Letter: Religion Is Not Science

Editor’s note: The following letter is in response to the letter “Anthropogenic Global Warming” by Larry Spencer published Oct. 6.

Despite his poor writing, I will try and respond to Mr. Spencer’s latest letter. First, he does at least bring in a well-credentialed climate scientist to back up his views. I will just say that there are always a few people who glean different conclusions when sifting through the data. However, one of the problems with Dr. Spencer’s research is that he has preconceived notions of outcomes going into his work. Concerning the world’s ecosystems, he is a signatory to an epistle that believes the Earth and its ecosystems were “created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence.” He is also a staunch creationist, and his work is tainted by his religious beliefs. Dr. Spencer’s works has been highly criticized by the vast, vast majority of scientists working in the field, of all political views. There are also scientists who feel smoking does not contribute to cancer, but this doesn’t make it so. As Massimo Pigliucci stated, “It is always possible to find academics with sound credentials who will espouse all sorts of bizarre ideas, often with genuine conviction.”

Mr. Spencer also holds these beliefs, and on top of that, he lacks a fundamental understanding of science, scientific methods and processes, and how science works. I suggest he (and everyone) reads Making Sense Of Science, Separating Substance From Spin by Cornelia Dean. Of course, Mr. Spencer will find fault with this, as Ms. Dean works/edits for the science section of the New York Times.

Mr. Spencer uses the term “progressive” as a pejorative, but isn’t progress what human beings are always striving for? Anytime you bring in religion to back up science, it is regressive, a throwback to a time before science. Science believes in data. It is not a religion, Mr. Spencer, despite you trying to make it into one. And just because you find some scientists who back up what you are saying, does not make it true. One needs to read all points of view, have an open mind and understand science. Unfortunately, Mr. Spencer seems to only read the works of people who confirm his ideas. Robert Merton, professor of sociology at Columbia University, stated that the goal of science is the “disinterested pursuit of truth unmotivated by anything other than the desire for knowledge, and reliance on nature — not culture, religion, economics or politics — as the final arbiter.” The sources Mr. Spencer has cited in this and his last letter rely on religion, economics and politics as a basis for their “search for the truth.”

Mr. Spencer’s ideas are throwbacks and basically agree with a quote from Epicurus (341 BC – 270 BC): “Better to follow the myths about gods (God) than to become a slave to the destiny of natural philosophers (scientists).”

Mr. Spencer, the world is passing you and your ilk by. However, in the interim, you are causing damage with your superstitious views. Use science, not, to use your own word, “geegaw” — the supernatural and magic have no place in science.

By the way, Mr. Spencer, the world is round, it revolves around the sun, it is older than 6,000 years and dinosaurs never lived with people. That documentary you so believe in, with dinosaurs being used as cranes to build the pyramids, was The Flintstones and was not real.

There is so much more to say to people like Mr. Spencer, but honestly, there is no point. He/they will never get science. Religion rules everything for them, but religion is not science.

Andrew Rosen, Wellington


  1. OYG (OH YOUR GOD) – I was going to talk to you about your church’s corruption since its inception, its misogyny, its regressive attitudes, its cover-ups, or even how you say that nobody can prove yours is not the only true religion (or that any other religion is true), etc. But there is now only one thing to discuss in your whole diatribe.

    Mr. Spencer – you do not understand the difference between Homosexuality and Pedophilia. I understand you are against both – I am only against pedophilia. But you don’t understand the difference. You feel that priests committed these acts on adolescent males because of their homosexuality. They did it because they are pedophiles and there is a major difference between the two. And then you go and use the term ‘queer clergy’ for them.

    Mr. Spencer – you are a hateful, over-religious zealot of the Taliban, ISIS type. Anti-progress, anti-science, anti-anything that does not show your religion in the best light. It is truly rare to meet someone of your soul destroying (not saving) convictions. Despite what you say you profess in terms of your religion you do not practice it. You are an evil hate-monger. This started out with AGW, went to evolution/creation and on to religion, but you have now taken it to new heights with your obviously homophobic opinions. I have Catholic friends and family, but none of them are as backwards and as hateful as you are. I hope that you have no gay people in your family, sir, as I am sure you would make their lives a living hell.

    You will be happy to know that we (I) am done. No matter what you write in response to this I will not respond. Just as I would not try and reason with ISIS or any other extremist. You have more than certainly crossed the line with your bigotry and hate. Live your life, you evil, pathetic, sad, hate-filled, backwards little man. I’M DONE – I HOPE TO NEVER EVER MEET OR HAVE DIALOGUE WITH ANYONE EVER AGAIN LIKE YOU.

    • Mr. Rosen. Were it not for your rhetorical primal screams you’d be without words.

      It is clear you are all rhetorical hat and no factual cattle. In fact, you are a Low Information Editor and when that descriptor is used as an acronym it describes what it is you do (LIE).

      As to your bald faced lie the one True Religion hates women that can easily be disproved by facts


      Princess-Abbesses 1600-1918

      but you do not trade in facts , you trade in lies and mendacious accusations.

      As to the acceptance of sodomites into seminaries, their eventual reception of Holy Orders, and their subsequent attacks on adolescent males


      the facts are what they are and it is clear that pedophilia is yet another word which definition eludes you.

      As to the rate of sex crimes committed by queer clergy against adolescent males, the One True Religion is not the institution that has the highest rates of sex criminals – it is the public school system which is entirely in control of the atheistic progressives and commie collectivists


      It is the One True Religion, The One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, that developed the Just War Theory:


      and according to its doctrine, I can not justify continuing a war of words/facts with an unarmed and insane combatant.

      O, and one can not be a homophobic because that is not a legitimate word, it is a political slogan, a neologism that belies the plain and simple meaning of the compound word – Homo (man) phobia (irrational fear) and so when you try your little Cultural Marxist labeling with me I can point out how insane you are to try and use that word for if I were homophobic, I would have an irrational fear of all other men.

      The other day you we’re up at 4:00 am banging away on your delusion diatribe in opposition to me – tonight, chill out -for any further responses will only be for me a new opportunity to reveal who you are and the unfathomable depths of your hatred of the acred and normal.

      O, and no hard feelings, Mr. Rosen.

      I am an Irish Algonquin Catholic and so it is in my nature to enjoy battle whereas you are a Darwinian Ideologue, the result of aught but mutations and random selection and, thus, you have no right to complain about what you consider to be right or wrong for there is no such thing as right or wrong or abstract thought or morality within Darwinism – as Chuckles Darwin pointed out in a letter to the real creator of that monstrous doctrine, Alfred Russell Wallace; “I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child.”

      That “child” was the crackpot claim that all we see is a result of evolution and the impetus for Darwin’s bathetic bleat was that Wallace has pointed out that evolution can not account for such things as abstract thought, language etc to say nothing about man with his hairless body and no back hair which makes him highly vulnerable to wind, cold, and rain.

      Now, of course, Darwin has already boasted in his crummy book that only one – ONE- case of its kind, that Wallace observed exists- “would be fatal to his theory, ” and Wallace had pointed out more than one.

      And now of course, the examples have multiplied and so the only men who believe in Darwinism is the atheist and the progressive (but I repeat myself).

      But, not to atheists; no, atheists are the truest believers in Darwin’s religion of Just so.

      Have a lovely and pleasant evening, Mr. Rosen

  2. To Mr. “Torqy” Spencer – First, you did not accept my peace offering (of a book loan). You responded with a vitriolic rant. And now your latest, long-winded rant is showing how yours is the one and only true religion. That is the offering of a close-minded bigot. And you also show how you rely on the supernatural! I am glad that you do not compare yourself to Torquemada – you are much more zealous in your hatred than he ever was! Please keep admiring him. There is no Catholic that I am sure you do not admire, and the more people they tortured or harmed the more you admire them. Hope you are admiring all the pedophiles that infest your church – the one true church!!

    And WOW, You certainly are inebriated with the exuberance of your verbosity! This latest diatribe is amazing – not in a good way!

    I will keep this short and let you rant again. I am also putting this up at the top so people don’t have to scroll through your inane rants.

    Mr. Spencer, you are now at a point where you are making me laugh. To quote the gremlin talking about Bugs Bunny “I like him, he’s silly”

    • Mr. Rosen. You are not doing yourself any favors by describing my explanation of religion as a “vitriolic rant.”

      And of course any religious man thinks the religion of which he is a member is the true religion- unless you know of a man who intentionally continues as a member of a false religion.

      But I challenge any man to try and prove his is a true religion for it is only the one true religion of Jesus Christ which was established by God; all other religions, which are false religions, were established by sinful men in opposition to the one true religion.

      It is not the sign of a hateful man to try and convince others to join the one true religion Jesus Christ and to try and save their immortal soul and attain unto sanctification but you seem not to be able to grasp that simple truth.

      Mr. Rosen, I do not hate you or any other atheists but many men feel they can achieve a certain status by claiming victimhood and rejection and if that makes you feel special that way, there is nothing I can do about that. I can not control your feelings – which, by the way, are so florid, puissant, an out of control that they virtually leap off the screen.

      There are many Catholics I do not admire – such as the Bishops who, contrary to Canon Law, accepted sodomites into seminaries and who eventually ordained those perverts as priests and then sent them out into the sheep gate where they committed their sexual crimes against innocent adolescent males and such criminal activity is what constituted the vast numbers of the sexual crimes; that is, it did not have to do with pedophilia.

      Lay men are far more likely to be pedophiles and their victims are family members and those who, for instance, are students in public schools. Many studies exist that prove this but many are not interested in such things…

      The fact of the matter is that the public school system and the protestant communities commit sexual crimes at much higher rates than did the queer clergy but the facts of those scientific studies are rarely cited by the media because neither institution is a threat to the progressives and their malign agenda.

      Mr. Rosen. I didn’t know you controlled this section of the paper. Are you the editor?

      In any event, I will close by bringing you the good news of science – there are scores of recent scientific studies proving that Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax by progressives who have tried to scare the poor taxpayer into accepting ever increasing control by the collectivists.

      Ouch, hoisted on his own scientific petard 🙂

  3. Mr. Spencer, since neither of us will change our opinions – me relying on science for the future of Humankind and the earth and you relying on the supernatural – I offer to lend you a book from my collection that will be right up your ally. It is “The Atheist Syndrome” by John T. Koster. While it has been derided by Atheist and religious alike I feel that you would enjoy it. It’s premise is that people like Darwin, Huxley, and other atheists share the same backgrounds that forces them into Atheism. They had dominating, overbearing fathers and this drove them into rebellion against them and their religious ideas. And he considers Atheism as a psychological syndrome.

    Please let me know if you would like to borrow this book. I offer this to you as a peace offering. While I don’t agree with the premise of the book and every other reviewer seems also to not agree with it I think you will. Please ask the editors of this paper for my email/phone number and we can arrange to get the book to you (it is a loan only, however).

    • Mr Rosen you are a closed- minded bigot as are so many others of your ilk.

      You reflexively gainsay the legitimate and excellent scientific work of those who are not atheists but there can be no doubt that the progressives who control the public school system are in lock step with your agenda of fear and hatred of a scientific voice dissenting from the received wisdom of the atheists with their progressive programs which is why they hire only progressives in the sciences who will continue to brainwash the poor students which is but the continuation of a long pattern of brain washing begun with the colleges in England when Thomas Huxley and The X Club hired solely Darwinists as University Professors and excluded believers.

      The progressive professors kept their jobs only insofar as they parroted the progressive doctrines of the atheist Darwin. Not for them was intellectual curiosity, open debate, free inquiry, and critical thinking. All were expected to succumb to the mind-numbing and soul-killing claptrap of that cranky clown, Chuckles Darwin.

      Yes, of course I mock him. He was a false prophet who trailed in his wake all manner of evil, insanity, and mayhem and there can be no objection by you to my mocking him because you subscribe to his inane ideology that you are the result of a long line of mutations and random selection and which process excludes abstract thought and, most certainly, any idea of objective unchanging morality.

      There is nothing new under the sun as the same vice virus of fear, closed-mindedness, and atheism, infected the American Public School system which replaced the believer with the atheist or the scared compliant servant of the secular and civic religion (it even has its own Holy Days and hymns, but that’s a tale for another day).

      It is you atheistic closed-minded bigots who are soon to join the  dinosaurs as a tsunami of real science has drowned the dark doctrines of Darwinism which are essentially no different than the Just So stories of Rudyard Kipling and it solely because close-minded bigots like you are in control of the progressive public schools that real scientific facts are excluded because real science would liberate the students from the progressive brain washing so necessary to keep those poor students in a state of fear which renders them weak and susceptible to the progressive control of the commie collectivists.

      The funny thing is that it is all coming to an end and you have no clue but that is not surprising as it is often the case that when an agency of control (such as a state or ideology) imagines itself to be at its most powerful is when it is, in truth, at its most weakest.

      The haughty man of science is forever bragging of his putative scientific expertise but in striving to convince others to accede to what are his own purely personal opinions he appeals to an “authority” that is atheistic and yet he believes his personal opinions are normative for all others rather than just being the ipse dixit of the idiosyncratic and atheistic ideologue that he is.

      Well, as a Roman Catholic, my appeal to authority is God who created atheists like Chuckles Darwin and you and good luck denying Him for if you continue to do so for when you stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ having not repented of your atheism, you will wish you were aught but a dinosaur, the possessor of an animal and not an immortal soul.

      As to Galileo, it is clear you do not know the facts about him – such as the fact he was not punished for his science but for his insistence ( despite repeated warnings against doing so) on his personal exegesis (really eisegesis) of sacred scripture; O, and he personally mocked the Pope (not too bright).

      The fact is Galileo was wrong in crucial parts of his scientific claims but the calumny against The Roman Catholic Church is the imagined safe haven for the progressive snowflake who would otherwise be buried in an evidentiary avalanche that without The Catholic Church there would have never been any serious advances in science ( see Fr Stanley Jaki, Pierre Duhem, J.L. Heilbrun, David Lindgerg, Thomas Goldstein etc etc).

      It was Nicholas Copernicus (Catholic scientist who dedicated his work to Pope Paul III) in 1543 who published his work claiming Heliocentrism and the Roman Catholic Church was jake with the cosmology. It was the protestants who went ape.

      As for Galilei Galileo, it was John Henry Cardinal Newman who observed that Galileo is the sole example produced by anti-catholics to illustrate how the Catholic Church is putatively opposed to science.

      Strange then, isn’t it, that Galileo’s work was immediately accepted by Catholic Churchmen; Galileo went to Rome and remarked, “I have been received and shown such favor by many illustrious cardinals, prelates, and princes of this city” and he enjoyed a long a positive audience with Pope Paul V.

      When Galileo published, “Letters on the sunspots,” his work was received favorably by Cardinal Barberini who later was elected Pope. The Catholic Church had no objection to Galileo using his system as a theoretical system but he had no right to claim it was literally true because, well, he had no proof (and the proof he thought he had was later to be shown false).

      In 1616, Galileo agreed with the Church that he would continue to teach his Copernican system as a theory but not insist it was literally true (he lacked proof). Then, Galileo took back his word and was justly censored and condemned.

      It is the Roman Catholic Church that created Western Civilisation and rescued science from such men as Averroes and the astonishing advance of science has been rendered as the Dark Ages by the Whigs of history but rebarbative rubrics are, eventually, laughed at and mocked as the real facts are continually brought to light.

      Mr. Rosen. You can come into the light from the darkness of atheism or you can continue to imperil your immortal soul. It is your choice and despite the dark doctrines of Darwin it is a fact that you have free will but as God teaches- “I have set good and evil before you.”

      You can chose, Mr. Rosen. You are not a mindless recipient at the end of an impossibly long chain of mutations. It is all up to you. Choose wisely.


      • Spoiler Alert: Major Ad Hominem coming:

        WOW, an amazing rant coming from someone who has more right-wing religious zealotry that Torquemada. You call me a bigot, but you are blinded in your belief in the supernatural and magic while you oppose science which offers explanations based in the real world. Your “science” is crap to put it as nicely as I can. You and your ilk are a sad, pathetic lot who read only the religious apologists version of Wikipedia for your easy and trite answers but don’t have the intellect to go deeper as it would challenge your “faith” in magic. Enjoy your sad life as a sheep.

        Mr. Spencer, first, you are upset because science has proved the Creation myth just that, a myth, and also because the courts have declared Creationism, Intelligent Design, Creation Science, etc. religion, and not science. Anyway you couch it, anyway you want to be a religious apologist, or any loony way you want to halt the progress of real science, the world is moving against your kind. Luckily for Humankind.

        And, sir, you never said if you are a young-earth creationist (I have asked this twice), but I guess the embarrassment to admit that in public is too high. But have no fear, Mr. Spencer, the other rants you have had already show that you cannot be embarrassed by ludicrous thinking!

        I want to keep this short, but your hatred for Science (despite what you say about your church always being on the forefront of science) and Atheists and Atheism is amazing and the zealotry that comes across only reminds me of other intolerant religious groups that we currently have around now (ISIS, Taliban, etc.). Blinded by your faith and your hatred of others who go against it! Again, so sad, so pathetic. I am glad you have shown this side of Christianity, not the loving side that Christians try to project – and that a great many of them live up to, but not you, Mr. Spencer.

        • Again. Spoiler Alert: More Ad Hominem

          Mr. Spencer, you wrote this:

          “Well, as a Roman Catholic, my appeal to authority is God who created atheists like Chuckles Darwin and you and good luck denying Him for if you continue to do so for when you stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ having not repented of your atheism, you will wish you were aught but a dinosaur, the possessor of an animal and not an immortal soul.”

          “Mr. Rosen. You can come into the light from the darkness of atheism or you can continue to imperil your immortal soul. It is your choice and despite the dark doctrines of Darwin it is a fact that you have free will but as God teaches- “I have set good and evil before you.”

          “You can chose, Mr. Rosen. You are not a mindless recipient at the end of an impossibly long chain of mutations. It is all up to you. Choose wisely.”

          To which I reply:

          WOW, how utterly pompous that you are so cocksure that yours is the only correct, right, and true religion! By doing this you have shown that because of your complete bias you can never be open-minded. Anyone, any book or anything that says something against the “TRUE” religion (yours), has no chance to ever be right, whether it is science, other religions, other beliefs, ANYTHING. And of course it is people like you who call others close minded.

          Yet you, Mr. Spencer, in all your devout, close-minded pomposity have it in you that you are obviously correct. To paraphrase Inherit The Wind, “God tells Spencer, and Spencer tells the world”

          Let’s get all them copies of Origin Of The Species burnt, Mr. Spencer!!!

        • “I offer this to you as a peace offering”

          Mr. Rosen. It appears you have moved away from any idea of peace 🙂

          “WOW, an amazing rant coming from someone who has more right-wing religious zealotry that Torquemada”

          Fray Tomas De Torquemada was an exemplary man and an accomplished Thomist who was as famous for his charity as for his Faith and so I thank you for the comparison but must reject it because I am not worthy of even being included in his excellent company.

          Perhaps, you did not know, Mr. Rosen, that the priest, Torquemada, was a vegetarian, slept on a bare board, and only the rough fabric of his habit touched his skin.

          I think you know as much about Fray Torquemada as you do about the other progressives sticks with which you try and stab The Holy Roman Catholic Church in the back..

          But, for your benefit, and the benefit of the casual reader who might take a look at our exchange, I will spend a bit if time and space on telling you what religion is.

          Religion is, as Saint Augustine taught, a bond which unites man to God and it was established by God Himself and there has only ever been one true religion- although there have been virtually innumerable false religions.

          Now, that Bond between God and man is more sacred and crucial than the bond existing between a Father and his child. That is only common sense, right?

          I mean, to whom do I owe more, the man who fathered me or my Father in Heaven who created me and who is – please God- my final end?

          Religion signifies our Bond with God and it also signifies a re-tieing of that Bond that was nearly entirely severed after man had fallen in the Garden of Eden.

          The re-tieing was accomplished by Jesus Christ who died on the Cross on Calvary in His pluperfect self-sacrifice that ransomed man from his captivity to the devil and restored a right relationship with God to those who chose to accept Jesus as the Messias – over 300 Old Testament prophecies predicted His arrival on Earth as the God-man.

          Now, this is not to be missed but it is constantly being missed or misunderstood.

          There has only ever been one true religion and that has been the religion of Jesus Christ.

          There is no other religion than the religion of Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ alone, as both God and man, could expiate sin, reconcile man to God, and re-establish the supernatural tie which united them.

          And this religion is not new. This religion of Jesus Christ is as old as the world itself for it dates to the time that the Son of God offered Himself to the Father to redeem man and that religion has always had as its purpose that object of faith with its hope in the coming of the Messias and the same eternal rewards for those who keep His Faith and Commandments.

          Now, it is obviously the case that the religion of Jesus Christ was not fully taught as it is taught today by the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, rather, it was revealed in a progressive manner with the first faithful members of the one religion holding fast to the one true religion in expectation of the coming of Jesus Christ as the Saviour, the Messias whereas now, all that is necessary for salvation and Sanctification has been revealed for those members of the one true religion.

          And, anyone who is not a member of that one true religion can freely join that one true religion and attain unto Salvation and Sanctification via the Faith and reception of the Holy Sacraments which is the way Jesus Christ communicates His divinity to His members.

          I would say, simply and plainly, the religion of Jesus Christ is no different than it was for the patriarchs and prophets as we all have/had the same faith and hope in Jesus Christ.

          The One True religion of Jesus Christ has always existed from the beginning and it has always been the same religion but those first members of the religion did not have the fullness of revelation.

          That there has always been only one religion is evident in the truth that Jesus Christ is it author and its fulfillment ad to attain unto salvation is only possible through Him; He is the Way; He is the Truth; He is the Life.

          This one true religion has only ever had one doctrine – that God is the creator of and preserver of all that is seen, that He is the only true God, that as redeemer He would save the world and sanctify us by His Holy Sacraments with the only difference being that we Christian Catholics know this in its fullness while the Jews did not know these truths in their fullness.

          This one true religion of Jesus Christ has always taught that man was created in His image with a body and an immortal soul, that man was created free but fell into the slavery of sin through his own feee will and, thus, all men were born in sin and require Baptism so as to be made children of God and that there will come a time – Parousia – when all who had died will rise for the final judgment and the wicked will be punished eternally in Heaven and the faithful will be rewarded by being received into Heaven for an existence of eternal bliss.

          The one true religion of Jesus Christ has always taught that the world was created out of nothing by God and is governed by God who is all powerful and loving, infinitely wise and good, and this world will, one day, be consumed by fire and there wail arise a new heaven and earth.

          The One True Religion of Jesus Christ has always taught the same objective universal morality and any deviation from it ineluctably leads to the loss of one’s eternal soul (if the sin is mortal and unrepented)and the wreck and ruin of entire countries.

          The one true religion of Jesus Christ has always required sacrifice and that was one reason for the Incarnation, so Jesus Christ to teach us how to worship God in spirit and truth.

          The religion of Jesus Christ was established for two reasons – Salvation and Sanctification – and outside of that one true religion one will not attain unto either

          The one true religion Jesus Christ grew and expanded throughout time; it began as the religion of the patriarchs and only included the immediate family, then it expanded into a national state and, finally, via the Gospel it expanded to a universal (Catholic) religion that includes all races, nationalities, and cultures so that, truly, there is aught but one family of God in His one true religion.

          This one true religion of Jesus Christ can not be destroyed and we know that from the promises of Jesus Christ, both God and man, and God does not lie.

          • I apologise for some errors and typos. It was prolly me and not and software corrections.

            I intended to write “progressive knives”

            “….the wicked will be punished in Hell…”

  4. Mr. Spencer,

    First, I do know what a genetic fallacy is, and I should have answered that part better, I admit that (trying to be a bit humorous as well). And yes, Darwin, a very private person was not at the meeting and also had his paper read.

    But now, how do I respond to your arguments when they really don’t make any sense at the core. Let me start by saying that I have never, never heard of someone being so anti-science. Your arguments really only rely on your own belief in the Supernatural and Magic. This all started out by my pointing out that your anti-AGW stance was anti-science. And I then pointed out that I was sure you are a Creationist because those often go together. So you seem to be against a lot of biology (Evolution is a basis of modern biology) and all Earth sciences, including Geology, Geography, Climatology and a host of others.

    I know you will never change your point of view, but I write these things hoping that other people will believe in science and reason. People like you have tried to halt the progress of the human race since its inception (and I do not mean Adam and Eve). Hopefully there will be enough people who will continue to rely on science and not hold back progress and we can continue to learn and grow. Please all, read Nonsense On Stilts by Massimo Pigliucci (2010), It is about how to tell science from pseudo-science.

    You also seem to use the term ‘atheist’ like you use ‘progressive’ as a pejorative. Both are not, but if anyone does not agree with you and your god they are put down. (Were you upset when the Catholic Church realized that Galileo might have been correct after all? And you never said if you are a young-earth creationist or not.)

    Your calling Darwin, ‘Chuckles Darwin” and Lyell as ‘Liar’, ‘is a sign of immaturity and really shows ignorance as well. So sad you resort to this. I suppose that it must be easier for one to be a sheep and spit back what a preacher says than to do the research or work involved in science. You really take the quote ‘Religion is a crutch for people who can’t think for themselves,” to new heights. And while I do like your attempt to come off as someone who does think deeply, your agenda is so biased, unlike science’s, that you are just a blind follower to your religion.

    I could go on, but you, as I have said, are a sad throwback to an era of superstition and when people needed things like that to explain the environment. Mr. Spencer, we have passed the Dark Ages, try and do better. You might think of this response as total Ad Hominem, but your comments included a lot of insults as well and I am getting bored with someone trying to explain the word and the universe in term of a supernatural being. Why not believe in Apollo pulling the sun behind his chariot? Oh yes, I forgot, yours is the one true god, the only ‘right’ and ‘correct’ one. The one that others down through history didn’t have (before Jesus) or don’t realize is the one because they believe, mistakenly, that theirs was/is the one true one. So sad.

    And now you are starting to bore and tire me with your crazy world-view. Sorry again, if this is simply Ad Hominem, but it fits. Live your life in your silly little cocoon of religion and anti-science, enjoy the Dark Ages. (PS – My wife says to simply stop feeding the trolls)

  5. Dear Mr. Rosen. As it is the case you behave as though you are a pyromaniac in a field of straw men, I will take your errors seriatim.

    You do not know what a genetic fallacy is:

    The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone’s or something’s history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.

    As to the atheist Chuckles Darwin, the Linnean Society ( an upper class clique of conspiratorial intellectual criminals) wrote an abstract for Chuckles Darwin and attributed it to him and he went along with the intellectual theft of Wallace’s theory and so Darwin never wrote that abstract but the liars in the lair of Linnean did; Sir Charles Liar, er, Lyell and another descendent of the apes, one Sir Jospeh Hooker, (well, one can not expect morality from a Hooker descended from an ape, can one?)

    As Tom Wolfe observed; “To part the matter into perspective, one only has to imagine what would have happened had the roles been reversed. Suppose (Chuckles) Darwin is the one who has just written a formal twenty-page scientific treatise for publication…and somehow Wallace gets his hands on it ahead of time..and announces that he made this same astounding epochal discovery twenty one years ago but just never got around to writing it up and claiming priority….”

    I am going to be polite and simply say that Mr. Rosen is ignorant (rather than a bald faced liar) about the fact that neither Wallace or Chuckles Darwin was in attendance at the meeting cited by Mr. Rosen even though Mr. Rosen, wrongly, claims that Chuckles Darwin was in attendance and read his paper (That he didn’t write)

    Now, all off this information is online for those interested in these captious questions about these questionable claims and bald face lies but the plain and simple truth is that the modern day Gods of science, such as the illustrious, Noam Chomsky, have thrown in the towel on the putative evolution of language; that is, they have given up trying to explain its putative evolutionary development because they can’t, although, to be fair to them ,they have only had 150 years to develop proof of such an inane claim that, simply on the face of it, belies common sense.

    Perhaps the scientific proof did at one time exist but then it was stolen by the first speaking ape man who fed it to the last existing unicorn who had become deathly ill having been bitten by a deadly flying horse insect.

    The atheist, Chuckles Darwin, imagined the source of all life was four or five cells just floating about in some warm water and as to whom, or what, accounted for the existence of the water and the cells, well, that is beyond the interest of the leaden pedantry of the atheistic materialists, isn’t it?

    We are just supposed to accept such inane claims as a matter of faith in the constantly disproven theory of macro evolution.

    Sure, this is superstition borne in the beak of a demented stork on steroids but a “scientist” said so and that settles it , I guess 🙂

    The long and short of it is establishment science is a religion that viciously attacks any putative heretic that dares challenge its demented doctrines and it began with the brilliant scientists who revealed the theories of Chuckles Darwin to be daft – they we’re attacked viciously by atheist friends of the atheist Chuckles Darwin, men like the atheist, Thomas Huxley (He too thought the claims of Chuckles Darwin were daft, but Chuckles was a fellow atheist, and so scientific solidarity…) and such closed-minded hatred for those daring to dispute with the dark doctrines of Darwin continues today.

    Just notice the vicious and venomous attacks made against, Daniel L. Everett, who proved the “science” of Noam Chomsky (about the putative evolution of language) was not science at all.

    The attacks made on this true man of science by the close-minded religion-of-macro-evolution “scientists” was truly rebarbative and fetid – but, that is what these scientists do to those who threaten their prizes, grants, and unwarranted prestige.

    The sad and pathetic thing is that Daniel L. Everett defeated the clique of collectivists who strove to silence him and yet where is the true scientist championing his cause for having proven the progressives entirely wrong in their claims about the evolution of language?

    They are silent, aren’t they; all one can hear in he scientism seance is the chirping of collectivists crickets who descended, one supposes, from the dinosaurs, just like chickens who, no really, also descended for Dinosaurs.

  6. Mr. Spencer, accusing me of Ad Hominem fallacies is, while probably true to a point, an exact example of the pot calling the kettle black. All his letters have many personal attacks in them. So let’s dispense with this entirely.

    As far as genetic fallacies, I’m not sure if he means my personal genes or the proven scientific facts of genes, evolution, DNA, etc. If it’s me, then that again, is an Ad Hominem attack. If it is science, well, despite what he says later about 30,000 scientific studies being wrong and my responses to him he is in error. His sources are also so poor that there really is no point in looking at them as he sees only a sound bite, a headline, and he goes no further in his chain of research. If someone he believes in says it then it has to be true. This is shown in his understanding of the Darwin/Wallace discussion on ‘creators’ of the theory of evolution. There is so much more to it. It started long before either of these two scientists, and both are credited with the theory of Natural Selection not Evolution. He uses this seeming dispute as an attack on Darwin’s character (that he stole the theory from Wallace) as most creationists do to undermine the theory itself. Ad Hominem, Mr. Spencer!! In brief, Wallace sent a letter to Darwin outlining his theory. Darwin had the theory decades before (written down), but was nervous to publish it as it went against Victorian religious attitudes. Eventually Darwin and Wallace both published/read papers at the same conference (Wallace was not there but had his paper read and he was pleased with the joint credit and outcome). That is the very short version. However, it does not say anything against the theory itself. Science is together on Evolution, and opposed to Creation, Intelligent Design or Creation Science.

    To answer his question about scientific method and the five questions – the answers are yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. But it will take a lot more space than is available here to go into each question and the proof, in nature and labs, of each ‘yes’ answer (but kudo’s for naming Karl Popper in your letter, Mr. Spencer).

    Mr. Spencer’s denigrates my ‘scientism’. No, sir, I do not believe that scientists are Gods, however, Science itself should be considered that way! Science is fallible, yet it is self-correcting whereas Mr. Spencer’s belief in the supernatural and magic is not, it is his church’s way or the highway.

    I also love when he says that we (on the left? Scientists? collectivists?) use “fear to fuel the engines of their insatiable desire for more power and control”. At first, reading that line you would think he was talking about his religion/church or his current political party. Ironic, isn’t it!!

    I leave with this quote by Stephen Roberts “I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss your”. (of course Mr. Spencer will dispute this as his belief in his one god is different than all the others because his is the ‘Right God”

  7. Were it not for ad hominem and genetic fallacies, Mr. Rosen would be reduced to actualising what appears to be his imagined authority – anathematising and insulting those who disagree with his faith; his scientism (wouldn’t it be nice of him to tell us where his imagined authority came from?)

    O, to be sure, there is also his nasty habit of attributing what he imagines to be absurd beliefs and malicious interior motives to others but, of course, he can not either explain or defend those nasty habits using the scientific method, and because he exhibits not one iota of any afflatic ability, he is not only easy but fun to ignore (most of the time) and so if nobody objects to what he does, I am happy to have him stand as the exemplar of the scientific man.

    As Pope Saint John Paul II demonstrated in his encyclical, Fides et ratio


    there is no legitimate opposition between faith and reason.

    Mr. Rosen, given his palpable and vicious antipathy to religion (religion means, Bond with God) is still, however, left with no possibility of using the scientific method to defend what appears to be his atheism.

    Hell, he can’t even scientifically prove that science is the best way to acquire knowledge.

    Let’s us just assume that he is a Darwinist (Even though it was not Darwin, but Alfred Russell Wallace who first created the theory of evolution) . Let him put his scientific proof where his atheistic macro evolution mouth is for when it comes to macroevolution, one could write a book on how it fails the test of science.

    O, that’s right, Tom Wolfe has written a book of how Darwinism has failed the tests of science, “The Kingdom of Speech,” in which he treats of the non-scientfic faith in evolution.

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Had anyone observed the phenomenon – in this case, Evolution – as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability test”)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of evolution…well…no…no…no…no..and no.”

    Mr. Rosen’s scientism is irrational and it is his false faith even despite the recent confession of some researchers that over 30,000 published scientific studies are prolly wrong due to the use of contaminated cells:

    “Researchers warn that large parts of biomedical science could be invalid due to a cascading history of flawed data in a systemic failure going back decades.

    A new investigation reveals more than 30,000 published scientific studies could be compromised by their use of misidentified cell lines, owing to so-called immortal cells contaminating other research cultures in the lab.”

    Thirty Thousand published scientific studies and not even one-half of them are accurate or reliable. All hail impeccable and infallible science !!!!

    Mr. Rosen seems to believe that scientists are not mere mortals but Gods of the lab who are infallible when the plain and simple truth is that many of them are corporate lackeys in the pay of Big Pharm or government lap dogs delivering to their masters what will increase the irrational fear of the tax payers which is so desired by the collectivists because fear fuels the engines of their insatiable desire for more power and control.

Comments are closed.