Darwinism by Censorship – “Darwin’s Dilemma” Gets X’d—Addendum

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link


  1. I really glad you people hate censorship. I hate it myself. And that's why I came here, because I'm sure you won't censor my comments.

    You need to know the Discovery Institute loves censorship. They don't moderate comments because it's impossible to leave a comment on their website. They don't want any real scientists visiting them to correct their errors and their compulsive lying.

    Scientists call the Discovery Institute the "Dishonesty Institute" because they are constantly spreading lies about the hard work of those scientists.

    I call the Discovery Institute the "You Discover It, We Deny It Institute" because they never discover anything. They just complain about any scientific discovery that conflicts with their Bible.

  2. Atheism is dead? Then why is the number of atheists in America increasing much faster than the number of Christians? Christianity is not dead, but maybe it's dying. Most certainly the Christian death cult can't last forever. In future centuries people will be quite sick of Christian woo-woo, which of course does not have one shred of evidence.

  3. Emails are public documents? News to me...

  4. In the Dover Pa trail Judge Jones a bush appointed, conservative, federal juge, (self proclaimed born again Christian),says.

    The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]
    The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

    So what part of Lying sack of crap don't you understand?

  5. Ah a new generation! How about you actually adress the arguments here instead of using ad hominems? I'm assuming you know what ad hominems are.

    Anyway until then...

    signed: "that anonymous troll" ;)

  6. Human Ape,
    I really hope that you are a very, very young person considering the delight which you seem to take in childish taunts.

    "Atheism is Dead" has been explained variously, such as here.

    As for your comments about Christianity; you are the most recent in a line of people saying the same thing which spans back 2,000 years.

    Please evolve.