[evolution] how to delude the masses

I like the man's style:

Pro-Darwinian propagandists like Richard Dawkins are so astoundingly incompetent and their arguments are so obviously full of logical holes that it won't be terribly long before it becomes obvious to most people that few genuinely intelligent individuals subscribe to a theory primarily held by maleducated dimwits who are either too indoctrinated or too dense to be capable of critically examining it.

It's seldom a question of attempting to avoid religious doubts - indeed, the very charge tends to imply a guilty plea to the metaphysical angle mentioned - it's simply a question of shedding the mindless indoctrination that most of us acquired in school. It seems as if most of these pro-evolutionary bozos who are not professional biologists fail to realize that those of us who doubt ND-TENS had very much the same textbooks and schooling that they did.

Vox quotes Orwell's Picnic:

I have passed over in silence some other sophistical arguments proposed by Darwinists, namely Darwin's own discussion of variations within domesticated species, Haeckel’s embryoes, and Dawkins’ computer-generated insects, as too obviously irrelevant to need any comment beyond dismissal. Perhaps worthy of refutation, however, is the Darwinist “Just-So” story of “sexual selection.” This is an attempt to account for obviously unadaptive biological structures like the beautiful but cumbersome tail of the peacock.

According to this theory, peahens like big beautiful tails, so the disadvantages of the tail in terms of the competition for survival is outweighed by its advantages for reproductive success. The whole notion is an exercise in begging the question. It assumes that peahens have already evolved unadaptive tastes. These unadaptive tastes cannot be explained by Darwinist mechanisms.

I have not included these various bad Darwinist arguments in my accusations of fraud because they seem to me to be illogical rather than dishonest.

Darwinism does not have this respect for the evidence. Why not? I believe it does not because it is not a scientific theory. Its proponents frequently claim that their account must be accepted -- regardless of any weaknesses in evidence or argument -- because it is the only existing account which abides by materialist naturalism.

This is the key to understanding the motivation for their bad faith and fraud. Darwinists are attempting to use the prestige of science to advance a metaphysical position, their commitment to materialist naturalism.

Vox concludes:

Like Keynesianism, evolution was successful due to factors far outside its scientific credibility. And like Keynesianism, evolution will eventually fade away as growing scientific knowledge renders that credibility increasingly implausible.