Tag Archives: Dawkins

A Truly Great Insult

Vox Day, who I’ve linked to in the past, wrote a book responding to the rash of popular atheist diatribes printed recently.

In the The Irrational Atheist, Day employs some truly beautiful insults along with scathing rhetoric and his usual razor-sharp logic, factual analysis, and wit, to disarm, mock, and bludgeon his “Unholy Trinity” of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett, as well as others.

Read Joe Carter’s 60 second review at the Evangelical Outpost, where he quotes what is quite possibly the best insult I’ve ever heard:

“I am saying that they are wrong, they are reliably, verifiably and factually incorrect. Richard Dawkins is wrong. Daniel C. Dennett is wrong. Christopher Hitchens is drunk, and he’s wrong. Michel Onfray is French, and he’s wrong. Sam Harris is so superlatively wrong that it will require the development of esoteric mathematics operating simultaneously in multiple dimensions to fully comprehend the orders of magnitude of his wrongness.”

A Few Good Men

Kindred on the battlefield of culture. Brothers in the fight of moral excellency. Trained and battle-hardened soldiers on the front lines of American society.

Dinesh D’Souza and David Limbaugh are two men I respect greatly, both for their principles and for their courage.

Of all the substantive columnists I read regularly, these two are those I read the most reliably, popping out of Google Reader to read them on their home sites more consistently than any other writers of the hundreds of articles I peruse each day.

Recent columns from each of these two are noteworthy and well worth reading and I encourage all to add them to their regular reading.

  •  Dinesh D’Souza – How Christians Ended Slavery

    [W]ho killed slavery? The Christians did, while everyone else generally stood by and watched.

  • David Limbaugh – Observations on the Presidential Races

    It’s disappointing to watch candidates from both parties accept the premise that criticizing your opponents’ records and pointing out their inconsistencies and lies is engaging in dirty politics. It is not dirty but obligatory to draw distinctions between you and your opponents. Dirty politics is distorting one’s record or spreading lies about a candidate.

  • Dinesh D’Souza – Are Atheists Cultural Christians?

    In The God Delusion, Dawkins portrayed the Christian God as a wicked, avaricious, capricious, genocidal maniac. Dawkins even blasted Jesus for such offenses as speaking harshly to his mother. Yet if the Jewish and Christian God was such a monster, what sense does it make for Dawkins to embrace the cultural influence of that deity?

  • David Limbaugh – Conservatism’s Identity Crisis

    [F]or Republicans, there’s a fierce intramural debate not just over how conservative the party should be but also over the very definition of conservatism.

Evolution And Permutations Of Information

Those who question the idea of evolution are typically faced with the mental gymnastic of the idea that even though it is improbable, it is not impossible that monkeys typing random letters on typewriters may eventually turn out lines of Shakespeare. However, there are assumptions being made and accepted by even that simple statement which must not be accepted, but instead should be turned on the hypothesizer for their false intent and use.

This acceptance of “minor” assumptions on which major falacies are based is as or more dangerous than the acceptance of the major falacy for their insidiousness, and the laxity that accompanies their acceptance. And they are not exclusive to the debate on evolution, but are common to every debate, philosophical, ideological, scientific, or any combination of those or others.

We ought not accept minor assumptions because they are likely just as false, and a house of logic may be built on even the flimsiest of ideas if they are not caught by thoughfulness and attacked with the wind of truth.

In regards to the typing monkeys, the assumptions are the existance of monkeys, the creation of typewriters, and the genius of Shakespeare. Evolution assumes that given enough time, for instance, proteins and the random intent of Dawkins’ “Blind Watchmaker” will create DNA and RNA, and a cell with purpose will occur. But what about proteins? Or enzymes? Where do they come from? And their building blocks, the harmonics of energy which appear to make up the quarks and other sub-atomic particles: Order moves to chaos, so all must begin with order so that order may continue for a while. Or else we are stuck with the question: Where did the order come from?

Truly, the permutations of information drive nails into the coffin of evolution.

A Christian and a Creationist ought not fear gazing into a telescope or peering into a microscope, for from the micro to the macro, the fractal logic continues throughout, and the evidence only ever has and only ever will show the glory and handiwork of God.

Dawkins, in a desperate attempt to indoctrinate the future that they might not question what they actually see, said that “Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of purpose and design.” When one sees a watch on the ground, one cannot assume that the rocks and metal filings, and wind and rain worked in concert to create this timepiece, but one assumes that there was a designer behind the designed watch, William Paley stated famously in his oft lambasted, but never refuted logic argument for the necessity of an intelligent designer of this creation we can observe. And Darwin himself, towards the end of his life stated that “The sight of a feather in a Peacocks tail, when I gaze at it, makes me sick.”

There is no explanation for life occuring within a closed system with any complexity, let alone the layers upon layers, the permutations of complexity and information necessary for that complexity. And the chances don’t get better as time goes by. Each moment has exactly the same chance of the unthinkable occuring as the moment before, and given enough zeros following the probability statement, it is hardly inconceivable that such long-shot chances as, say, the entire earth happening just so, is an actual impossibility.

Truly, the permutations of information nail securely the lid of the coffin of evolution.