Creationist: Darwinists Growing Desperate to Defend Faulty Theory

How desperate? Well, when you can't directly discredit the message, you try to disparage the messenger. Like this:

notify the national and local media about what's going on and portray [critics of evolution] in the harshest light possible as political opportunists, Evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc.

Let's look at these five accusations in order:

1. If standing against the theory of evolution is now politically opportune, why then do the Democratic Party and its allies try to make political hay out of the favor they show to evolutionary theory? But in any case, we fundamentalists stood against evolution long before it became remotely politically opportune.
2. I could wish that the evangelical movement as such did embrace young-earth creationism fully. The evidence clearly warrants that position. Instead I see Hugh Ross and company still trying to compromise between creation and evolution, while men like Russ Humphreys and Walt Brown continue to build a mountain of evidence that such compromise is absolutely unnecessary. I can say that emphasizing our "created" quality is a necessary component of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but even that would hardly be sufficient to that end.
3. The real ignoramuses are on the evolution side, not the creation side. The evolutionists not only get the facts of the history of the earth wrong, but they also get creationism wrong and even their own allies' theories wrong, sometimes.
4. If anyone is breaking rules, it's the evolutionists. The cardinal rules they have often broken are the rules of evidence. They routinely introduce evidence that fails with the most cursory fact-checking, and quite often they have committed outright fraud. Ernst Haeckel's famous fudged drawings, and the peppered moths glued to the trees, are two of the worst examples. Piltdown and Peking Man represent two more, as does Archaeopteryx, and a host of others.
5. Just as evolutionists break the rules of evidence, so also they break all the rules of decent behavior. They wrongfully dismiss their critics from university appointments, try to deny them publication, and in many other ways comport themselves after the fashion of a bully. Their major problem is that, with the rise of alternative media, including alternative publication, and the growing nucleus of what could become an alternative academy, they will not get away with it anymore.

What this article hints at, just barely, is that the evolutionists ultimately refused to participate in the hearings that the Kansas State Board of Education recently granted them to present their evidence. If their evidence was so compelling, then we ought to see it.

But that's the trouble: such evidence as they have presented is flawed anyway, on a number of counts that space does not allow me to treat here. Follow the links to Walt Brown's book and Russ Humphreys' interview if you really want to know the Truth.