You fanatical darwinites want to shut off debate and teach children your crazy myth is dogma. And anyone who questions is automatically a 'creationist'. Well, I do believe that this universe was created. And I don't believe it built up without Intelligent Design.
And, one more thing, I don't care whether you're happy about my doubts. So lump it!
Well gosh, how could anyone fail to be persuaded by your reasoned argument full of supporting evidence...
And hey, are you ever going to retract your false slanders against Daniel Dennett? You know, the way that you accused him of being a Nazi-like fanatic who wanted to put Christians into concentration camps, when in actual fact he was saying that dangerous beliefs like radical Islam may need to be contained, disarmed, and/or re-educated...
Then when we confronted you with the full text of what Dennett had actually written (as opposed to the badly butchered "not really quotes" you used to slander him), you failed to exhibit any shame whatsoever, and instead simply posted *brand new* butchered "quotes" which dishonestly put more statements into his mouth that he never actually said in the way you wanted to imply.
You falsified this new "quote":
"If you insist on teaching your children that Man is not the product of evolution...Zoos are now seen as havens for endangered species [like you church people]" Daniel Dennett, page 519, 1995Let's look at the passage IN FULL, to see what you DISHONESTLY snipped out in order to change the meaning, shall we? Here it is with the parts you CUT OUT in black, your TINY SNIPPETS which you sewed together to dishonestly create a false impression will be highlighted in red:
"If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods--that the Earth is flat, that Man is not a product of evolution by natural selection--then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity. Our future well-being--the well-being of all of us on the planet--depends on the education of our descendants.Anyone with working reading comprehension can see that with his "zoo" analogy, Dennett was talking about using *discussion* in response to incorrect teachings, and about PRESERVING FADING CULTURAL TRADITIONS, so that they will not be lost. He's not talking about putting "church people" in cages, as metacognative DISHONESTLY tries to slander Dennett as saying by posting a BUTCHERED "quote". Dennett's actual meaning is made even more clear in a following paragraph:What then of all the glories of our religious traditions? They should certainly be preserved, as should the languages, the art, the costumes, the rituals, the monuments. Zoos are now more and more being seen as second-class havens for endangered species, but at least they are havens, and what they preserve is irreplaceable. The same is true of complex memes and their phenotypic expressions."
"A human life worth living is not something that can be uncontroversially measured, and that is its glory. And there's the rub. What will happen, one may well wonder, if religion is preserved in cultural zoos, in libraries, in concerts and demonstrations? It is happening; the tourists flock to watch the Native American tribal dances, and for the onlookers, it is folklore, a religious ceremony to be sure, to be treated with respect, but also an example of a meme-complex on the verge of extinction, at least in its strong, ambulatory phase; it has become an invalid, barely kept alive by its custodians."Now compare what Dennett *actually* wrote to metacognative's WILDLY DISHONEST attempted "(mis)quote":
"If you insist on teaching your children that Man is not the product of evolution...Zoos are now seen as havens for endangered species [like you church people]"Nowhere -- NOWHERE -- does Dennett ever advocate putting "church people" in "zoos" of any sort. The phrase "church people" doesn't even appear anywhere in the whole book -- metacognative just made that up. So why are you lying, metacognative? Is it okay to lie about him because he's an evolutionary biologist, and you're a creationist?
Here's the second "not-really-a-quote" metacognative posted in order to divert attention from his original massive lie used as slander after it was exposed:
"If you want to teach your children...God. We will stand firmly opposed to you."Again, it's easy to spot just how incredibly, disgustingly dishonest this is by just comparing it to the original passage it butchers:
"We preach freedom of religion, but only so far. If your religion advocates slavery, or mutilation of women, or infanticide, or puts a price on Salman Rushdie's head because he has insulted it, then your religion has a feature that cannot be respected. It endangers us all.In context, it's clear that Dennett was talking about opposing DANGEROUS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS LIKE RADICAL ISLAM. He even specifically mentions Islam in a footnote referenced in this passage. Now compare the above passage, which accords well with sentiments expressed countless times on FreeRepublic threads, with metacognative's DISHONESTLY BUTCHERED and slanderous (mis)quote:It is nice to have grizzly bears and wolves living in the wild. They are no longer a menace; we can peacefully coexist, with a little wisdom. The same policy can be discerned in our political tolerance, in religious freedom. You are free to preserve or create any religious creed you wish, so long as it does not become a public menace. We're all on the Earth together, and we have to learn some accommodation. [...] Child abuse is beyond the pale. Discrimination is beyond the pale. The pronouncing of death sentences on those who blaspheme against a religion (complete with bounties or rewards for those who carry them out) is beyond the pale. It is not civilized, and it is owed no more respect in the name of religious freedom than any other incitement to cold-blooded murder. [...] If you want to teach your children that they are the tools of God, you had better not teach them that they are God's rifles, or we will have to stand firmly opposed to you: your doctrine has no glory, no special rights, no intrinsic and inalienable merit.
"If you want to teach your children...God. We will stand firmly opposed to you."
Metacognative, your vicious dishonesty disgusts me.
Is this sort of "lying for the cause" of creationism considered okay, especially when it falsely slanders an evolutionary biologist? Because it sure is common behavior from folks on your side of the fence.