All their triumph would but break upon our ghostly truth

I recommend my February 12, 2009 (the birthday of both Darwin and Lincoln) entry, “On the emperor’s 200th birthday, he is still wearing no clothes.” Paleocons will be disappointed to learn that the emperor of whom I speak is Darwin, not Lincoln. In the entry, I quote four comments I had posted at the atheist blog Secular Right wherein I refuted the Darwinist position.

I came upon the VFR entry as I was replying to a commenter in the current thread, “The barrenness of Darwinism,” and was looking for my discussion of esteemed biologist E.O.Wilson’s 2006 article in which he admitted that Darwinian science still has no idea how human consciousness came into existence.

(UPDATE, 7:30 p.m.: I’ve just discovered that the original thread at Secular Right no longer exists. Other threads at that site from that period, indeed from that month, are still online, but not the one in which I posted my comments about Darwinism. It sure creates the appearance that they couldn’t handle the truth.)

- end of initial entry -

November 30

Jim P. writes:

I haven’t written to you in some time but I follow the news on your health and the world overall (in that order of importance) with great interest everyday and had something interesting to share.

As I’ve told you before, your clarity of mind on so many subjects has brought not just profound insights to my arena, and not only has it disrupted my various comfort zones, but also on many occasions reassured me regarding the truth value of traditional conservatism (traditionalism).

That power of reasoning I thought was especially brought to bear on metaphysical subjects such as atheism and neo-Darwinism. In fact what I originally thought to be largely a science-based matter is in fact much more about proving the void than asserting science.

Ok, long story short, I found the participation of you and Messrs. Kristor and Roebuck to be so powerful as a basis for engaging this subject that I saved the page at Secular Right a couple years ago. At the time I saved it there were about 200 comments, which pretty much accounted for the most interesting parts.

If you want a copy of that page I’d be happy to send it along. It’s missing the pretty borders and formatting but still holds all the interesting “wooden spoon treatment” offered by you gentlemen.

On behalf of all the readers who don’t say hello too often, your work is essential and I’m very happy that you share it with us.

Take care, God bless

LA replies:

Thank you very much for everything you say. That’s very kind of you. I’m glad that my writings have been of help to you.

Yes, please send the page from Secular Right. That’s great that you saved it. How about that, that they removed that page?

Jim P. replies:

Yeah I guess I shouldn’t be surprised but it’s the Web, didn’t they realize sooner or later its removal would be noticed?

One other thing I noticed from the remarks of you/Kristor/Roebuck is your guileless, charitable means of engaging people with such hatred in them. You can only pity such isolation. I’m not sure I’d have the patience to be spoken too that way, so kudos. [LA replies: I won’t pretend it was pleasant, and I’m sure Kristor, Alan, and Hannon feel the same.]

Ok here it is, in the HTM format in which I saved it. Looks ugly but has all the text. If for some reason Gmail blocks the attachment I can “zip” the file up or send it in another format.

And hey, thanks AGAIN for engaging subjects like Darwinism—my ears always perk up when you address this topic.

LA replies:

Now that I’m looking at the html page from Secular Right, I remember that it was a huge debate, going on for days, between the atheists on one side, and VFR readers Alan Roebuck, Kristor, Hannon, and me, on the other.

I’ve just uploaded and posted the page in a separate entry. Thanks again very much.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 29, 2011 04:37 PM | Send