Young-earth creationism is no better than any other form of malicious gossip

I’m not arguing here that young-earth creationism is heretical. What I’m pointing out here is that it is immoral.

Young-earth creationism is not an exclusively intellectual error. It is not a harmless mistake or an innocent confusion. Young-earth creationism is a sin.

The degree of that sinfulness depends on the extent to which one becomes invested in promoting or defending this untruthful scheme. At one extreme are the hucksters and charlatans — the bunco artists and shameless fraudsters who are transparently lying for money. At the other end of the spectrum are the followers least complicit in this malicious deception. Their complicity and culpability is more interesting.

“And it’s not just the biologists and geologists and astronomers … they’re ALL in on it.”

For the followers, participation in this falsehood tends to be mostly passive and receptive. For many it may be only tangential or in passing — a matter of accepting what one is told or of not making waves. And yet this passive, receptive role still requires them to participate in what is, at it’s core, a malicious slandering of others, a slothful disregard for the truth, and the prideful puffing up of one’s self.

In other words, young-earth creationism is no different than any other form of contemptuous gossip. Some play an active role — inventing the gossip, fabricating false witness against others, propagating those lies and aggressively seeking to deceive. But these active bearers of false witness are powerless without an audience. They cannot commit their sin unless they have the support of others who agree to listen — to accept such gossip without question and without challenge. Without such a receptive audience, malicious gossip cannot function. The passive listeners and followers play the same supportive role that bystanders play in mob violence or in permitting a culture of bigotry.

My focus here, again, is not on the simple factual errors and mistakes that young-earth creationists accept about the natural world. My focus, rather, is on the factual errors and mistakes they accept about other people. Those false assertions are not an innocent matter of getting the science wrong. They involve a willingness and an eagerness to spread malicious assertions about other people, without caring whether or not those assertions can be defended, and while refusing to consider the evidence that shows they cannot be. That’s not simple ignorance, it’s a choice — a choice that requires and reinforces contempt for others, self-absorbed pride and a rejection of the duty to love.

Young-earth creationism requires that choice, and that is why it is a sin. It requires one to make that choice, and to keep making that choice, which is why the more one participates in it, the worse one becomes — the more contemptuous, prideful and cruel.

It is not a sin to believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old. You can believe such a thing earnestly and innocently and that belief is not, in itself, either moral or immoral. It is incorrect, but such an incorrect belief is no more or less morally significant than any of the myriad other beliefs that all of us hold at any given time.

Provided you never learn anything more about the world around you, you can maintain such a belief and maintain your innocence while doing so. The incuriosity this requires is not commendable, but it need not be willfully immoral. (In another context I would argue that such incuriosity about the world is also a kind of moral failing, but that’s a separate discussion for another time.)

But eventually, inevitably, such innocent ignorance will be confronted with counter-evidence contradicting this belief. Responding to such evidence with hostility or disdain may be morally suspect as well, but we’ll give that a pass here because it is the next inevitable step I want to focus on. The next step is the one that introduces an explicit, conscious and deliberate moral choice. That step and that choice cannot be avoided forever, even for the most sheltered fundamentalists doing their best to guard their innocent ignorance in a hermetically sealed subculture.

Up until that step, that choice, you can innocently believe that which is false because you truly do not know any better. But that changes once you encounter others who do know better. That encounter presents you with a moral fork in the road, a clear choice between two divergent paths.

Suddenly you are faced with others who claim to know of things you know nothing about. Can you accept that this might be possible? To reject such a possibility is to make a moral choice.

These others present evidence and claim to be bound by the implications of that evidence. Will you look at it? Or will you refuse to even consider it? This, too, is an inescapably moral choice.

And then comes the largest and most important choice of them all, because this is where the hucksters and the fraudsters re-enter the picture and begin to do their worst. Here they will offer you another choice.

They will tell you that all of these others — these outsiders with their “evidence,” these people who claim to “know” things — are evil liars. They will explain to you that these others are part of a conspiracy. It is a huge, vast, global conspiracy of wicked people that encompasses everyone — everyone except, of course, them. And they will invite you to join them in opposing this conspiracy. They will invite you to join them in believing — without basis or evidence — the very worst things you can imagine about millions of people whom you have never met. They will invite you to join them in celebrating yourselves as uniquely righteous and as better than everyone else — the sole remnant of innocence in an irredeemably wicked world.

They will present you with a choice. It is the same choice that every malicious gossip presents to everyone they suspect will be receptive to their lies. You can choose to accept that invitation or you can choose to reject it. One of those choices is a sin.

 

  • Samuel G

     I appreciate this comment, but I find your story about the astronomy class a bit confusing. The vapor cloud theory is not at all integral to creationism (even if it does receive quite a bit of attention from Answers in Genesis). I don’t doubt that you have since come across more evidence to support your “conversion,” but I don’t quite understand the breaking point.

  • AnonymousSam

    Just look at it this way: humans are arguably the most advanced species on the planet because of our ability to cooperate and build upon mutual goals. That much is true regardless.

    That said, I’d point at the story of Noah. He alone built a ship capable of withstanding a monumental flood. In a way, his story parallels evolution — just as mutations can make certain members of a species more capable of surviving adversity, Noah’s preparations ensured that certain members of humanity would survive the flood.

    Christian scientists just as easily point out that the hand of God can guide evolution just as surely as it could have guided Noah to build the ark.

  • http://www.facebook.com/j.alex.harman John Alexander Harman

    Actually, these days a majority of scientists in the U.S., especially in the life science, are atheists.  It’s hard to learn enough to earn a Ph.D. or even an M.S. in any of the natural sciences without noticing that there’s no evidence to support the existence of God, souls, or other supernatural phenomena, and you’re unlikely to be inclined to pursue such a career in the first place if you’re inclined to believe complex propositions for which you lack evidence.

  • Samuel G

    AnonymousSam, thanks for your response. I don’t really see a way in which Noah and the ark parallel evolution.
    I think there may be some misunderstanding regarding my earlier point. It is not that creationists cannot imagine God being able to guide evolution, it is that evolution tells a story of a world of scarcity in which creatures became more complex by developing and adapting advantageously, thereby out-competing other organisms by consuming them or consuming the resources that they needed.
    The creation narrative tells a story of a world made good and with an abundance where life could flourish in harmony, and that scarcity and competition became the fact of the world only once sin marred the creation.
    So, in the case of the Noah narrative, the flood is explained as God’s punishment and judgment on sinful humanity. The millions of years of death entailed in the evolutionary account would predate human sin, and leave open the question of how the God Christians worship would have used this approach to make a good creation.

  • Carstonio

     

    using an approach that requires the opposite of those qualities from creatures in order to survive.

    That’s where you’re mistaken about natural selection. Cooperation among members of a species is indeed an evolutionary adaptation, such as primates and canines, that enables the species as a whole to survive. There’s evidence that suggests that chimpanzees and dogs possess a type of moral sense, such as fairness.

    Even if we assume you’re right that natural selection means that the individual is out only for himself or herself, humans can still say that sacrifical love, cooperation, and support of the vulnerable are good things.

  • Samuel G

    I am not suggesting that evolutionary theory always means that every individual creature is out only for itself. Many primates live in mini-societies; dolphins appear to have some sort of culture within their pods; ants, bees, and termites build their colonies on cooperation; prairie dogs and great gerbils live communally; herd animals often move juveniles toward the middle of the herd when threatened; etc.

    But, dolphins survive by killing fish; eusocial insects like ants compete with and kill neighboring colonies. Evolutionary theory further suggests that certain species survive at the expense of other species by either eating those other species or by consuming the resources the other species needed to survive. Even though there are examples of limited cooperation, the basic principle in the natural world is that animals are locked in competition to survive.
    I am not suggesting that a person cannot believe while also believing that that sacrificial love, cooperation, and support of the vulnerable are good things; but instead that this approach to populating the world seems to be at odds with the character of the Christian God as revealed in Jesus.

  • Carstonio

    Evolutionary theory further suggests that certain species survive at the expense of other species by either eating those other species or by consuming the resources the other species needed to survive.

    Again, you’re missing the larger picture. Far more often the reason some species survive and others don’t is because of changing conditions that neither one can control. To use a modern example, species can’t fight or eat their way out of climate change.

  • Samuel G

    Yes, but changing conditions are not the entire story; it cannot be denied that species spend a great deal of time devouring one another and competing for resources. This is often especially true when conditions change, as resources become increasingly scarce. Again, you can look back to what I wrote about the difference in narratives between one of abundance and one of scarcity. No matter what causes the scarcity, I am suggesting that scarcity and life under constant threat does not align easily with the character of the Christian God.

  • Carstonio

     

    I am suggesting that scarcity and life under constant threat does not align easily with the character of the Christian God.

    If life is like that now for plants and animals, the origin for the diversity of species would be irrelevant to that state. Unless you’re claiming, as creationist Duane Gish does, that death for plants and animals didn’t exist before the Fall, with lions and T.Rexes subsisting on vegetarian diets. Most Christians rightly reject that claim.

  • Samuel G

    Although just about every Creationist I know claims that there was no animal death before the first sin, I have never known any to claim an absence of vegetable death.

    But yes, I am speaking about that understanding here. Millions of years of animal death does not align easily for many with the Christian God.

  • EllieMurasaki

    And thousands of years of animal death does? Even supposing that the Fall did happen, even supposing that it is just for God to punish the entire human species for something done by its first two members, why is God punishing every creature in the world for something that neither they nor their ancestors did?

    Come to that, why did God drown all the animals that didn’t go with Noah when he drowned all the people that didn’t go with Noah? Wouldn’t it have worked just as well to give the entire human species, bar Noah’s family, a simultaneous collective heart attack?

  • Carstonio

     That was my error – I’ve corrected my post to say “death for animals” to make it clear.

    A majority of Christians do accept natural selection, and apparently see no conflict between that and their beliefs about their god. So what are the minority of Christians who are young-earth creationists seeing in the theology that the majority doesn’t? Or vice versa? You’re almost making a theodicy argument. I don’t know if gods exist, and I’ve suggested that death is in the nature of existence, but the latter doesn’t preclude the existence of a god. Since the evidence for natural selection is so strong, and millions see no conflict between that and their faith, it would seem to me to be a mistake for YECs to define their god in a way that conflicts with evidence.

  • Samuel G

    But you see, while you have tried to be helpful (and I appreciate that), you have not provided the response I initially asked for. What I am suggesting is that for those Christians who are creationists, the chief reason is because they do not see a way to align the character of the Christian God with a way of making a good creation through the deaths of trillions of creatures, forced to struggle for survival against scarcity and one another before sin was introduced into the world.
    Many Christians do accept the idea of theistic evolution, but it does not seem that many have a reason to do so except that they feel they have no choice given the weight of scientific evidence, and often seem to simply accept that their science doesn’t really line up with their theology. Creationists tend to do the same thing, but hold much more firmly to their theology than their science. So what I am suggesting is that a Christian who could offer a way of reconciling the God of Christianity with the process of evolution would have the potential impact of winning over many creationists. The issue, at heart, for creationists is not scientific but theological, and can only be addressed theologically.

  • The_L1985

    Perhaps, from some perspectives.  However, when wolves kill deer, they in turn prevent deer from overpopulating the local region.  Overpopulation would cause the deer to starve, because there wouldn’t be enough food for all those deer.  Thus, while the death of an individual deer is very bad from that deer’s perspective, it does accomplish good things:  it feeds the wolves, and it helps prevent the deer population from reaching a dangerous level.

    Predation and death do not, in and of themselves, contradict the idea of a benevolent god.

  • The_L1985

    “Although just about every Creationist I know claims that there was no
    animal death before the first sin, I have never known any to claim an
    absence of vegetable death.”

    What’s the difference?  Just in the case of my lunch today, I have prevented several rice seeds from germinating and have benefited from the deaths of 3 shrimp, at least one carrot, and several broccoli stalks.  There’s also the flour, eggs, and other such ingredients that went into the making of my muffin.  (I’m not counting the cheese and fruits I had in this example, as both could easily have been harvested without killing or sterilizing any living thing.)

    So.  Why, exactly, is the death of the shrimp different from the death of the vegetables and grains?

  • The_L1985

    “Many Christians do accept the idea of theistic evolution, but it does
    not seem that many have a reason to do so except that they feel they
    have no choice given the weight of scientific evidence, and often seem
    to simply accept that their science doesn’t really line up with their
    theology.”

    But the whole animal-death thing is never what I hear cited as a reason for creationism.  I hear, constantly and without exception, the argument that either Genesis is in some way a description of actual history as it happened, or the entire Bible is wrong.

    Obviously this argument is badly flawed, but until and unless we can convince all Christians to read other mythologies so that they can recognize the genre (those Christians who object are under the equally-faulty impression that one cannot learn what other people believed without converting), I don’t see any way to make them see that Genesis is not a history book.

  • Samuel G

    I can see that I must be coming across as antagonistic, and I apologize for that. I was legitimately trying to offer a suggestion on what is lacking to win over many creationists.

    But, to answer your question, I would suggest that creationists tend to see a difference in that the opening chapters of Genesis speak of God giving all the plants of the earth (but not animals) as food for every living creature and that prophetic books of the Bible speak of the future redeemed world as being one in which animals live in peace with one another (for instance, lions eating grass in Isaiah). Attached to this, there seems to be a perception that sentience of some sort makes a difference, and so the death of a cow or dolphin or even frog is quite obviously different from the death of a plant in that it involves suffering. Shrimp might be considered to be somewhere on the fuzzy border, because they arguably are incapable of suffering; and probably things like oysters would be considered to be much more plant-like. Just a stab at answering you.

  • Carstonio

    L1985′s point is a good one, and reminds me of the Tao parable of the farmer.  If someone’s theology causes the person to reject scientific evidence, then perhaps it’s the theology that’s the problem. I seem to remember Fred making that point in a different way, emphasizing that Genesis is a parable and not a literal history.

    Also, you’re assuming that creationists simply have a problem reconciling the science and the theology. Fred has pointed out many times that creationism is really a political movement and not a theological one.

  • The_L1985

    “I would suggest that creationists tend to see a difference in that the
    opening chapters of Genesis speak of God giving all the plants of the
    earth (but not animals) as food for every living creature and that
    prophetic books of the Bible speak of the future redeemed world as being
    one in which animals live in peace with one another (for instance,
    lions eating grass in Isaiah)”

    Genesis 9 specifically allows people to eat meat.  Also, the idea that a future utopia would have no carnivores doesn’t necessarily require a pre-Fall world of nothing but vegetarians.  (Nor does it necessarily require a Fall to begin with.)

    Similarly, just because plants have no nerves doesn’t mean they don’t have some sort of perception of self-harm–just that any such perception, if it exists, doesn’t happen through nerve stimulation like it does in animals.  But then, I’m a tree-hugging dirt-worshipper, and my ideas regarding pain in non-animal species, like my ideas on ensoulment, are just a bit “out there.” :)

    And I’m sorry if I sound too defensive.  I’m a former creationist myself, and rather angry at A Beka and Answers in Genesis for convincing me (for quite a few years) that the only ideas about cosmic and human origins are YEC or strawman-atheism.  So the YEC vs. evolution argument tends to cut a little close to home.

  • Samuel G

    Perhaps this conversation has reached its end. Whatever Fred may say, many creationists are creationists for theological reasons, not just because they misunderstand the evidence or for political reasons. If no one is interested in that, it is ok. But expecting the same tired approaches to converting creationists will continue to be as effective as trying to change the mind of a biologist by reading from Genesis.

  • Carstonio

     I’m not interested in converting creationists. I just want to prevent them (some of them at least) from hijacking public schools to teach religion disguised as science. This is not only a First Amendment issue but also an issue with our nation’s scientific competency.

  • The_L1985

     And once again, sir, the “theological reasons” generally stem from the concept of “literalism,” which implies things about the Bible that cannot possibly be so.  The Bible is objectively not free of errors–a quick look at genealogies proves that.  Part of literalism is the idea that anything not clearly and specifically defined as poetry or parable is literal history.

    And most literalists prefer not to actually read the whole Bible, partly out of fear that the foundations of this belief will be shattered.

  • Samuel G

     I hear you.

  • Samuel G

    Well, in any case, I am worried that by engaging hastily in this conversation and not paying sufficient attention to my comments, I basically became a troll. I apologize for dragging down the discussion rather than encouraging a better form of dialogue.

  • The_L1985

    I don’t feel that you were. :)  I think you brought the discussion into a new and fresh direction.

    However, the points you bring up, while they factor into creationist views, aren’t the central reason for such views.  Please don’t leave the site–we like commenters who make us think and who say interesting things. :)

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     There are lots of plants you can eat without killing them.

    One thing I recall from college is that there is a school of thought that holds that before  the fall, it was possible to eat meat without killing animals too — that prelapsarian animals could be “pruned” the same as plants, and sort of “shed” meat.

    Yes, just like in that bit from The Simpsons where an edenite pig peels off a few strips of bacon and gives them to Adam/Homer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    As a Christian who accepts evolutionary explanations, one must somehow manage to hold that the triune God, who is Love, who showed up in Jesus, who taught his disciples that they must love one another as they love themselves… that this God chose to bring about all of life… through a system built on competition, the survival of the fittest, and arms race of eat or be eaten.

    It might be hard to reconcile the New Testament God with that.  The Old Testament God, though, would seem to fit right in there.  But then, I think there were some several of the ancient heresies around that notion, weren’t there?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    Just to examine this little nit that I found, so to speak, why would eating rice count as killing, but not eating fruit?  I can think of several possible reasons; just wondering which in your case.

  • Brennan Doherty

    Well, I have to say that I thought this article was a joke.
    YEC is not just wrong, but a sin?

    I’m wondering if he would also include anyone who advocates
    Intelligent Design or simply does not believe in the Darwinian theory of
    evolution?

    “My focus, rather, is on the factual errors and mistakes
    they accept about other people. Those false assertions are not an
    innocent matter of getting the science wrong. They involve a willingness and an
    eagerness to spread malicious assertions about other people, without caring
    whether or not those assertions can be defended, and while refusing to consider
    the evidence that shows they cannot be.”

    First, it would be really helpful if he would provide at
    least one example of what he means. Because I have read in YEC literature books
    such as “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown and am reading “The Greatest Hoax on
    Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution” by Jonathan Safarti. Nowhere do I recall
    any vicious slandering of other people or the idea posited that evolutionists
    are all just willfully lying.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Either people who accept the theory of evolution are right, or we are lying, every one of us. What other alternative can there be? We have all, after all, encountered creationist arguments at least once, or at least those of us in the US have–you people are quite vocal–and we have all considered them and dismissed them. If we were honestly wrong and the evidence you lot have presented showed it, you’d have converted most of us long before now.

  • Brennan Doherty

    Well, my point was that I have never come across anything in YEC literature that accuses any (and certainly not all) evolutionists of deliberately lying. I certainly think it is possible for a person to be wrong about something, and yet perfectly sincere.

  • EllieMurasaki

    When you’re wrong about something, someone proves you wrong, you see the proof, and you carry on saying the wrong thing? That’s a lie.

  • Brennan Doherty

    That’s begging the question. People like Jonathan Safarti, Walt Brown, and others deal with and attempt to refute the argument. 

  • Carstonio

    Why the concern over their sincerity? They’re pushing ignorance in scientific matters, and their motives for doing so are irrelevant.

  • Go_4_tli

    I know you ended here, Samuel G, but I remember many in my circle when I was a young-Earth creationist also insisting that they believed in the *whole picture* of God.  Strangely, the fact that God revels in Job in a wild and dangerous and deadly creation isn’t part of that “whole picture”.  Nor is the God who is mentioned over and over again as the One Who provides for carnivores in Biblical poetry.

    I think the basic misunderstanding is that death is bad.  It is a punishment for doing evil, yes, but one must not mistake the punishment for evil with evil itself.  The Bible even claims that death is a good thing and that God *rejoices in it* under certain circumstances (e.g., Psalm 116:15).  The idea that death is inherently evil is not a Christian tradition.

    It’s also the case that immortality was only ever offered to *humans*.

    There’s a lot more along these lines.  I think the answer is to (humbly and gently) show them that their picture of death is inherited from their teachers and not from the Scripture they *claim* to be following.

  • EllieMurasaki

    “Begging the question” is using a statement to prove itself true. I am not doing that. I am saying that, by definition, making a statement that one knows to be false is a lie. I am saying that anyone who believes young-earth creationism is true either knows or should know that anyone who accepts the theory of evolution has encountered the concept of young-earth creationism and at least some of what is used to support that concept, which means (if young-earth creationism is true) that we know that the theory of evolution is not true, and yet we continue to say that the theory of evolution fits the facts. Which means, if young-earth creationism is true, that we are lying. Not all of us, maybe, there might be a few of us in elementary school who have yet to have classmates who insist on the historical truth of a particular myth over all other myths and over what the physical world tells us, but most of us. Certainly all of us whose expertise means jack shit if the theory of evolution is untrue or if the universe is several orders of magnitude younger than our observations show.
    Who are Safarti and Brown and why should I care?

  • Brennan Doherty

    Because the article itself makes statements like these: “In other words, young-earth creationism is no different than any other form of contemptuous gossip. Some play an active role — inventing the gossip, fabricating false witness against others, propagating those lies and aggressively seeking to deceive.” 

    I am simply saying that there is nothing I’ve seen in YEC that suggests that they are “fabricating false witness against others” or they are deliberately trying to deceive. I’m not even sure what “false witness against others” the author is accusing YEC of fabricating as he’s not very specific.

    It’s one thing to argue against YEC (have at it!); it’s another to accuse its major proponents of being charlatans, frauds, and liars.

  • Brennan Doherty

    As I mentioned in a previous comment Safarti and Brown are two men who have written books refuting evolution and in favor of YEC. I mention them because they are two that I have personally read and as far as YEC arguments go, I think they provide some of the most solid on the YEC side. Whether or not you should care is up to you.

    So I really have no idea whether someone has read something along their level, or simply heard arguments along the lines of “God created fossils to deceive mankind.” I don’t know how much any individual has actually engaged the arguments of YEC’s or any anti-evolutionist. Would they have heard of YEC and have some notion of what it advocates? Probably.

    And when I use the term lying I don’t mean merely wrong. If you ask me the distance to Indianapolis and I mistakenly say it’s 300 miles when it’s really 500 that means I am in error, but it doesn’t mean I’ve deliberately attempted to deceive you.

    So when dealing with issues like evolution and creation one can look at something like the grand canyon and one can say it was formed over millions of years by erosion and the Colorado River or one can argue that it was caused by a global flood. In neither case do I take the arguers to be liars even if one (or both) sides may be wrong.

  • P J Evans

     Well, when they claim that radio-isotopic dating is wrong, because it doesn’t provide dates that agree with their theories, that’s a bad sign. They’re claiming their god lies about the universe as a matter of course.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I don’t have time to read the books that are on my reading list already. Do you mind summarizing or quoting some of the arguments they make?

    I’ll bet you ten dollars that neither of them has come up with anything that TalkOrigins hasn’t refuted.

  • Turcano

    I really wish that passage was in Ezekiel instead of Isaiah just so I could say, “So you want to take stuff in Ezekiel literally?  Because you’re in for a hell of a ride.”

  • Turcano

    Let me get this straight: you just stated that you didn’t find any slandering of scientists in a book with the title The Greatest Hoax on Earth?  Oh, wow.  Please tell me: how does it feel to have absolutely no self-awareness whatsoever?

  • Brennan Doherty

    Well, no creationist I know has ever claimed that God lies about the age of the universe.

  • AnonymousSam

    You may not know any personally, but I do. It’s called the
    Omphalos hypothesis.

  • Brennan Doherty

    Yea, I do say that because I’ve read a good chunk of the book. As the subtitle states: “Refuting Dawkins on evolution”. He attacks arguments in Dawkins book and evolutionary theory itself. Nowhere does he personally attack Dawkins himself (or any other scientist) or spread malicious slander about him or make him out to be a liar.

  • EllieMurasaki

    The universe is doing a real convincing imitation of being billions of years old. Any young-earth creationist must account for that. Somehow. The usual explanation is that the universe was created last Thursday with all the evidence in place to suggest that it is much older, including stegosaurus fossils and my memories of last Christmas. And I cannot find any way to reconcile “God created the universe as is, quite recently” with “the universe appears billions of years old” without concluding that God meant for us to think a false thing. The usual term for that is ‘lie’.
    Sorry, did I say last Thursday? I meant six thousand years ago, of course.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Hoax. Noun. Anything deliberately intended to deceiveor
    trick .

    If you say that I have spread a hoax, you are saying that I am lying. That is what ‘hoax’ means. If that author did not intend to accuse everyone who disseminates the theory of evolution of being a liar, that author should not have said ‘hoax’.

  • Turcano

    I know there’s slander in the book because there’s slander in the fucking title.  Are you really this dense, or are you just taking the piss out of everyone?

  • Brennan Doherty

    Yea, Turcano, I’m really really stupid because I’m going off of what was actually written in the book. My bad.

  • EllieMurasaki

    If I were to publish a book entitled “Brennan Doherty is a Douchebag”, you would have every right to consider the book a personal attack, even if not a single word between the covers could possibly be so construed.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X