious review of his claims by professionals, here. Adams can’t tell you why he completely disregards Dr. Gotelli, nor will he explain why a link to Gotelli’s critique of Meyer is unacceptable on his blog. There is no good reason other than Adams’ bigotry against science. Gotelli, of course, is a practicing scientist in the field in which Meyer polemicizes about.