Friday, July 23, 2010

The Money Quote™: "There is no Darwin Conspiracy"

AnswersinGenesis weighs in -- a source xn-etc accepts as authoritative!!!

Here's one of the "accusations" made in the Davies book.

"Next, Davies turned his attention to Darwin’s Journal of Researches, known better to modern readers as Voyage of the Beagle. Originally published in 1839, the book was reissued in a revised edition in 1845. In the interim between the two editions, Darwin had worked to develop his species theory, and the revised edition of Journal of Researches contained new interpretations of Darwin’s original observations.... Davies implied that this was a means for Darwin to establish priority by giving the impression that he was already thinking about evolution aboard the Beagle before he ever read Blyth or Matthew.

H o w e v e r . . .

The Money Quote (TMQ): "As Christians concerned with presenting the truth, creationists should avoid Davies’s conspiracy theory. Love him or hate him, Darwin was the author of his theory of evolution by natural selection."

"There is no Darwin Conspiracy"
Todd Charles Wood, Center for Origins Research and Education, Bryan College, Dayton, TN

Another view here: Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory? Jerry Bergman

"Good evidence now exists to show that Darwin ‘borrowed’... all or most of his ‘dear child’ from other researchers. They were not ‘his own brainchild’, nor his child, but that of others which he appropriated, evidently often without giving them proper credit."


xn--hrfn-woa said...

Assuming you're referring to me as "xn-etc", I accept AiG as "authoritative" on nothing except Ken Ham's latest delusion -- and laugh uproariously at anybody who takes them seriously.

RkBall said...

I thought you would enjoy that. The Ball Bounces employs mild Canadian sarcasm -- maybe not quite the right word -- to keep things interesting.

xn--hrfn-woa said...

Given some of your utterances, how the hades am I meant to tell when you're being serious and when you're Poeing (as in Poe's Law) yourself?

Is claiming that I'm an AiG fan any more obviously meant to be ironic than claiming that a UK Conservative Party politician is a "leftist", or your frequent big business="leftist" claims?

RkBall said...


xn--hrfn-woa said...

Not from where I'm standing. Poe's Law definitely holds here.

RkBall said...

Just because someone is a member of a Conservative party does not mean he is not a deluded leftist. Joe Clark comes to mind riding in a gay pride parade.

RkBall said...

I have just never gotten used to the way ironic and irony is used today. Their meaning has morphed in the last 10-15 years.

Ironic used to mean, e.g., a person buys an insurance policy but the flood occurs the day before the policy kicks in. Or, a person steals a car in Philadelphia, meanwhile, someone is stealing his car in Toronto -- that sort of thing.

But, sarcasm doesn't seem quite the right word either.

xn--hrfn-woa said...

"Joe Clark comes to mind riding in a gay pride parade."

Get a bloody clue. Being homosexual does not make you a "leftist".

Have you ever heard of Joerg Haider?

"Just because someone is a member of a Conservative party does not mean he is not a deluded leftist."

And yes, being "a member of a Conservative [i.e. explicitly right-wing] party" makes you not a leftist, for a NON-DELUSIONAL definition of "leftists".

Further evidence of my previous hypothesis that the "Richard K. Ball definition of "leftist" appears to be 'anything that I don't like'"

RkBall said...

1. Joe Clark was and is a leftist guy.

2. Gay Pride Parades are delusional leftist undertakings and are frequented by politicians who are either delusionally leftist themselves, or who have succumbed to the inexorable social pressure to "get with it" and stop being a hateful bigot.

xn--hrfn-woa said...

Rick Ball:

It is quite clear that not only is your definition of a "leftist" somebody who thinks/does something that you don't like, but that your definition of "delusional" is thinking or (for an even more idiosyncratic definition) doing anything that you don't like.

According to these idiosyncratic and trivial definitions, yes, all "lefists" are, quite trivially, "delusional".

The question is why anybody else should care?

No, "Gay Pride Parades" do not meet any credible definition of "delusional".


You have provided no evidence that "Joe Clark was and is a leftist guy".

You have provided no evidence that Henry Mond, 2nd Baron Melchett was a leftist.

You have provided no evidence that Hollywood is leftist.

You have provided no evidence that BP is leftist.

In fact you have provided neither consensus definitions, nor any factual evidence whatsoever, supporting any purported relationship between any meaningful conception of "leftist" and "delusion".

xn--hrfn-woa said...

By your own admission Gay Pride Parades create social pressure for change, therefore they are a rational strategy for those seeking change.

RkBall said...

21st cc. homosexuality has three elements.

1. Persons with homosexual desires.

2. The practice of homosexuality.

3. The ideology which has grown up to explain and celebrate the above.

1. Persons with homosexual desires are otherwise just like us, and redeemable.

2. Is sinful.

3. Is delusional.

Gay Pride Parades exist primarily to promote the ideology of homosexuality. Therefore, anyone who participates in them is participating in a delusion -- which I defined as viewing the world as you would like it to be, rather than the way it actually is.

Being conservative means seeking to conserve, not up-end.

xn--hrfn-woa said...

No it is the claim of an 'ideology of homosexuality' that is delusional.

You have neither established the existence of this ideology, nor its purported contents, nor that these purported contents are delusional.

All you've really done is huff and puff a lot.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"