Ellis Washington Displays His Brilliance

Buffoon Award

It was a slow day for news yesterday, and our global news sweeps haven’t found much today — except this, which all by itself will satisfy your craving for cutting-edge creationist thinking. It’s at the RenewAmerica website, which recently won our Buffoon Award, thus the jolly logo above this post.

But what’s really thrilling thing about what we found is that it was written by Ellis Washington. Our regular readers are familiar with his work from when he was a regular contributor to WorldNetDaily. The best example of his thinking can be found here, Scripture Trumps Darwin, when he informed us of “the syllogism that was a foundation of Western civilization”:

If A = B, then A + B = C

We are delighted to present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from On Darwin and the eternal lie of evolution atheism, Part 1. It starts with a familiar mined quote, in which Darwin refers to his theory as a “mere rag of an hypothesis” — which Ellis had mentioned the last time we wrote about one of his essays: Ellis Washington Praises Granville Sewell. Then he gives some biographical information about Darwin mixed with a scrambled description of his theory and its acceptance by the science community.

After that the fun begins. The bold font was added by us:

Now Marxists, Socialists, Atheists and Progressives had a “scientific” foundation it could use to deconstruct America’s Judeo-Christian traditions in society and replace them with a Darwinian evolution atheist worldview which as the 1900s ensured, they would undertake to do with the zeal of an irredeemable fanatic.

Aaaargh!! As you know, neither Darwin nor his theory were socialist, Marxist, or atheist — see Marx, Stalin, and Darwin, and then see Atheism, Science, and Darwin. But the Deluge of Drool has only begun:

Regarding Darwin’s precursors the problem of Social Darwinism and eugenics racism, natural selection and missing links, for example, the basis of analysis appears in his discoveries, his conceptions, and his theory and yet based on my decades of study of Darwin and to many other academics associated with the Intelligent Design movement, Creationism or origins of life ideas independent of Darwinism, his evolution atheist ideas seem inexorably connected to and inseparable from their personal, partisan political, philosophical, and religious expectations, thus having nothing substantive in common with legitimate scientific investigations. In other words, Darwin’s evolution atheism appears to be the fulfillment of the political Left’s overt Romantic longings dating back to the Enlightenment Age (1600-1800). Said another way, Darwinism wasn’t so much a new theory as it was a grand scientific rationalization for the origins of life based on atheism.

What was that? Ellis appears to be choking on his own vomit, and there’s no way we can intelligently deal with that paragraph, so let’s read on:

Nevertheless, scientific justification or necessity which is the political Left’s reflexive and enduring hatred of Western Civilization’s 4,000+ year reliance on Judeo-Christian suppositions on the origins of life, was the principal reason the scientific establishment of the Victorian age so unthinkingly accepted Darwin’s evolution theory as religious fact.

Aaaargh!! Ellis continues:

On the Origin of Species was the defining work that gave Darwin demigod status in the scientific community and in the highest circles of Victorian society, nevertheless the original title specifies it is not evolution as a comprehensive field theory of biological, or cosmic, history, but the origin of species with which Darwin appears to be primarily concerned. He is concerned with proving the fact that new species do evolve over the course of time, counter to those (including Christianity) who presuppose the species of living things to be fixed in number and unchangeable in kind from antiquity to the present age.

Wow — that’s surprising. We must give Ellis credit for being one of the few creationists who has managed to grasp that Darwin’s theory is limited in scope. But our praise must be limited, because in his next paragraph Ellis says:

Spontaneous generation, obviously exists as a probability. In Darwin’s scientific fairytale world gaps in the fossil record can be covered up because a new species of organism may exist without descending from other living organisms.

Aaaargh!! Ellis has invented a doctrine of limited spontaneous generation to “explain” gaps in the fossil record, and he has attributed it to Darwin — despite Darwin’s Chapter 9 of OriginOn the Imperfection of the Geological Record. Here’s more, and this is where Ellis really shows his talent:

However separate from the question of ultimate concern – i.e., whether spontaneous generation ever does occur, deriving the biological origin of all physical forms of life appears to be outside the process of natural causes and like the burgeoning scientific movement called Intelligent Design, suggests the conscious involvement of an infinitely eternal and immeasurable metaphysical power mankind has through the ages referred to as “God.”

The “burgeoning scientific movement called Intelligent Design” — BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Moving along:

To German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the idea that “life could have sprung up from the nature of what is void of life,” seems not only opposite to fact, but irrational and arbitrary.

Did Kant say that? Who cares? Darwin never explored the matter — except for that “warm little pond” he once referred to in a letter. It was outside the scope of this theory. Another excerpt from Ellis:

“If my theory be true,” Darwin writes, “numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links.”

That’s an accurate quote from Chapter 6 of Origins, but it omits Darwin’s next sentence, which is:

Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall in a future chapter attempt to show, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record.

Now look what Ellis does with with the out-of-context quote he mined:

As Darwin presupposed the concurrent co-existence of all intermediate varieties existing today, the groups now called “species” would not, therefore, be divided into distinct species, as they presently exist since in addition to between monkey and mankind, they are innumerable missing links between every species discovered by science which begs the unanswerable question of the ages … Why are there so many missing links amongst the species? Although Darwinism can’t explain it, Intelligent Design can, or at least proffers some compelling scientific evidence.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s the God of the gaps. Ellis babbles on and on, but this post is already far too long, so we’ll give you only one more excerpt — in which Ellis disparages the Enlightenment — the triumphant development of Western civilization which he proudly disdains:

I always was of the historical view that since the Age of Enlightenment (1600-1800) mankind was in search of a philosophy that would replace what humanists now considered the outdated superstitions of Christianity and religion. Darwin’s theory of evolution provided that pretext to them by achieving what up to that time has been impossible – the separation of science and religion. And like the ubiquitous Faustian bargain with the devil, in exchange they lauded Darwin with universal celebrity and cult-like admiration.

Okay, that’s enough. Make of it what you will, dear reader. And bear in mind the “Part 1” in Ellis’ title, which promises that there will be more to come. We can’t wait!

See also: Ellis Washington’s Brilliance, Part 2.

Copyright © 2015. 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

16 responses to “Ellis Washington Displays His Brilliance

  1. Spontaneous generation? Isn’t that where creationists thought rats sprang (were created) from piles of rags? Is that what Ellis expects people to believe?

  2. Washington fares better when he’s totally incomprehensible. It’s on those rare occasions when it’s possible to understand what he’s saying that you realize to the full what complete twaddle it is.

  3. Never fear, Ellis. The Constitution guarantees your right to enunciate any opinion in public, regardless of how dumb or uninformed it may make you appear.

  4. You can always count on Ellis to spew out nothing but enormous steaming piles of bull-[beep beep boop!]

  5. based on my decades of study of Darwin and to many other academics associated with the Intelligent Design movement … [mumble, mumble, something, …ATHEISM!]

    In other words, “based on my decades of ignoring Darwin … not to mention the millions of scientists who have come after him … and instead listening only to quacks with a political and theological agenda I have decided THEOLOGY is better than science!!!”

    Whoop De Doo! If only he could do it without all the word salad!

  6. Derek Freyberg

    :God of the gaps” – more like “God of the apes”.
    I’m glad you quoted that sentence “Regarding Darwin’s precursors … ” – it’s tough to believe anyone could be so verbose (90 words!) and obtuse in the same sentence.

  7. From his page at that site:

    “Ellis Washington […] is an adjunct professor at the National Paralegal College where he teaches Constitutional Law, Legal Ethics, Contracts and Advanced Legal Writing.”

    I feel for his students. And I feel for anyone who has to read anything written by his students who would take to heart anything he says about writing. Or anything for that matter.

  8. “his evolution atheist ideas seem inexorably connected to and inseparable from their personal, partisan political, philosophical, and religious expectations, thus having nothing substantive in common with legitimate scientific investigations.”

    For a law professor, this guy isn’t doing very well in the argument department since he is using the appeal to motive fallacy. And then he even gets the motive wrong.

  9. Reflectory says: “I feel for his students.”

    It must be ghastly sit through his classes, but how much damage can he do? As I understand it, a paralegal is to a lawyer what a nurse is to a doctor. Useful, but limited in scope.

  10. Relax, Reflectory. He’s not a law professor.

  11. michaelfugate

    No one has to sit through his lectures because NPC is totally online. Who knows what he does. From his bio:

    His latest law review article is titled, Social Darwinism in Nazi Family and Inheritance Law. Washington’s latest book is a comprehensive collection of 230 essays and Socratic dialogues –The Progressive Revolution: Liberal Fascism through the Ages, 2 Vols. (University Press of America, 2013).

    Nuts, I tell you nuts.

  12. If A = B, then A + B = C

    “Syllogism”? Silly-gism is more like it. That “logical” expression doesn’t even make sense, let alone convey profound information which could be the foundation of anything.

    Ellis Washington needs to buy a clue. Even a creationist ought to know better than this.

  13. Reflectory says: “teaches Constitutional Law, Legal Ethics, Contracts and Advanced Legal Writing”

    I find most of what Ellis Washington writes completely incomprehensible. Since I find most Advanced Legal Writing likewise completely incomprehensible, I’d say the man has great skills in his chosen field.

    If A = B, then A + B = C

    And, see? He knows the secret behind calculating legal fees as well!

  14. Dave Luckett

    The only reflection that occurs to me after reading the Ellis eructation, and on learning that he teaches “Legal Writing”, is that “Legal Writing” must be to effective writing as top-fuel dragsters are to motor cars. That is, nearly everything about the former would be some combination of redundant, dysfunctional, useless, or actually counterproductive if applied to the ordinary purposes of the latter. One of the purposes of writing is to persuade. Washington’s style is about as effective for that purpose as a rail with a 98% nitro blown Pink Elephant 426 hemi is for picking up the groceries.

    “Style, feh!” I hear you say. Quite so. Washington’s essential message is that he really dislikes this humanism, he really doesn’t care for the Enlightenment, that he thinks it should all just go away, therefore God. In the face of that truly awesome disconnect, style is indeed irrelevant. The man’s a frothing loon.

  15. Using nonsense equations in an argument goes back at least to the 18th century, when Euler confounded Diderot by asking “Sir, (a+b^n)/n=x, therefore God exists: reply!”

  16. @Davis Evans
    That is an amusing story, but, unfortunately, Diderot was a competent mathematician, although not of the level of Euler.