Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Casey Luskin Editorial

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Check out this editorial in the Washington Examiner by Casey Luskin. The title is “Let’s restore civility to the debate on evolution and intelligent design.”

Casey was superbly rational, reserved and eloquent, as usual. But check out the comments, which reveal trademark, frothing-at-the-mouth, apoplectic, near-convulsive, Darwinian-fundamentalist hysteria — which validates Casey’s thesis.

Why such hysterical, vulgar passion? I’ll let UD readers reach their own conclusions.

Comments
Glean writes, "nothing, gets under the skin of an atheist quicker than telling them they are “bad” people (in the context of an ultimate law-giver)" What an excellent point. I think it results from the fact that they refuse to own up to objective reality. That is simply put, "reality". They want to be able to do what ever they want whenever and not face any consequence for it. And change their views on morality and so forth as it suits them. Which is the opposite of a scriptural based morality which is static. So when you begin to challenge them- and hold them to a universal standard it points out how flimsy they really are and that exposes their lack of authority on any such issues. Basically it shows the reality of their world view which is that they are very small while your world view (if religious) is one which see's man and life as absolutely important.Frost122585
November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
gleaner63, I couldn't help but notice you said "I say this from the viewpoint of having once been an outspoken atheist." I was just wondering, if you don't mind me asking, what finally was the straw that broke the camel's back that ushered your change of heart? I am genuinely interested in your answer.bornagain77
November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
I had my introduction to this debate over at "The Friendly Atheist" website. I was simply unprepared for the amount of hostility that I encountered. I tend to believe that at least some of that anger is nothing more than wanting to live a life without rules and that extends even to casual conversation. Nothing, absolutely nothing, gets under the skin of an atheist quicker than telling them they are "bad" people (in the context of an ultimate law-giver). I say this from the viewpoint of having once been an outspoken atheist.gleaner63
November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
What's interesting about the comments to the article, is that few called Luskin a "denier," since he pointed this out. No, they much prefer to call him a moron and a "liar for Jesus." It's an easy accusation to make, but not any easy one to back up with facts. Luskin in my view has always been civil. "Hey Luskin, you call us uncivil again and we'll ring your neck." Another observation - many of the responders seem to believe that pointing out incivility is itself uncivil.CannuckianYankee
November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply