Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Its not so odd, when you consider that they have, and do, attack other 
> sciences, on the grounds that it denies the age of the world, according 
> to them, or what they imagine the Bible says about anything. Evolution 
> was supposed to be the "wedge" to break everything else. However, due to 
> how bloody ignorant these people are about *everything*, it ended up 
> being the equivalent of attacking the strongest wall of a castle, using 
> sponges, in the theory that the whole castle will simply fall apart, if 
> you manage to breach it.

  Speaking of which, it also amuses me how so many creationists seem to
think that if they can discredit Charles Darwin's personality, they will
somehow cast doubt on the theory of evolution. They will resort to dirty
tactics such as claiming that Darwin was a racist (which according to his
writings he really wasn't; basically the opposite), his father was a racist
and so on.

  It might not be immediately apparent (at least to a sane person) why they
think this tactic could work. After all, even if Darwin was the most horrible
person in the world, how does that affect the theory or evolution? A
scientific theory is evaluated by its own merits, not by who came up with
it first.

  The explanation seems to be that religious people have this notion that
"revelations" are as good as the "prophets" that deliver them. If the prophet
himself is somehow objectionable, then his message is objectionable too.
Hence if you discredit the prophet, you discredit the message.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message