Evolutionary Thinking Yields Burning Hatred

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

People who pay attention to the origins debate are likely to have noticed that Darwinism advocates, especially on the web, are exceptionally passionate. Many of these folks really get on the prod if someone dares to write, speak, or even whisper words of doubt about evolution. This is hypocritical, as the same people often claim that they want "tolerance" and "discourse", but have no tolerance of those who reject any or all of materialistic evolution; so-called "freethinkers" often oppose people who think in a manner for which they disapprove.

The natural result of evolutionary thinking is for Darwin supporters to indulge in all sorts of attacks in their burning hatred
Credit: Freeimages / hamidreza ahmadi
For that matter, Charles Darwin said in Origin, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done". However, he apparently did not have any intention of discourse with people who doubted his conjectures. Instead, it was apparently meant for fellow believers to make adjustments. That makes sense, since his friends formed the X Club (no, not the thing with Charles Xavier). This was allegedly a group of friends, but they had an agenda for evolutionism.

Elsewhere in the same book, he said, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree". Creationists are fond of that quote, where he admits that his idea is fragile. However, Darwin later on commences to say that he'll believe it anyway. His followers do the same, choosing evolution despite its multitudinous flaws. As some atheists have said, the alternative (special creation) is unthinkable to them.

If you dare to venture into the comments area of unmoderated YouTube channels refuting evolution and affirming creation, you will see that nullifidians and evolutionists set the barn ablaze with furious attacks. Twitter is not much better, and I had to block some attackers because they recruited so many to join in, I could not tell if I was a part of something or just a "reply to all" thing. Also, many evolutionists vociferously oppugn biblical creationists on weblog comment areas and from the shelter of forums.

The first line of attack is often through ridicule. This often takes the form of name-calling (which I consider a form of labeling, which is used in an effort to control the speech of others). The article featured below has a section on name-calling. The kind use by evolutionists when railing against those who doubt Darwin are not only labels, but generalizations (pigeon-holing), and abusive. 

Sometimes I use name-calling, especially in a Western or Southern US vernacular. An owlhoot refers to an outlaw, therefore, he or she has left the straight-and-narrow for ungodly pursuits. Also, a sidewinder is a kind of rattlesnake that is both stealthy and venomous. A tinhorn is someone who considers himself important and wants to impress others. There are others, but you get the idea. 

I also use some terms to be provocative and with the hope that I can spark thinking in some people.

Regular readers may have noticed that I have posted screenshots where I have blurred the strong profanities. I'll allow that it gets mighty difficult to avoid responding just like those who have no consistent moral standard, which would dishonor the Lord. Christians have no business doing that, and need to repent of those as well as other forms of abuse. 

Here is one example from a stalker who hates biblical creationists in general (click for larger):

Not only do we receive abusive ad homimem attacks from Darwin supporters, but bifurcation, arbitrary assertions, more labeling, shaming, misrepresentation, and more. 

Earlier, I said that I had to to block people on Twitter because of the confusion about "conversations". Atheists and evolutionists like to recruit others to join in their piranha attacks on Darwin doubters. 

While composing this article, an old earth advocate showed his hatred of Dr. Jason Lisle. Many fallacies and bigotry while he calls Dr. Lisle a liar and asserts his own superiority. Later, he refused to write to Dr. Lisle and show him why he is "wrong". So far, he has not tried recruiting....nope, after I told him that I was using one of his Tweets, he blocked me. As before, click for larger:

Once again, before this article "went to press", another angry atheist sought me out, not bothering to read anything he attacked (again, click for larger):

Here is another example from an atheist who has to contradict and ridicule almost everything that Eric Hovind says (yet again, click for larger):

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
The "Top Fan" badge is a setting on Fazebook given to those who frequently comment
Darwin's acolytes (yep, name-calling, in a way) do not exhibit knowledge of what Christians, biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents actually believe and teach. If you put on your duster, chaps, jacket, and boots for protection from the spines and go a-hiking in where they leave their comments, you'll see that they don't have much use for actually reading the material they attack. Nor do they care about the people, either. Ever see an atheist say, "Stop that, it's uncool and not logical"? I think I saw one, once.

I've noticed that many like to play to their base. There are some YouTube heroes among atheists and evolutionists who fight for their faith, but they, too, play to their base. They sneer, engage in abuse, change definitions of words, and misrepresent Darwin doubters. 

Atheists and evolutionists on the web cheer for them. Most of the internet Darwinists seem to be ignored by thinking people. What really takes the rag off the bush is when creationists have to correct these folks on what they claim to understand about science, evolution, and logic! Note that their demonization of Darwin deniers actually advances evolutionary arguments in the slightest.

There are evolutionists who want to go about their day-to-day business, including those who work in the secular science industry. I believe that many of them promote evolution because they do not realize that their belief system is fraught with bad logic, and that there is strong evidence that not only refutes Darwin, but supports special creation. That is one reason why Question Evolution Day is important. I suspicion that those people are bewildered by all the passion displayed by their advocates online.

Why do you suppose there is so much hatred and anger toward those who doubt Darwin, and especially toward people who present information that they dislike? "Free speech" goes out yonder window, and inflammatory evolutionists try to silence the opposition, even if it is simply through defamation and shouting us down (so to speak). I maintain that there are a couple of reasons for this. One is that they simply cannot compete with those of us who reject evolution on scientific, logical, and philosophical grounds. More importantly, God told us about them. Romans 1:18-22 tells us that they know he exists, but they suppress the truth. Their consciences are pricked, so they try even harder to deny the truth of God's Word, beginning from Genesis 1:1. Evolution is a foundation for materialism, and they are at tantivy in their rebellion against God. In short, the problem is sin.
How to start a mud volcano: say something that hints at some disagreement with Darwinian evolution.

There’s a puzzling sociological phenomenon going on in the world today. These are supposed to be days of tolerance. If you dare to say something derogatory about any politically-correct protected class, you can be hounded out of your job and lose your reputation, even if you said it decades ago. . . .

There is one group that remains unprotected from the most blatant hate speech found anywhere. That group is Darwin doubters, or Darwin skeptics. It includes creationists and advocates of intelligent design (ID), but is broad enough to include anyone who is not 100% convinced that Darwinian evolution is absolute fact. Darwin skeptics are not necessarily theists or members of any creation group or advocates of intelligent design. If they voice any disagreement with pure materialistic evolution, here is the kind of treatment they can expect.
I'd be much obliged if you'd read the entire article. To do that, click on "Darwinism Breeds Bigotry, Arrogance, and Hate".