Although I’m sure my Darwinist commenters will likely jump up and down in a huff for linking to this, I’m going to do it anyway. Here’s an opinion piece by Michael Craven where he skewers some Darwinists that have written in to him. I agree with a lot of what he says, although I do hold that science in non-moral. Still, I think he hits the nail on the head when he points out that Darwinists tend to “vehement defense and aggressive reaction to any challenge.”
I love the righteous indignation. Not only is this position logically inconsistent but it is often the only defense offered by evolutionists; simply label the alternative as being unintelligent. This is certainly the premise of those who attack any discussion of Intelligent Design.
Make no mistake, Darwinism is not science, it is philosophy. It is dogma! This, I think, accounts for both its proponents’ vehement defense and aggressive reaction to any challenge.
I’ve faced this quite often myself, and I think the line of argumentation is lame. But, I think the arguments used by the Darwinists suggest that something else is at stake for them. I can’t imagine them becoming so emotionally attached to a scientific argument that they weren’t personally invested in. No, this level of discourse comes from a threatened worldview. They defend their dogma by any means necessary because to do otherwise would force them to reconsider the very principles that they base their faith upon.