WorldNetDaily: Scripture Trumps Darwin

Buffoon Award

The jolly logo adorning this post is in honor of WorldNetDaily (WND), the journalistic organ that won our Buffoon Award and that keeps confirming the soundness of that award.

Today’s article at WND is very difficult for us to write about. Why? Because it has always been our policy to refrain from flat-out declarations that someone is an idiot. We criticize ideas, not people. When dealing with creationists that’s often a challenge, and many popular blogs go full-throttle in saying that their adversary of the moment is a retard, but we always avoid that. It won’t be easy this time, however, but we’ll restrain ourselves.

Two weeks ago we wrote SeaWorld Killer Whale Incident: Darwin’s Fault! It was about an article written by Ellis Washington, whom we regard as one of the most misinformed writers at WorldNetDaily. Today’s anti-science, anti-Darwin, anti-reason rant is also by that author. He appears to be one of the stars of that publication. Not just a rising star, but a flaming, blazing light in their firmament, whose brilliance illuminates and inspires them all. You’ll see.

We present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from Why intellectuals evangelize, by Ellis Washington — a leading light at WorldNetDaily. The bold font was added by us:

I consider myself a conservative intellectual, a thinker who holds philosophical ideas out the Judeo-Christian traditions of intellectual thought. That said, without fail when I write an article about the diabolical influence of Darwin’s theory of evolution on society, I get some of the most reactionary, incoherent rants from the liberal blogosphere.

Your Curmudgeon isn’t part of the “liberal blogosphere” — far from it, but we too react strongly when Ellis or anyone else writes about “the diabolical influence of Darwin’s theory of evolution.” Anyway, let’s read on:

Exhibit one: Liberal blogger Ed Brayton is a well-known atheist who (along with his fellow bloggers) absolutely hates everything good about America – which I guess would explain why he hates my writings and ideas so much because I am a Christian, a conservative and am very pro-America.

We too disagree with everything Ellis has to say about Darwin, but his explanation of why simply doesn’t apply to us. Nevertheless, it’s interesting to see how his mind works. Bear with us:

Below is our correspondence over just one of my articles, “When killer whales kill: a biblical view.”

We’ve read an article or two at Brayton’s blog before. Good attitude about science, but we wouldn’t agree too much on politics. This is what Brayton wrote about Ellis’ earlier article. Brayton’s article isn’t leftist or atheistic. Maybe lots of them are, but not this one. It disagrees with Ellis mostly on one point — a point we’ve often made before — the founding documents of the US weren’t rooted in scripture. Let’s continue, as Ellis appears to lose it completely:

Dear Mr. Ed Brayton: Believing in a “theory” the creator (Darwin) of which knew before and after he wrote “The Origin of Species” was full of holes, unbelievable and unsustainable – for you to follow such a man is like following a cult leader. Your position is ipso facto (inherently) indefensible. You have built an entire worldview on quicksand. Lenin referred to true believers like you and your fellow bloggers as “useful idiots.”

Good grief! Well, that’s how things are at WorldNetDaily. Here’s more from Ellis’ response to Brayton:

Since I am not a scientist but a philosopher and an intellectual, the way I approach all bodies of knowledge is from reason and veritas (truth). We could argue back and forth on Darwin’s theory all day, but let’s cut to the chase. Mr. Brayton, how can you rationalize and compare your humanist and atheist ideas in relation to St. Paul’s letter to the Church at Rome?

We’ll omit the scriptural quotation, because it has no scientific content. Let’s just move along:

Ed, St. Paul had already dealt with Darwin’s specious theories of man (vs. 23) and the philosophers of his day, who were a lot smarter than you and your fellow bloggers. …

St. Paul disproved evolution? Aaaargh!! Here’s another excerpt from Ellis as he continues to criticize Ed’s article:

Your issues about where humanity came from are not so much a problem of the head (brain), but of the heart (soul). Until you repent and ask Jesus to come into your heart you will always be confused and wrong in your worldview, which will disallow you, I and your fellow bloggers the ability to have a rational discussion based on the syllogism that was a foundation of Western civilization:

Get ready, dear reader. Ellis is going to tell us “the syllogism that was a foundation of Western civilization.” Here it is, and so you can’t miss this incredibly vital datum, we’re going to highlight it with color:

If A = B, then A + B = C

Amazing! What do you make of it? Math isn’t your Curmudgeon’s strongest subject (by far) but to us the premise “A = B” leads only to the conclusion that “A + B = 2A.” Nothing more. Which can be reduced to 1 + 1 = 2, and what do we make of that — Darwin was wrong? Is that Ellis’ argument? No, he says “A + B = C.” Got that? Good, because we don’t get it. Anyway, on with the article:

Big Bang explosions, theories by unremarkable naturalists, ERVs and “billions of years …” cannot explain the complexity of an eye, nor expound upon the incomprehensible diversity and richness of creation. That suit you are wearing on your blog as well as the teeth in your mouth did not explode into place. I learned in science that explosions destroy things, not create things.

Aaaargh!! No other commentary is needed here. Ellis’ article continues, but we’ve already seen enough. If you want to experience it all, click over to WND and drink deeply of what Ellis has to say. Maybe you can make some sense of it. If so, please explain it to us.

Copyright © 2010. 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

14 responses to “WorldNetDaily: Scripture Trumps Darwin

  1. Yowzers. That’s not just an appalling logic FAIL, but also just awful, awful writing.

    And frankly, I have difficulty taking seriously someone who claims to be an intellectual in the Judeo-Christian tradition, if I may paraphrase. Given that the whole Judeo-Christian shtick was made up by Dominionists to justify their attempted theological domination, and that his religion is solidly anti-intellectual, the idea rings just a touch hollow.

  2. Wow. It IS hard to not just call him intellectually handicapped and move on, isn’t it? First quoting scripture to prove an intellectual position is always going to fail. Even if it does support your position, because it is simply lazy and inherently an argument from authority. Secondly, if your going to complain that evolution “explodes” things into existence, its generally better to not back the position that they were “poofed” into existence. Not only are you in the “not even wrong” catagory, but you being hypocritical and stupid at the same time.

  3. By the way, one minor point: it seems that it isn’t true that

    Lenin referred to true believers like you and your fellow bloggers as “useful idiots.”

    If anyone does find a first-hand reference to that in Lenin, they should correct the Wikipedia article.

  4. “It was about an article written by Ellis Washington, whom we regard as one of the most misinformed writers at WorldNetDaily.”

    How do you tell the difference?

  5. And I just love how he adds an “anonymous” quotation of his own words at the start of the article in an attempt to bolster it with some kind of authority.

    If this guy actually had a functional argument against liberalism rather than a strawman attack on its supposed moral deficiencies, he might actually be worthy of listening to; as it is, he’s just a dick.

  6. Big Bang explosions, theories by unremarkable naturalists, ERVs and “billions of years …” cannot explain the complexity of an eye, nor expound upon the incomprehensible diversity and richness of creation. That suit you are wearing on your blog as well as the teeth in your mouth did not explode into place. I learned in science that explosions destroy things, not create things.

    I hereby bestow upon the author my Purveyor of Unknowledge Award, with Oak Leaf Cluster, for spreading his profound unknowledge, not only above and beyond the call of duty, but beyond all reason.

  7. I went over and read the thing. Now that was funny. It reminded me of a typical Caseygram – illogical, vacuous, and dripping with self congratulation at having pawned an atheist. Of course the pawning is all in his mind, but hey, a pawning none the less.

    If this guy is a philosopher, I’m Palin’s boy toy.

  8. Albanaeon munches down hard on Ellis Washington with:

    “…but you being hypocritical and stupid at the same time.”

    The ability to multi-task hypocracy, stupidity, bigotry and straight/bent/hooked hate is a prerequisite for creationism.

  9. “Since I am not a scientist but a philosopher and an intellectual, the way I approach all bodies of knowledge is from reason and veritas (truth).”

    Well, at least he admits he’s moving away from truth (too lazy to spice up my sentence with latin which i’d have to translate in parentheses).

  10. ohioobserver

    The letter you quote from was a dilatory response to Brayton’s challenge to Washington who had posted an anti-evolutionary screed on WND:

    “Can you provide a coherent, consistent explanation other than common descent for the patterns of appearance of endogenous retroviruses in vertebrate genomes?”

    The letter from Washington is an attempt to reply while not replying — completely avoids the question and waves Scripture around. Just goes to show that not all graduates of U of M are intelligent. Brayton’s discussion of Washington’s reply can be found at:

    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/ellis_washington_responds_kind.php#more

  11. (head bang on desk)
    Why, oh WHY??? can’t they come up with new arguments……..
    He learned in “science class” that his teeth didn’t “explode” in his mouth??
    “billions of years”?? the “complexity” of the eye??????
    It’s all the same crap espoused in the late 1800s after Darwins book came out. Hasn’t been modified since. Oh yeah, just like the Bible…..
    f***ing Morons……….

  12. He learned in “science class” that his teeth didn’t “explode” in his mouth??

    Yeah, kind of wondered about that one. What kind of freaky science class was his school giving that focused on the non-explosion of teeth, anyway?

  13. Granted, they’re terrible at biology and geology, but math really isn’t the creationists’ strong suit, is it?

  14. [M]ath really isn’t the creationists’ strong suit, is it?

    How could it be when the fundamental axiom of their arithmetic is “1+1+1=1”?

    (Or “A+B+C=1, where A=B=C=1”, to put it in a pseudo-algebraic form more similar to the “syllogism that was a foundation of Western civilization”.