A Veneer of Defense...

I posted a link to my "investigation" on the Issue of the Antitheses. Paul Manata responded:

"Thanks for the heads up, dub. I won't compalin [sic] about getting back.

In case you want to edit you may read my original piece where I claimed that Darwin put a scientific veneer over the philosophy of process and becomming [sic]. This directly contradicts one of your criticisms, but if you want to be sloppy like Aaron then be my guest."

My impression of this statement (aside from being arrant prattle), is that he is attempting to invalidate my major premise - that he falsely states evolutionism is a philosophy/religion, as opposed to a scientific theory - in effect nullifying my entire argument and conclusion. Ah, but this ejaculation is quite premature.

In his (self-proclaimed) "refutation" of Aaron's critique of his original post, Paul quotes himself (repeatedly) to the effect of "evolutionism is a philosophy/religion, not a scientific theory." This is quite simple and I fail to see how it can be anything other than exactly what it is.

As a matter of fact, the first declaration made in the main body of his original post reads:

"First and foremost, it must be remembered that evolution is not a scientific theory."

It seems to me that he presents the foundation of his entire thought in that initial proclamation.

I then provide definitions of philosophy, religion, and theory (including as it relates to science), and, through the intrinsic meaning of the very words he chose to use, demonstrate that his assumption is incorrect. Never mind that his futile attempt at proof - essentially that the existence of evolution-like ideas predating the modern concept of evolutionary biology negates its status as a theory, confining it to philosophy/religion - borders on asinine inanity, if not fatuous drivel.

But it would appear Paul has thrown a verbal wrench in the works, as he "claimed that Darwin put a scientific veneer over the philosophy...". Oh, but wait. Hold on one second before you disgorge that wrench.

Let's look at the definition for veneer:

1. A thin surface layer, as of finely grained wood, glued to a base of inferior material.
2. Any of the thin layers glued together to make plywood.
3. A decorative facing, as of brick.
4. A deceptive, superficial show; a façade

As I sincerely hope Paul wasn't implying that Darwin glued a thin layer of wood over his words (his manuscript maybe?), I'm quite confident in assuming Paul's usage was along the lines of definition 4. In fact, except in contractor and home decorator circles, #4 is probably the most popular connotation of the word.

In the thesaurus we find reference to only that connotation:

"A deceptive outward appearance"

So, Paul would have us believe I present a completely unfounded challenge based on a weak, possible ambivalence of connotation, all while being in complete denial of his own words.

This is all inconsequential actually, because to refute the premise that Paul clearly alleges evolutionism's non-existence as a scientific theory, he would have to proclaim evolutionism IS a scientific theory. Looking at both his original post and diatribes against Aaron Kinney, it is conspicuously obvious that this is most assuredly NOT the case.

It would appear the only "heads up" is the one in his ass, or to be less offensive, the head is down, in the sand. May I suggest that Paul be more meticulous about slinging the label "sloppy" around.

But what more should be expected from a man who spews flapdoodle, relies heavily on appeal to ridicule, and veneers his "refutations" with ad hominem attacks, ad nauseam ? I, for one, was neither surprised, nor disappointed.