Recently, PZ Myers of Pharyngula fame called Ken Ham a “wackaloon.” Understandably, Mr. Ham called him to the mat for his lack of professional courtesy [You see, professionals attack the subject matter, not the person they’re debating.] and for his lop-sided bias against Christians. [The only intolerance still allowed.] Ken Ham’s rebuttal is priceless, btw. So PZ proved how little professionalism he actually has. If nothing else comes of this, this whole episode serves as an object lesson as to why we should not cast pearls before swine. Yes, I just called PZ a pig. Maybe I should have called him a hamaloon or a hogaloon or a wackaswine, but then I’d be just as silly as he is. Not to mention his proselytes…
The following is a comment [#377] I left for PZ Myers and his readership in response to a post called Pharyngula: In Which I Have Hurt Ken Ham’s Feelings, in which PZ scoffs at the idea that professionals ought to engage one another with professional courtesy and that, besides, he’s only expressing a bit of what other antiCreationists feel for him. In a move typical of PZ’s junior high style of rhetoric, he invites others to “be creative” and “express their true feelings about Ken Ham” to somehow keep him occupied and distracted from his “campaign of abusing the minds of young children.”
Hubris. But this sort of tactic is being used increasingly by the new atheist fundamentalists. It seems they grow weary with argument and hope now to win arguments by shouting the loudest.
Anyway, my response:
Sticks and stones, brother. Sticks and stones.
Yet your exasperation suggests that perhaps we are gaining ground. [Though I’d be satisfied with simply getting on your nerves since I’ve no hope a zealot such as yourself would actually deign to listen to the other guy’s argument.] Has one too many Academic Freedom bill been taken too seriously for your dogmatic tastes? Has your naturalistic monopoly on truth [or, more precisely, the ability to indoctrinate others into what you believe is truth] been threatened?
But certainly you could provide us with evidence that evolution is more reasonable than Creation, right? Surely, you could. Or does the evidence suit each theory equally well? But your rancor seems to betray a weakness, a shuddering doubt, an involuntary admission of fundamentalist fervor.
I’ve no doubt you will re-affirm your faith in reply to this post. You will protest that it’s all pots and kettles. You’ll patch up the thatch on the old religion versus science Straw Man. And your faithful bleating converts will come running to your defense as always, each hoping to out-do the other in their zeal to defend their favored prophet. Gimme that old time religion, and all that.
So be it. Give us your rancor, your hate, your bile, your insults, your stereotypical junior high pratcalls. Truth will out. Freedom of Inquiry will have its day. We will follow the evidence where it leads, whether you approve or not, even if, especially if it flies in the faith of today’s scientififc dogma. It was Darwin’s right and privilege to challenge the accepted scientific truth of his day. It was Galileo’s as well. Science is supposed to be self-correcting,after all.
As for Mr. Ham. God bless you, sir. Ignore the trolls. It’s only sticks and stones. And it has NOTHING to do with truth, scientific or otherwise.