Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ellis Washington begins his March 20 WorldNetDaily column by declaring, "I consider myself a conservative intellectual, a thinker who holds philosophical ideas out the Judeo-Christian traditions of intellectual thought."
Apparently one distinguishing characteristic of the conservative intellectual is to engage in ad hominem attacks, for that is what Washington spends much of his column doing. The target is "liberal blogger" and "well-known atheist" Ed Brayton, who responded to Washington's column last week claiming that the whale who killed a trainer at Sea World should be put to death because, among other reasons, animals are "distinctively inferior to human beings and were worth little if any moral consideration" since "humans have souls and animals don't." Washington also cited a biblical passage about an out-of-control bull stating that "the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death" (italics his).
Brayton highlighted Washington's statement that his ideas about the destruction of misbehaving animals comes from "the same place we got the ideas found in natural law, the common law, the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- it all came from the Bible."Brayton points out that the Constitution largely rejected English common law as derived from the Bible, adding that "there is no mention of biblical sources for any of the Constitution's principles" in the Federalist Papers. Brayton added: "And in case you're interested - no, Washington never did reply to my question about ERVs and common descent. Because he can't, I'm quite sure."
Washington starts off by declaring that Brayton "absolutely hates everything good about America -- which I guess would explain why he hates my writings and ideas so much because I am a Christian, a conservative and am very pro-America." He goes on to tell Brayton that "for you to follow such a man [like Charles Darwin] is like following a cult leader. Your position is ipso facto (inherently) indefensible. You have built an entire worldview on quicksand. Lenin referred to true believers like you and your fellow bloggers as 'useful idiots.'"
Washington then responds not to the whale stuff but that previous question Brayton referenced: "Can you provide a coherent, consistent explanation other than common descent for the patterns of appearance of endogenous retroviruses in vertebrate genomes?" He declares himself to be "not a scientist but a philosopher and an intellectual, the way I approach all bodies of knowledge is from reason and veritas (truth)." Actually, Washington isn't all that much into the truth. Washington continues:
Ed, St. Paul had already dealt with Darwin's specious theories of man (vs. 23) and the philosophers of his day, who were a lot smarter than you and your fellow bloggers. I also addressed the unsustainable aspects of Darwinian evolution in my law review article, Reply to Judge Richard A. Ponser on the Inseparability of Law and Morality"
Your issues about where humanity came from are not so much a problem of the head (brain), but of the heart (soul). Until you repent and ask Jesus to come into your heart you will always be confused and wrong in your worldview, which will disallow you, I and your fellow bloggers the ability to have a rational discussion based on the syllogism that was a foundation of Western civilization:
If A = B, then A + B = C
... Big Bang explosions, theories by unremarkable naturalists, ERVs and "billions of years …" cannot explain the complexity of an eye, nor expound upon the incomprehensible diversity and richness of creation. That suit you are wearing on your blog as well as the teeth in your mouth did not explode into place. I learned in science that explosions destroy things, not create things.
Ed, take a look at my law review article. Although it was written 11 years ago, the ideas and ideals are timeless and transcendent.
Peace,
Ellis
We can't tell for sure, but it seems like Washington still didn't answer Brayton's question.
Apparently, being a conservative intellectual doesn't actually require any intellectualism at all. On top of the ad hominem attacks (which Washington has previously defended when Michael Savage does them because, well, Savage is Jesus). In addition to the ad hominem attacks, it also means a substantial degree of egomania.
