Pat Buchanan Presents Every Creationist Fallacy!

THIS is a double winner. It’s an article by Patrick Joseph “Pat” Buchanan, conservative columnist and three times a candidate for the US presidency. His article appears in WorldNetDaily, which we have previously described as “one of the worst practitioners of journalism that ever existed, or that ever could exist.” We’ve presented our opinion about them here: WorldNetDaily — Worthless Creationist Rag! They are also a winner of our coveted Buffoon Award.

Brace yourself, dear reader, as we give you some excerpts from Buchanan’s WND article: Making a monkey out of Darwin.

He begins by praising what he calls “a splendid little book” by Eugene G. Windchy: “The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold.” Here’s an Amazon listing. Sales Rank: #4,726.

With Windchy as his intellectual guide, Buchanan proceeds to tell us all about the evils of Darwin and his theory. The bold font was added by us:

That Darwinism has proven “disastrous theory” is indisputable.

“Karl Marx loved Darwinism,” writes Windchy. “To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution.”

“Darwin suits my purpose,” Marx wrote.

Darwin suited Adolf Hitler’s purposes, too.

We’ve devoted several essays so such fallacies, starting here, so we’ll waste no time repeating ourselves refuting Buchanan’s (and Windchy’s) nonsense. Let’s read on:

Historian Jacques Barzun believes Darwinism brought on World War I: “Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens – all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate.”

All that because of those Galapagos finches! We continue:

And here Windchy does his best demolition work. Darwin, he demonstrates, stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent him a “completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection.”

Yeah, Darwin was a thief! Somehow Buchanan fails to mention that Darwin assassinated Lincoln, kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, and was in league with the Zionists. Maybe he’s saving those for his next article. Here’s more:

Windchy goes on to relate such scientific hoaxes as “Nebraska Man” – an anthropoid ape ancestor to man, whose tooth turned out to belong to a wild pig – and Piltdown Man, the missing link between monkey and man.

We know all about those, Pat. We’ve discussed Nebraska Man here, and Piltdown Man here. They’re meaningless. Moving along:

For 150 years, the fossil record has failed to validate Darwin.

Yeah, right. Another excerpt:

And Darwinists still have not explained the origin of life, nor have they been able to produce life from non-life.

True, and that has nothing to do with evolution. But tell us, Pat, when the trick is eventually accomplished, whatcha gonna do? Well, never mind. Here’s Buchanan’s final sentence:

Darwinism is not science. It is faith. Always was.

What’s Buchanan’s point here — that faith is bad? Okay, Pat, if you say so. Nice article!

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

19 responses to “Pat Buchanan Presents Every Creationist Fallacy!

  1. And Darwinists still have not explained the origin of life, ….

    … just as Hydrologists have not explained the origin of water.

  2. Typical of all Darwinists, you seek to attack the individual who opposes the hoax. This is because you don’t have science and fact on your side and it is all you are left with. Darwinianism is nothing but a dogma to deny your true creator. It does not stand up to scientific scrutiny and it is why all but the educational community has given up on the hoax. The scientific community, though not giving credit to God for their existence, is giving up their belief in the hoax. Hence, you have the great need by these people to find life somewhere else in the universe because evolution isn’t working.

  3. It’s always a wonderment — should such comments be deleted, or left for their amusement value? I’ll decide in due course.

  4. The Curmudgeon ponders:

    It’s always a wonderment — should such comments [from “Ken”, above] be deleted, or left for their amusement value?

    In this particular case, I think we need to know if his blather is from an official spokesman for the website at his link, …

  5. darwinsbulldog

    The Amazon sales rank for “The End of Darwinism” is now #545, and #4 for ‘science –> evolution’ books!

  6. longshadow

    It’s always a wonderment — should such comments be deleted, or left for their amusement value? I’ll decide in due course.

    Some sort of jocular font, e.g., “kids font,” or font color (multi-spectral?) might be worth while on the first such post, assuming it is brief. But any further posts of such fact & content-free character become tedious for anyone who is reasonably well educated.

    Alternatively, you could round out the worst of the worst and corral them in special area reserved for our amusement and derision.

  7. Ok Ken, here’s a non attack rebuttal of Mister Buchanan, who I occasionally agree with:

    1) Hitler used whatever twisted logic to justify his means. I could write a book using his writings and speeches to show his use of Christianity to justify his beliefs. European anti-semitism can be directly traced to Christianity and pre-Darwin thinking. “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” Hitler 1936.

    2) The cruel irony of the point of the First World War is the Republican Party is currently the party of national armaments, lording over backward peoples, acting against internal aliens, and ruthless competition, yet I’ve never heard a Republican invoke Darwin’s name to justify their actions. The point here is that racism, xenophobia, nationalistic fervor, and all the other ills of humanity existed long before Darwin’s Theory was put forth.

    3) By all objective accounts, Darwin and Wallace came to their conclusions independently. Darwin did indeed push to get his work published first, but he did not “steal” Wallace’s ideas.

    4) The funny thing about Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man is that they show science in action. Both were exposed by scientists studying the problem and asking questions. Hardly the work of a group supposedly blind to problems with evolution.

    5) There is so much wrong with the statement “For 150 years, the fossil record has failed to validate Darwin.” that I do not know where to begin. I would not be far off in saying that I seriously doubt Buchanan has spent any time actually pondering the fossil record. There are hundreds of transitional fossils that show the evolution of horses, birds, reptiles, mammals and plants that I will say it is not hard to find documentation of said fossils.

    6) Evolution is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of science. If paleontology, genetics, biology and every other scientific pursuit had failed to find supporting evidence, evolution would have been discarded long ago, but the fact is that every year the mountain of evidence supporting evolution grows higher and higher.

  8. darwinsbulldog says: “The Amazon sales rank for “The End of Darwinism” is now #545, and #4 for ’science –> evolution’ books!”

    I guess that’s the “Buchanan effect.”

  9. Longie suggests: “Some sort of jocular font … Alternatively, you could round out the worst of the worst and corral them in special area reserved for our amusement and derision.”

    I can’t change fonts in the comments section. I’d have to accumulate a few and post them. I donno if it’s worth the bother.

  10. longshadow

    Well, there’s always the time-honored tradition of de-voweling ….


  11. Longie says: “Well, there’s always the time-honored tradition of de-voweling ….”

    Yeah, but I don’t want to play with these people, nor is it my way to personally insult them. We could greatly increase the traffic here if I encouraged that sort of thing, but I’d rather not turn this blog into a food fight. The internet is full of creationist chat sites where their comments are welcome. This isn’t one of them. It’s enough, I think, that I have the “Creationist Wisdom” series for published letters to the editor.

  12. It’s always a wonderment — should such comments be deleted, or left for their amusement value? I’ll decide in due course.

    Play “Ken” off, Keyboard Cat.

  13. That was bad, James. And you triggered the filter again.

  14. Pat Buchanan is still alive? Then why is he bringing up such dead ideas? ‘nuf said.

    As for Ken [Deleted. Nothing personal, but we don’t care about Ken].

  15. Yes, science can be misapplied. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Einstein’s E=MC2 (and the atomic implications) were used to make the atom bomb. It could also be used to create energy for people. All of science is like that. Surely, people have misunderstood and misapplied Darwin’s theory, but does that make the science itself wrong? NO! This is what makes non-scientists who criticize the science soooooo wrong. Plus, they fail to understand *modern* evolution, which is a much more complete, vast, and complex science than Darwin’s original theory. But I guess it’s just too much to ask these people to actually read the science for themselves and think critically about it. *sigh*

  16. The only people Buchanan can convince are already convinced and are just looking for ‘big name’ validation.

    He’s done the gay agenda thing to death so it’s time to start the cycle all over again.

    That’s the problem with using a well established 2000 year old book of fiction, nothing new and interesting comes from it.

  17. Nice, Greg, but probably futile.

  18. Buchanan is just looking for another reason to be in the public eye now. His little suggestions to society are never of any value, why do we continue to give him a voice within our global society?