Evolutionist style

Evolutionists, or believers in the theory of evolution, have a trademark style of argument that includes:

• attempted proof by assertion. The classic case of such conduct was Sir Charles Lyell's advocacy of uniformitarianism, which establishes the required deep time scale and as such is the very linchpin of the evolutionary paradigm.
• argumentum ad hominem, or excessive personal attacks that often include childish name-calling and personal put-downs, more so than other debaters
  • On the contrary, creationists never do this. See, for example, liberal hysteria.
• proof by authority, or highlighting their own academic credentials or those of their allies in support of their theories. An academic credential can include anything from a publishing credit (especially in a "peer-reviewed" journal) to a degree to a particular academic appointment. However, Ben Stein (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed) shows that evolutionists add this twist: they systematically deny to others, whenever they can, any opportunity to acquire similar credentials.
  • Obviously, authoritative scientists should have no say about the veracity of a theory that they dedicate their lives to examining.
• use of bizarre jargon such as "quote mining," "moving the goalposts" and "fundies".
  • In other words, "we don't understand you people, therefore you're wrong."
• inordinate attempt to demonize the other side, as in overuse of the term creationist and fundamentalist. The latter example includes the attempt to show that Christian fundamentalists are morally equivalent to Muslim fundamentalists, whether in their extreme rejection of modernity or in their practice and advocacy of terrorism.
  • On the contrary, conservatives never demonize anyone. Ask Ann Coulter.
• an astounding lack of understanding -- or denial -- of how most great scientists and mathematicians either rejected evolution or were silent about it
• an equal lack of understanding, or denial, that most of the greatest scientists in the Western world asserted the reality of creation and the Great Flood prior to the Enlightenment, or else a denial that their scientific achievements (including those of Sir Isaac Newton!) matter today.
  • Obviously, the voices of scientists who died hundreds of years before Darwin matter, when assessing Darwin's theory.
• frequent reliance on circular reasoning, as in defining evolution as change and survival of the fittest as those who survive
  • On the contrary, relying on the Bible to prove the Bible is perfectly reasonable.
• projection—literally, "throwing off" their own faults on the other side, in that they accuse the other side of doing the very things that they themselves do.
• claiming to enjoy scientific debate yet often refusing to debate creationists.
• refusing to allow the possibility that God exists.
  • After all, all scientists are atheists.
• claiming that so-called "Theistic evolution" is possible, which would indicate that God lied about the events that took place in Genesis.
• ignoring the clear historical link between Darwinism, Eugenics, and the Holocaust.
  • Let Godwin's Law be your guide. After all, the faults of anyone who was ever influenced by Theory X, and then did something bad because of it, must be imputed to Theory X. Just ask the Crusaders.
• deliberate ignorance about phenomenon that evolution cannot explain, such as remarkable migration and homing, or the existence of the whale
  • Evolutionists may claim to have solved these problems - and publish copiously about it - but these publications are liberal deceit!

(add more)