You probably remember creationist/geocentrist loony Tom Willis advocating, quite seriously, the “violent expulsion of all evolutionists from civilized society” and denying anyone who believes in evolution the right to vote or any job where they might influence people. Well now he is back with yet another moronic screed entitled Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Roam Free in the Land?
You really have to laugh when he says things like this:
None of the responders seemed to get the real point of the article, which might be summarized:
“Hard-line evolutionists spend their entire life declaring Christians to be ignorant, crazy and, probably dangerous. But evolutionism is totally contrary to the empirical facts of science. Anyone truly believing evolution is either totally deluded or ignorant. Regarding who is really the dangerous
group, in their unmitigated, and totally unjustified arrogance, evolutionists have caused more misery, and killed and tortured more people, in the last 90 years than all the wars of the last 2000 years.
“Thus, Evolutionist rhetoric, juxtaposed against the facts of science and history demonstrates that they are totally incompetent, in addition to being angry and dangerous. In a truly sane society, e.g., the one to be run by God, evolutionists, at a minimum, would not be allowed to vote.”
No Tom, we got the real point of the article. We know exactly what you said. It’s just that what you said is utterly moronic.
One smugly demanded that I produce quotes to prove that evolution contributed to slavery.
Yeah, you know us “smug” evolutionists — always demanding evidence to back up claims. Evidence being of the devil and reality having a well known scientific bias, this is part of what makes us so evil.
This is more difficult than it might seem, not because evolution did not contribute to justification of slavery, but because no one used the word “evolution.” Even Darwin did not use the word. The word “evolution” did not become popular until long after slavery had been abolished. Rather, evolutionists tended to claim blacks were inferior to whites, based on the “science of anthropology,” often claiming they were different species or subspecies.
Darwin did not use the word? Go here to the Gutenberg text of On the Origin of Species and do a search for the word “evolution.” It turns up many times. It’s true that Darwin did not use the term “evolution” in the first edition of his book, but he did use the word “evolve” and the word “evolution” quickly was used in later editions of his book.
Of course, it’s trivially easy to find quotes defending slavery based on it being ordained by God. Go back and read any defense of slavery in America from the side defending slavery and you will find lots and lots of appeals to the Bible (which explicitly endorses slavery – God literally commands the Israelites to take slaves from “the heathen” that are around them) and to God’s created order. One need only look to Alexander Stephens’ famous Cornerstone Speech, where he laid out the case for fighting the Civil War in order to maintain slavery as God intended and specifically contrasted this with the naturalistic ideas of those who opposed slavery:
I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal…
With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.”
Willis’ stupidity continues:
As late as the 1930’s, Hitler used evolution to justify his “theories” typically spoke of “development of species.”
Well yes, he did indeed. He also used Christianity to justify his actions, but Willis doesn’t mention that inconvenient fact. Let me fill in the gaps with Hitler’s words:
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people…. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
I could go on with such quotes for quite a long time. In public, in a predominately Christian society, Hitler invoked Christianity to justify his actions on an almost daily basis. Willis ignores all of that, of course, because, well, that’s what Willis and his ilk do.
The communists also held to evolutionism as a foundation doctrine of their religion, but seldom used the word “evolution” in any language, one reason being their reluctance to credit an Englishman for anything.
Right. Which explains why Stalin forbid the teaching of Darwinian and Mendelian science in the Soviet Union in favor of Lysenkoism.
Evolutionism is the apologetic system of the end time religion. It will not be eradicated. Well, not until the antichrist kills all of them in order to promote and make way for,
worship of himself.
Of course. Because the best way to “make way” for worship of yourself is to kill all the people who might otherwise worship you. Makes perfect sense.
Nevertheless, I find it instructive and entertaining to analyze what should be done with evolutionists before their end comes. After all, they are manifestly the most dangerous and destructive people on the planet (Well OK, Muslims are strong competitors). Using their religion to dominate education, they have, as previously pointed out, killed more people than anybody in history…
Clearly then, “evolutionists should not be allowed to roam free in the land.” All that remains for us to discuss is “What should be done with evolutionists?” For the purposes of this essay, I will ignore the minor issue of Western-style jurisprudence and merely mention possible solutions to the “evolutionism problem,” leaving the legal details to others:
* Labor camps. Their fellow believers were high on these. But, my position would be that most of them have lived their lives at, or near the public trough. So, after their own beliefs, their life should continue only as long as they can support themselves in the camps.
* Require them to wear placards around their neck, or perhaps large medallions which prominently announce “Warning: Evolutionist! Mentally Incompetent – Potentially Dangerous.” I consider this option too dangerous.
* Since evolutionists are liars and most do not really believe evolution we could employ truth serum or water-boarding to obtain confessions of evolution rejection. But, this should, at most, result in parole, because, like Muslims, evolutionist religion permits them to lie if there is any benefit to them.
And then he blathers on like that for quite some time, imagining sending all “evolutionists” to Antarctica or Mars. The only thing he has established, of course, is his own insanity and utter stupidity. Unlike him, however, I do not advocate any legal consequences for that. Indeed I want him to continue to be allowed to write things like this. They are, at the very least, endlessly amusing.