What harping? All along -- until now anway, when you will finally get some more out of me -- I've only been responding, in ever growing amazement, to one very simple issue: The refusal or reluctance by some here to admit that, yes, Islamists are creationists.
This is VERY odd. You don't find evolutionists here denying that Francis Galton was a eugenicist, or that Ernt Haeckel was a racist, or that scientific racism (as well, btw, as political and religious racism) were rampant in the early decades of the 20th Century, or that Nazis sometimes appealed to evolution (as well as, btw, to religion and creation).
We admit the obvious, accept the facts, and confine our points to what conclusions are validly, or invalidly, drawn from them.
It was argued, in response to the article at the top of the thread, that it is NOT valid to conclude -- as the article effectively does -- that evolutionists in general are suspect, and that evolution in general is bad, because some evolutionists were bad people or held bad ideas.
THIS WAS THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE ISSUE OF ISLAMISTS BEING CREATIONISTS WAS RAISED. Noting the some creationists are Islamists was cited as a similarly INVALID basis for concluding that creationism was bad or creationists were bad.
GET IT. YET?
So what happens? Granted you didn't respond directly to the lead article. But betty boop did. Guess what? She praised the article in #70:
Great article, spirited irish! Thank you so much for posting it!
Irony of ironies. She thought this article of guilt by association, saddling "evolution," and by implication evolutionists generally, with the most spectacular villains and atrocities of the 20th Century, from Nazis to Communists, was just terrific.
But then somebody, -YYZ-, says (in effect), "Wait, this is just as wrong as it would be to claim creationism is bad because Islamists are creationists." And betty boop goes off the deep end twice. First she questions calling Islamists creationists; which, get real, they are. Then she ignores (or more probably is too myopic to notice) the fact that the negative inference regarding creationists was explicitly cited as INvalid; as an example of faulty reasoning.
Then she (and later hosepipe, and later you, and probably several others) get all bent out of shape about creationism (supposedly) being unfairly maligned STILL IGNORING THE MALIGNANT ARTICLE AT THE TOP OF THE THREAD THAT DOES EXACTLY THAT TO EVOLUTION.
I mean this is rich, really rich.
I don’t know why you’re pinging me. I have already made it clear that genuine Muslim’s are by definition creationists. And I have also made it clear that the creationist Muslim’s that I’m familiar with are totally opposed to terrorism, and instead blame the problem of terrorism squarely on Darwinist materialism:
http://www.harunyahya.com/terrorism7.php
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm
Courtesy ping to csense.
It was old school lawyers’ advice: when you make this point, raise your voice, pound your fist on the table, blow spittle, and show yourself angry. Why? It’s your weakest point.