Telling lies for Darwin

For some people the origins debate isn't about science at all; it's merely one front in a war against Christianity.

Quotes and comments;

A. "Unfortunately in this debate a position between two sides, which you seem to adopt, is hardly tenable. It is a culture war whose outcome will have immense consequences, so a book to be useful must unequivocally take a side and defend it vigorously. A position of supposed neutrality (which is hardly possible) necessarily serves one side despite the author's intention to remain unbiased. [1.]

- I was listening to an interview with Stephen Meyer today, and he mentioned that his book had generally received good reviews... including those on Amazon. The Darwinists didn't like all this and decided (via somebody on some Darwinist site, Panda's Thumb was it?) to dump on the book and drive it down in the ratings. They encouraged opponents of creation and ID to go to the Amazon site and give the book a one star rating. (Let me just add that people who review books they haven't read are lower on the intellectual scale than termites.) So in a day or two 30-40 people had all given it a 1 star rating and driven the ratings down from 4.5 to 4. [2.]

My question is this; do you think people who do this are going to be honest about the Origins debate? Do you think they're going to be honest in answering questions? in writing papers? in discussing the evidence, in revealing their true beliefs?

It's interesting that people who don't have the time to read the book (this being the usual excuse materialists give for not reading creationist material) but they do have the time to write fake reviews. One wonders if their articles and papers are any more honest than their reviews.

What's even worse are the fake reviews that get published in science magazines. For years people have been reviewing anti-Darwinian, and creationist books without having read them. (Are they scared to?) What makes this ironic is that a popular icon of the Darwinist movement is the story where Galileo offers to show the 'bishops' of the church evidence for his new cosmology, but they refuse to look through his telescope. "See,'' they tell us, "this is what Christians are like. They're scared to look at the evidence."
Well; whether or not materialists want to look at it or not, the evidence against them and in favor of creation is there waiting for them.

The Amazon incident shows how degraded the origins debate has become, as the Darwinists now resort to any manner of foul tactics to try and defend their collapsing theory. We don't see people discussing science and we don't see honest debate. What we see are bully tactics and suppression of discussion.

Notes;
1. 'Seeking god in science' - Bradley Monton; preface/9
- According to the author of this note, (this person seems to know the future you'll notice) books and articles can't concern themselves with the truth about reality, but must be 'useful' in the struggle to destroy Christianity. (The author of this note seems to imagine there are only two sides in the debate.) It's clear to me that the origins debate isn't about science in the minds of many materialists. What they're doing is using 'science' to attack Christianity. (This is their version of the 'wedge' strategy.)
- Ever notice how the pc types love the warfare metaphor?
2. I heard the interview on a radio show called Sound Rezn. They want to defend reason I guess, but they apparently can't spell it. The show claims to provide 'truth for a sound bite culture' or somesuch nonsense. They feature flashy rock and roll theme music, a snappy tv news style, etc. They want to defend Christianity, but you can see at a glance how has influenced who. I find this cheap imitation of pop culture sad and embarrassing. (But maybe that's just my curmudgeon gene speaking.)