[Junior]

It's the old "argument from consequences." It doesn't matter whether or not evolution is true, it must be suppressed "for the good of the children."

[longshadow]

Strawman placemarker!

[PatrickHenry]

From the article:
4. Homosexuality in social animals is a form of sibling-altruism: that is, your homosexuality is a way of helping your brothers and sisters to raise more children.

This is actually one of the author's 10 items which he claims that "Darwinists" believe. I have never encountered anyone on the evolution side of this debate who believes such a nonsensical proposition -- or who has even considered it. This may be the most grotesque example of setting up a strawman I've ever seen. I think the author is delusional. (But then, he's a creationist, so what else would we expect?)

[Dataman]

It doesn't matter whether or not evolution is true, it must be suppressed "for the good of the children."

And so far it is the best argument the evos have against creation. But you all have convinced me that your problem is not with creation, but with a Creator, not with the belief, but with the believers, else you would have simply blown us all away with a demonstration of logic and evidence.

[gore3000]

It's the old "argument from consequences."

Seems to me that is the very argument that the evolutionists make. For after all what is 'natural selection' other than an argument from consequences? That is the central argument of evolution. Therefore, so if you want to defend your atheist theory, it seems to me that you need to take his argument seriously instead of dismiss it with rhetorical nonsense.