Just this morning I was reflecting on the curious case of Misshelver, whose response to Mike Behe’s Edge of Evolution was to misshelve it in the bookstore.
She is, of course, the popular culture version of the academics who need to get rid of gifted astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez – not because he is incompetent, but quite the opposite. He makes a good case for the unusually favourable position of Earth.
Now apparently, a number of angry people have also written to the Philadephia Inquirer, rattled that the paper published a positive review of Edge that actually describes its argument, unlike some prominent reviews.
If I had no other reason for thinking that Darwinism is losing the intellectual battle, the sheer number of events that cross my desk that feature one or another riff on this theme would certainly apprise me: The Darwinist neither wants to discuss the state of the evidence nor does he want anyone else to be able to do so. Of course, he always has the most virtuous of reasons …. always …
Also:
Canadian journalist David Warren’s further thoughts on Darwinism as a hopeless crock.
Oxford’s Alister McGrath on why atheism is doomed – my recent ChristianWeek column
Increasing numbers of people pointing out the flaws and silliness of ID make you believe that “Darwinists” are on the run.
OK.
So, you don’t allow comments that disagree with your conclusions?
If I were you, I’d say that’s because you were losing the argument.
“The Darwinist neither wants to discuss the state of the evidence nor does he want anyone else to be able to do so. Of course, he always has the most virtuous of reasons …. always …”
Gee, doesn’t that sound familiar. Those darn Darwin fundamentalists. At least they can’t claim that he rose from the dead! It would be against their religion.