DM, in his haste to play at clever ad hominem circumstantial, and in his ill-instructed hatred of Christendom and its blessings in our civilisation, has tried to cross such a line. (CY, thank you.)
This is just to serve notice to all on the character of what we are facing, and what is liable to happen if we are silent or unwilling to stand, cost what it may, when such a line is crossed.
And, again, let us see just what he and ilk are ever so desperate to distract our attention from.
20 June 2011
Since it is liable otherwise to be lost in the flood of distractive tangential comments, I here headline my markup of PZM’s recent remarks on Dr Jonathan Wells.
Pardon some fairly direct comments, but unless we specifically expose capital examples of what we are objecting to, the destructive misbehaviour will continue:
[“They said it: Judge Jones of Dover …” is here. – UD News]
PZM: >>Atheists tend to be politically liberal, fairly tolerant. [ –> deny, deny, deny . . . ] The tolerance part is that there’s no question that nobody is going to deport creationists. Nobody is going to shut down the churches. Nobody is going to do anything like that. [ –> And, what does the bloody history of the past century at the hands of atheistical regimes tell us on this?] What we want to do is put things in a proper perspective. If you want to believe that in the privacy of your home, if you want to get together in church and talk to people about this, yes, that’s perfectly reasonable. [–> translated, we will censor the public square and the culture’s sense of what knowledge is on a priori evolutionary materialism as we have institutional power to do and if you object to the imposition of ideological censorship on origins science, we will come down on you like a ton of bricks, even threatening to hold your children hostage, on the excuse that you can have your little fantasies in quiet and that’s “freedom” enough for you; don’t you dare expose our censorship of science and science education] That’s the tolerance we’ll give them.
There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science [–> translation: they are exposing the use of misleading icons of evolution to indoctrinate the public and school children, starting with Haeckel’s frauds, cf the Google Books result here] in ways that I cannot forgive. This is not about demonizing the individuals. [–> the bland denial of what one is about to do . . .]
I have to single out this man [–> in context, plainly Jonathan Wells], whom I consider the most contemptable, despicable, cruel, and vicious evil liar in the creationist movement today, yes, he’s a nasty, nasty person. ([editorial comment, OP:] PZ has never met or talked with this ID proponent.)>>
Remember, too, this is the same whose crowd tried to shout down Jonathan M when he showed up at a discussion in a pub in Glasgow.
That tells us even more about what we are dealing with. END