History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Grossly slanderous essays at RationalWiki

September 3rd, 2012 · 2 Comments

This an attempted correction to a gross distortion of the views of John Landon on evolution by one ‘Daryl Smith’ who has read the grossly inaccurate material at the trashy RationalWiki http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_C._Landon
This spurious secondrate derivative of Wikipedia is out of control, and has taken to the bliss of Life Beyond Factchecking.
These people are deliberate slanderers, and their tactics are brazen distortions which they know people will have a hardtime refuting. I discovered this information by chance in an email from someone who repeated the statements made at the Wiki as true. The depiction is almost beyond belief. I can hardly be a YEC if I have a chart online in plain view of Big History since the Big Bang. But these people wish to intimidate anyone who might dare criticize Darwinism on any grounds with the charge of creationist. These critics know that many Darwin groupies will automatically accept critical statements, however untrue. Those tactics won’t work with me. To say that I reject evolution and common descent shows that hysteria is at work from people who can’t be bothered to check out online writings given for free.

I submitted a first person version of the following as a response to the Wiki. So far, in defiance of the procedures used at Wikipedia they haven’t published the response.

I think Darwinists are paranoid, and beginning to realize they are losing ground. This drives them to call all critics of Darwinism creationists, which is bizarre

The RW page on John Landon is almost unbelievably bad disinfo, close to slander. The author of this junk at Rational Wiki could not have read his works, which are online. To say that he rejects evolution is false.
He critiques Darwinism and the theory of natural selection. He is not a proponent of microevolution, rejecting macroevolution. An unbelievable charge. The reverse is the case: He considers ‘macroevolution’, as depicted in his works to be the key to the evolution enigma, with microevolution an associated subprocess. The relationship to punctuated equilibrium is clear. His views on religion seem closer to agnostic/atheist, or at least not standard theism. His references to the naturalistic Platonic demiurge are philosophic flourishes and not faith statements, and actually challenges to the ID supernaturnalist position. He has never endorsed the ID position. But he has never used Darwinism to claim ID refuted, the source of anger and slander against his position. Clearly such critics are afraid of him. A review of Descent of Man Revisited at Amazon is misleading: see his comment to the review. He tries to challenge ID-ists with the idea of the Platonic demiurge, which is about on the level of intelligent science fiction, no more, and no made in all seriousness (this is probably not what bugs these ‘rationalists’). That is all. That is not a belief religion on his part. NOWHERE in any of his writings has he endorsed ID as proven. To say he is a YEC is simply beyond belief, ae these RW writers illiterate? He does not reject common descent, and has posted no positive five star reviews of creationists (he posted on four star review of Science and Human Origins, rejecting its ID style), but has posted, usually critically, reviews of the books of Darwin critics in the ID camp, such as Behe, and Dembski, never endorsing ID in the process. The writer could never have atudied his reviews at Amazon nor read a word of his books, and World History and the Eonic Effect shows a clear outline of ‘Big History’ in a timeline from the Big Bang onward. Hardly the evidence of a YEC. Please, some sanity here. The dates of human evolution closely match the current timelines, Australopithecus,homo habilis, erectus, sapiens, etc… The review cited here by Stephen Smith is his own take, and Mr. Landon does not endorse his statements about my book. Smith is an Hegelian with a perspective on (Vedantic?) non-duality, and this colors his review, which is actually quite favorable, except for the Hegelian view of Kant. Smith is in any case a Darwin critic. Landon’s view of evolution is one of the most subtle and useful in print, and uses the evidence of world history to construct a set of clues about ‘macroevolution’. That account is probably too hard for most at the level of this wiki. But it is false to say that John Landon rejects evolution. Almost every page of his books talks about evolution as a reality, and these writers at RW must be drunk, or worse to make such a statement. I think this webpage at this wiki is almost beyond belief in its distortions, complained of by dozens of people, and this could have been avoided with at least five minutes of free reading of the online public domain versions ofLandon’s texts. These online books can be found at (http:// etc)history-and-evolution.comdescentofmanrevisited.com

This passage is by John Landon himself, and has been submitted to the RW forums as a protest of their tactics. It is hard to understand the strategy of that Wiki, which is so sloppy in its work that it can only discret the rational humanist group that allows this kind of bad work to stand.

Tags: General

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Darryl // Sep 4, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    Listen Landon was on my email list but he was not a nice guy. He only replied when he thought someone might be buying his book and other people picked up on this.

    Landon is anti-evolution and it is absurd to say “Almost every page of his books talks about evolution as a reality” becuase not one page in the book does. Infact almost every page of the book is an attack against evolution.

    Here is just one example of many. Landon in his chapter “Beyond natural selection” writes “We are still without a theory of evolution, in part because we have never observed its mechanics in action”.

    Landon in the above quote says evolution has never been observed yet you claim his book talks about evolution being a reality? Are you for real? This is really bad trolling or Landon and this Stephen P. Smith character are really dishonest.

    I honestly don’t think Landon is a troll, he is anti-evolution yet wants to pretend his book is only an attack against natural selection when in reality his book doesn’t attack natural selection it attacks evolution and attempts to replace it with creationism.

  • 2 nemo // Sep 5, 2012 at 10:36 am

    I have no idea what maiiing list this person is referring to. The statement is nonsense. This is the one of the people spreading rumors about my views. He still refuses to look at my books, which clearly support evolution, but not Darwinism. This person cannot understand the difference. My books shows clear examples of the process of macroevolution and microevolution cojoined. Again, he cannot have read the text: almost every page refers to ‘evolution’ in the sense given. When I say that we don’t observe evolution, that is not a rejection of it, but simply a reminder that we can only infer ‘fuzzy evolution’ from the fossil record: we can clearly infer evolution, but not natural selection. The last sentence here is completely false: the commenter simply refuses to look at the text, which has multiple critiques of natural selection. My books do not contain a single reference to, let alone endorsement of creationism. Period. I do refer to ID in a many places. My recent book notes that world history shows a clear design, but that is not taken as a proof of ID, or even a refernce to ID. ‘Design’ can be the result of naturalistic processes: consider any number of biochemical processes, which have the ‘design’ of machines. It is hard to claim that NS leads to that. The false dualism suggesting this implies ID is false, and never supported by me.
    This comment shows that this person will never read my texts, and thinks that others will not either, hence he figures purely fictional criticisms will be believed by others who will not look at the texts.

Leave a Comment