Darwin Sucks and So Do I

atheism, atheist, darwin, evolution, evangelical, religion, charity, communism,
(Though that's really a personal choice on my part.)

Some guy from the Colorado Springs Gazette clearly does not understand the Theory of Evolution, the works of Charles Darwin or atheism. That does not prevent him from writing on these subjects.

Happy birthday, Charles Darwin. His theory of natural selection celebrates the virtues of capitalism, competition, risk, strength, victory and defeat.

Is it really too much to ask that people who criticize the Theory of Evolution actually at least find out what it is before criticizing it. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with capitalism. (Unless birds in the Galapogos were engaging in free market activities.) It also has nothing to do with competition, risk, strength, victory and defeat.

May he rest in peace this day, despite the abuse of his great legacy by an angry movement known as the "New Atheism." We're angry! Angry Alliterative Atheists! With jackboots!

Despite Darwin's profound tolerance for religion huh?, one group of anti-religionsists mispelled and "atheists" works so much better. we're not antireligion, we'd just like you to stop abusing science and rational thought in your pursuit of heaven. has bought billboard space for a message that exploits him. you mean like the prolifers that created an ad exploiting Obama (a living person who also happens to be the present POTUS)? that's terrible! The signs say: "Praise Darwin. EVOLVE BEYOND BELIEF." It's okay to use taxpayer (atheists, hindus, pagans, buddhists, muslims) money to erect monuments to the Ten Commandments or to put up religious Christmas displays, but for atheists to use their own money to buy billboards is just beyond belief. Get over yourself.

The group, called the Freedom From Religion Foundation, rides a wave of atheistic evangelism that is to science what closed-minded fundamentalism is to religion. creationism is not science. sorry. it's not. it's not open-mindedness to accept any ridiculous idea as being equal to science.

Highlighting their publicity stunts serves to strengthen the positive role of religion in a free society. yes, acting like an intolerant asshole is always positive.

Darwin wouldn't have excelled in a world without religion. All of his formal education was provided by institutions of the Church of England, including Oxford and Christ's College. oh, puh-lease. christians founded oxford, therefore science is religion?

Darwin's wife, Emma, was deeply religious and the two enjoyed intelligent discussions about the origins of all which exists. Darwin's best friend was the Rev. Brodie Innes, who became a supportive asset in the scientist's never-ending quest for answers. so darwin had religious friends. darwin himself could have been the most religious man alive, and that wouldn't change evolution or atheism. red herring fail.

I will now remove about 10 more paragraphs of red herring. Feel free to read them if you have nothing better to do.

Today, a growing number of scientists express concern about zealous atheistic evangelism diminishing the stature of science. Matt Nisbet, author of "Framing Science," in case you don't feel like following the link, Nisbet is not a scientist, he is a professor in the School of Communication at America University. argues that New Atheism fails because it alienates the people it seeks to convert. that's stupid. atheism isn't interested in converting people, and even if it were, that would make the evangelism a failure, not the atheism itself. Michael Schermer, in a column for Scientific American, wrote: "Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: ‘An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack.'" interesting quote mine there. basically, Schermer believes that atheism should redefine itself by what it is for, rather than what it is not. he does not state that atheism itself fails. also, I love the random communism moment. atheists=communists=murderers. thanks.

Case in point: Those "Imagine No Religion" signs, which caused people to imagine a dearth of hospitals, soup kitchens, universities and homeless shelters. seriously? that's what you think of when you think of no religion? there are no secular hospitals, no secular universities, no secular charities at all? reality fail.

This is so utterly silly that all I can say is, if you can't think of anything to say that could be supported by, I dunno, reality, don't say anything at all.