Replies

Go to DC (either the city or the website) if you want to argue cultural trends and not have to tolerate dispute.

I've been to DC — the website. That is, before it was closed to non-members. I actually went there several times, even daily, over the course of many weeks. And not once did I ever notice any discussion of science going on there. Not once! Rather, it seemed the site was exclusively dedicated to heaping scorn on people who did not subscribe to the "whole cloth" of orthodox Darwinian dogma.

In short, the main method in evidence there was the ad hominum attack. Certain things said about myself and my dearest sister in Christ Alamo-Girl were scandalous, and I will not repeat them here. (Evidently they didn't like our book.)

I concluded that Darwin Central is nothing more than a "social club" for like-minded co-religionists (to crib from a saying of Eric Voegelin). I'll only add that the use of ad hominum attack is a diversionary tactic designed to conceal the paucity of actual understanding of the issues in dispute, or of any good-faith willingness to engage them at all.

Thanks for your "spot-on" insights, dear YHAOS, and your kind words of support!

Certain things said about myself and my dearest sister in Christ Alamo-Girl were scandalous, and I will not repeat them here. (Evidently they didn't like our book.)

I too used to pursue DC on occasion and scandalous is not a strong enough word to describe some of the things they said about you two and other creationists.

And I too noticed very little discussion on scientific topics. Mostly it was a FR creationist bashing site.

“. . . not once did I ever notice any discussion of science going on there. (Darwin Central) Not once!”

Which simply confirms what we all know to be true. Politics is the endgame of DC, not Science.

“ . . . the main method in evidence there was the ad hominum attack. Certain things said about myself and my dearest sister in Christ Alamo-Girl were scandalous, and I will not repeat them here.”

All in lowest tradition of political calumny. Entirely in keeping the low form of huckstering we’ve come to expect from DC (again, both the website and the city)

“. . . the use of ad hominum attack is a diversionary tactic designed to conceal the paucity of actual understanding of the issues in dispute, or of any good-faith willingness to engage them at all.”

I don’t know that it’s paucity, or if it’s the knowledge the issues you mention cannot be adequately addressed with the limited resources DC brings to the table. I don’t know that it matters. Either way, it is a confession of intellectual poverty.

Thanks for writing. Always enlightening.