Do you approve of quoting an author out of context for the purposes of character aspersion?

Yes, if done for humor like:

I beat a puppy simply, I believe, from enjoying the sense of power.

Charles Darwin

aspersion:

1 : a sprinkling with water especially in religious ceremonies
2 a : a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone’s reputation b : the act of making such a charge : defamation

So by your actions, you’re permitting us to defame you provided it’s funny?

Do you approve of quoting an author out of context for the purposes of character aspersion?

Yes, if done for humor like:

I beat a puppy simply, I believe, from enjoying the sense of power.

Charles Darwin

Darwin does not deserve to be de facto cannonized in churches by the Clergy Letter project.

Do you approve of trying to make a theory seem wrong by attacking the person who came up with it rather than providing evidence that it’s wrong?

No I don’t approve of that, and if you are accusing me of that you’re accusing me something that is not happening in this thread.

Criticizing Darwin’s character and life have nothing to do with weighing the merits or demerits of his theory.

That is not my purpose in showing Darwin’s less flattering side or that of Darwinists like Amy Bishop.

He and his ideas are being venerated in churhes, and I’m showing that this is objectionable for a variety of reasons. That’s all.

His theories will die on their own scientific demerits.

I’ve criticized his theory on scientific ground many times. And if you’re unable to grasp the the theoretical and empirical problems with Darwinism, that is your issue not mine.

Your lack of comprehension of the problems with Darwinism doesn’t give you liscense to accuse me of resorting to character assasination as a means of discrediting his supposed “science”.

Now let me ask you another question:

Do you approve of quoting an author out of context for the purposes of character aspersion? Do you approve of trying to make a theory seem wrong by attacking the person who came up with it rather than providing evidence that it’s wrong?

Good to see you on UD again.

The Clergy Letter Project has finally removed Amy Bishop’s name from their rolls.
Yesterday, it read:
“872 scientists”
now it reads
“871 scientists”
With Amy Bishop’s name removed.

Hmmm…this is interesting (he said, wryly).
Is Michael Zimmerman, the head of the Project, confusing “is” with “ought?” Just because she stands accused of murder doesn’t detract from her knowledge of neo-Darwinism or her ability to help clergy become more scientifically literate, does it? After all, she’s not standing by to assist clergy with moral dilemmas, right? She’s just there to give clergy a better understanding of “what is,” if I understand correctly.

Besides, isn’t she entitled to be considered innocent of the charges against her until proven guilty? So in removing her from the list, why wouldn’t Dr. Zimmerman be considered as “crass and insensitive” as he accused Bantay of being?

If she was worthy of being “on call” to help clergy understand neo-Darwinism on February 11, why would she be unworthy of being on call today? Again: all this is completely orthogonal to any considerations about morality, right? The list is there to demonstrate that “science” can be “ fully harmonious with religious faith,” right? (Removing tongue from cheek now…)

Whether or not biologists and bloggers use the same tactics has nothing to do with the current discussion.

So do you disapprove of PZ Myers referring to me as a Slimy little Sewer Goblin. Or do you approve?

I shot a bird as a kid.

I once (ok serval times) ate McDonald’s chicken McNuggets made from birds that were supposedly killed.

You completely misunderstand. I am not covering for Sal, nor do I give a flying shit about Charles Darwin shooting a bird as a kid. I shot a bird as a kid. When I got over to it, it was dead, and that particular childhood thrill was over.

What I do find interesting is the self-rightous display when materialists form groups, organize national associations, stack peer-review, conduct e-mail campaigns, circle the legal wagons, and build websites for the sole purpose of assassinating the charater of anyone who would dare have the unmitigated temerity to question them in light of the observable evidence, then go into apoplectic shock if someone spits back.

Yes Retro, malicious character assassination and guilt by association are tactics only those evil Jesus people employ.

You seem to be justifying one’s behavior based on someone else’s behavior.

According to bible teachings, if a husband commits adultery, is his wife allowed a free affair?

In fact, such a blatant fallacy is disappointing. This thread seems full of them.