I have long been of the opinion that if work were such a splendid thing the rich would have kept more of it for themselves.

— Bruce Grocott

Proponents of intelligent design (ID) make a sport of arguing semantics.  With no evidence whatsoever to support their point of view, they are left with only one option: try to punch holes in the opposition’s idea by playing word games.  This approach does not lend itself to solidifying a scientific premise but instead only provides amusement.

And advocates of ID provide significant amusement, most often demonstrated in their feeble attempts to debate the issue on a scientific level.  Lacking any scientific evidence to support ID is the greatest flaw, of course, but the second greatest is an inability to compete in the scientific realm.  That shortcoming forces them instead to argue.  You see, arguing is not debating: it is nothing more than attacking a position with whatever ammunition can be attained easily.  Sadly for ID supporters, this means confuse the issue with gibberish and malarkey.

While I don’t claim to have all the answers, and I certainly don’t claim to know all of the silly nonsense spewed by IDiots, herein I wish to cover some of the more common and laughable aspects of the anti-evolution movement.

Continue reading →

Subversive twits often curse me by posting comments on items long since pushed from the front page.  This ensures, generally, that no one but me sees the comment.  To further my own frustration with it, many of these troglodytes unsubscribe from the comment notification for the post they respond to because they are disinterested in a qualified debate, wishing instead to lob their holy hand grenade into the opposing team’s midst while running in the opposite direction.  They are so unsure of their position because they know it cannot withstand scrutiny or debate, so they flee like the spineless chickens they are, ranting their diatribe and furthering their own personal hate-filled agenda in the middle of a frightened retreat.

This very thing happened recently on this post in which I discussed Texas’ attempt to write into law a ban on homosexual foster parents.  The first commenter on the post voiced support for this action via empty and meaningless gibberish that is contrary to the facts and based solely on blatant homophobia.  I responded to that comment with a flurry of statistics and study information that indicates equality between heterosexual and homosexual parenting.  I suspect the anonymous git never returned, and I sincerely didn’t care.

All of this occurred in April and May of 2005.  The post eventually was relegated to the archives of the site and long forgotten.  Through some benign search results, yet another fundamentalist reached that post and left a new comment just a few short days ago.  The response was yet another misinformed, bigoted synaptic malfunction.  Because the person intentionally unsubscribed from notifications following his comment, I can only assume that, like the others I referred to earlier, he’s unable to justify or defend his position and could not tolerate any rebuttal without falling flat on his face.

I considered ignoring it and letting it sit idly in the site’s archives.  Instead, upon deeper reflection I understood that the comment would be indexed along with the rest of the site and could serve to draw others to that same post.  Therefore, the comment could not go unanswered.

I’ve responded to the comment already, but I wanted to draw your attention to it if you’re interested in what has been thus far a one-sided debate.  Sure, the opposing team keeps tossing me scraps to work with, but they’ve failed entirely to listen or consider what I’ve already said.  This, too, plays into the “lob and hide” mentality of these folk.  I respect their point of view, although I strongly disagree with it.  What I don’t like is the hit-and-run tactics they use.  It accomplishes nothing to interject a comment with no thought or consideration, but more importantly it demonstrates a lack of open-mindedness when such comments are thrown into the mix by those disinterested in actually debating the subject in question.  These people are not interested in hearing what others think.  They are in no way open to discussing the issue.  Their only interest is in a drive-by response in the hopes of having the last word.

Sorry, you can only have the last word if you’re really going to talk about it and share points of view like civilized people.  What you won’t get is any respect if all you want to do is demonstrate your hate and ignorance to others without taking the time to stand your ground.  All you’ve done is show us that your position is so uncertain that it cannot withstand scrutiny or debate.

On why so many get it wrong…

You pray in your distress and in your need; would that you might pray also in the fullness of your joy and in your days of abundance.

For what is prayer but the expansion of yourself into the living ether?
And if it is for your comfort to pour your darkness into space, it is also for your delight to pour forth the dawning of your heart…

Computers can now keep a man’s every transgression recorded in a permanent memory bank, duplicating with complex programming and intricate wiring a feat his wife handles quite well without fuss or fanfare.

— Lane Olinghouse