…by Jonas E. Alexis
I mentioned in the introduction of the previous article that Lasha and I vehemently disagree on Darwin and the history of ideas. The reader must keep in mind that I sent Lasha a copy of much of what I am about to say here before she published her open letter, which I found absolutely fascinating. This current article is just an expanded version of what I sent her when she raised the ad hominem issue during our correspondence.
Let me clarify an important issue right at the outset. Lasha wrote at the very beginning of her open letter:
“In an email to me, dated February 12, you appeared to seek my approval for an outspoken attack you had launched on Kevin MacDonald in November last year on the Veterans Today site.”
Was I really trying to seek Lasha’s approval? Why didn’t she provide the context of the email?
Lasha sent out an email on February 11 to a number of recipients, including myself, about an article she wrote on “World IQ Figures.” I read the article and responded to it. This is what I actually sent to Lasha:
“I am certainly not a staunch proponent of the Khazarian thesis, but in my view it is historically, logically and morally more plausible and intellectually satisfying than the view that somehow there is a genetic connection between dispersed Jewish groups.
“For scholarly sources on this, see D. M. Dunlop, The History of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954); Kevin Alan Brook, The Jews of Khazaria (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006); Charles King, The Black Sea: A History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Robert G. Hoyland, In God’s Path: The Arab Conquest and the Creation of an Islamic Empire (New York: Oxford University, 2015); Susan Wise Bauer, The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade (New York: W. W. Norton, 2010); Jim Wald, “Leaked report: Israel acknowledges Jews in fact Khazars; Secret plan for reverse migration to Ukraine,” Times of Israel, March 18, 2014.
“Furthermore, the Khazarian thesis predates Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe. In fact, the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) had an entire article on this issue. I have also addressed the problem with the genetic thesis in numerous articles, particularly when I discussed the position that people like David Duke have taken. Here are just two out of dozens of articles I have written on this issue:
“I have also written about Kevin MacDonald’s intellectual dishonesty: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/11/19/kevin-macdonald-is-intellectually-dishonest/. A reader sent MacDonald one of my articles, and his response was: ‘I am not going to debate anyone who denies the scientific validity of Darwinism.’ https://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/10/08/kevin-macdonalds-abject-failure-part-ii/.”
Does that sound like I was attempting to seek Lasha’s approval? I don’t think so. So the very first paragraph of Lasha’s open letter is misleading. I was simply stunned when she gave readers the impression that somehow I was building an army to fight against people like MacDonald.
I am also stunned that Lasha still maintains that I was personally attacking Kevin MacDonald. I thought we got this straightened out during our dialogue because she seemed to have agreed with what I was saying with respect to ad hominem attacks. In fact, she said that my responses to the ad hominem charge are “Just reasoned arguments, all couched in the most civilized language.”
This current article of mine would have been completely unnecessary if Lasha didn’t include the ad hominem charge again in her open letter. To be quite frank, I simply could not believe the kind of argumentation that Lasha was advancing in the first part of her open letter.
With all due respect, I still get the impression that my dear Lasha is not aware of some of the intense debates that have been going on in the history of ideas over the centuries. As will be demonstrated, my language cannot even compete with what people like Daniel Dennett, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, even Michael Ruse have said.
For example, Oxford University Press (hereafter OUP) published an entire book by agnostic philosopher John Earman of the University of Pittsburgh entitled, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Arguments Against Miracles. Earman begins his technical work by saying that the chapter on miracle in Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding “is an abject failure” and that
“the parts of ‘Of Miracles’ do not stand up to scrutiny. Worse still, the essay reveals the weakness and the poverty of Hume’s own account of induction and probabilistic reasoning…And to cap it all off, the essay represents the kind of overreaching that gives philosophy a bad name.”
I actually borrowed the title of my article from Earman. So who is the bad guy here: Jonas E. Alexis, or John Earman himself?
Furthermore, does Lasha really think that Earman was fleshing out ad hominem attacks on David Hume with this provocative title and jaw-dropping introduction? And couldn’t the editors at OUP tell Earman to come up with another title because “abject failure” presumably suggests ad hominem attack?
Or would Lasha send a letter to OUP arguing that the title, Hume’s Abject Failure, inexorably leads to ad hominem attack? Would they ever listen to her? Would she even remotely say that Hume’s Abject Failure is a “needlessly impolite” book? And would any serious philosopher or thinker pay attention to her complaints?
Or how about Richard Dawkins? Here is what Dawkins actually said about people who don’t believe in evolution:
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
Would Lasha write an open letter asking Dawkins to retract that “needlessly impolite” statement? Aren’t Dawkins’ words “pointedly insulting”? Isn’t Dawkins actually working himself “up into a frightful froth about nothing” here? You see, Lasha’s overarching thesis at the beginning of her open letter is intellectually unsustainable. Let’s do more damages.
In Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, which was published by the University of California Press, Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein describes the work of Alan Dershowitz as “an academic fraud.”
Finkelstein says almost the same thing about Joan Peters’ From Time Immemorial: “The book was so ridiculous that discovering its fraudulence required nothing more than elementary research. The real challenge was not proving the fraud but publicly exposing it…” Finkelstein adds that it “didn’t require any special skill” to expose the book as “a thread-bare hoax.”
Finkelstein would rightly be accused of ad hominem if he didn’t point out where the thread-bare hoaxes actually reside in Dershowitz’s and Peters’ books. But the meticulous scholar spent one chapter after another specifically detailing where Dershowitz and Peters have deliberately “concocted an academic fraud…” Finkelstein followed the same scholarly methodology when he examined Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners, which Finkelstein described as “worthless as scholarship.”
Intense debates like this have been going on for centuries; this even goes back to the heated debate between Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam on whether the will is in bondage or not.
Biologist PZ Myers of the University of Minnesota has called noted Darwinist and philosopher of science Michael Ruse “clueless gobshite.” Myers, in response to a tweet by Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine, declared, “What an ass.” Michael Ruse has said that Richard Dawkins is acting “like a first-year undergraduate” who doesn’t really want to take his religious opponents seriously.
Similarly, evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr of the University of Rochester has called Dawkins “an amateur” for writing a “badly flawed” book called The God Delusion. Noted analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga had this to say of Dawkins:
“Much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.”
Richard Dawkins would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class? Isn’t Plantinga being impolite here?
Plantinga again would be accused of ad hominem if he didn’t actually reveal where Dawkins was acting like a sophomore. In Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, which was published by OUP, Plantinga meticulously points out where Dawkins was jumping from one fallacy to another.
If Lasha is completely clueless about these issues, then she can be forgiven. But if she knew that these things are common practice, then what’s really the purpose of the first part of her open letter? What’s the fuss? Why has Jonas E. Alexis been portrayed as a villain who seeks to inflict vengeance upon people he doesn’t like? Is Jonas E. Alexis the first person in the history of ideas to use phrases such as “cowards” and “intellectually dishonest”? Doesn’t British historian Paul Johnson use similar languages to describe the work of people like Rousseau and Marx? And what is an ad hominem attack anyway?
An ad hominem attack basically means that it is an attack against the person, not against the argument. When a person commits an ad hominem attack, he or she tries to invalidate a position by attacking the character of his opponents. I never said that MacDonald’s conclusions in certain areas are wrong because he is a coward.
I never even remotely suggested that MacDonald is “intellectually dishonest” because I don’t like him. It would be an ad hominem attack if I didn’t specifically point out where the intellectual dishonesty actually lies. MacDonald was also trained in philosophy, so I was assuming that he wouldn’t have any issue with the title because it is common practice in philosophical and sometimes even in scientific debates. Don’t believe me?
Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne argues that “It’s crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity will do the job.” Did Swinburne mean to say that the people who believe that the multiverse theory is correct were mad and crazy or even wicked? Or did he mean to say that the arguments that the multiverse proponents were postulating are crazy?
I will stand by the position that people like MacDonald are intellectual cowards, largely because Darwinism is fraught with blatant contradictions, and virtually no one has ever made the slightest attempt to deal with those contradictions in a logical way. I did show where the contradictions actually are. I will refer to some of those contradictions again in the next article because Lasha Darkmoon has also fallen into the same contradiction.
Furthermore, I also wrote an article in which I highly praised MacDonald for writing The Culture of Critique. Here is what I said at the beginning of “A Critique of Richard Spencer’s Alt-Right and Kevin MacDonald’s Views (Part I)”:
“Any serious observer who has read Professor Kevin MacDonald’s work will almost certainly concur that he has something to say. I too had a lot of rethinking to do when I read The Culture of Critique back in 2011. Much of what he says in that particular book is based on factual analysis.
“Using the historical account, MacDonald does present highly sophisticated arguments against ‘Jewish involvement in intellectual and political movements.’ Those arguments cannot easily be dismissed by distractors like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Steven Pinker of Harvard.
“MacDonald’s assessments on Freudian psychology, the Frankfurt School, the Neoconservative movement, and even the Bolshevik Revolution are rigorous and justified by numerous independent sources. No serious scholar can accuse him of tampering with his sources.
“Even historian Albert S. Lindemann of the University of California had this to say when he was asked about MacDonald’s work:
“‘Yes, I am familiar with Kevin Macdonald’s writings (and he has favorably quoted my work in the past). I would hesitate to summarize my own reactions to his work in a brief e-mail, but in very general terms (and in terms I have conveyed to him directly) I have reservations about his theoretical approach (as I and many other historians have reservations about a great many social-scientific forays into history).
“‘On the other hand, I am impressed with his intelligence, with the breadth of his reading and the extent to which he asks some provocative questions. Even when I disagree with his conclusions, I find some of what he writes valuable. I know that some have accused him of misusing his sources, but I do not make that complaint about his use of my books, nor have I encountered any flagrant misuse of sources with which I am familiar.’
“MacDonald was obviously cognizant of the fact that writing about Jewish intellectual movements is a thorny enterprise, therefore he knew that everything has to be scholarly documented. On this issue, MacDonald does not disappoint. He has single-handedly shut down thought police like Deborah Lipstadt by asking fundamental questions and answering those questions historically.”
That was again written before Lasha published her open letter.
Lasha also insinuated that the word coward is synonymous with “venom” and implied that I was personally attacking MacDonald or Duke without evidence. If that is so, then let’s just start closing down all the volumes of philosophical and scientific works that have been written in the history of the West. She somehow made the illogical jump that saying that a person is “intellectually dishonest” is similar to calling the person “a neo-Nazi racist” or a “White supremacist.”
How does that logic work? Can we replace “intellectually dishonest” with “White supremacist” or “neo-Nazi racist” now? Is “Intellectually dishonest” a term of abuse? Yes, it would be if the evidence is not there.
Now tell me, Lasha: If Darwinists say that objective morality does not exist—and I can guarantee you that the vast majority of Neo-Darwinists do say that—and then appeal to “moral clarity” or even morality to build their system, don’t you think that they are living in contradiction?
Let’s suppose that a person repeatedly points out where the contradiction actually is but Darwinists continue to cherish their prevailing belief without dealing with the fundamental problem, wouldn’t you say that this is a sign of intellectual dishonesty?
Here is an interesting statement that Lasha sent me: Darwin “was a torn man, full of ‘fluctuations’ of viewpoint, not the cartoon demon you have conjured up in your imagination!” He made similar statements in her open letter.
Is this the same Lasha who got offended by “needlessly impolite” words such as “cowards”? Didn’t Lasha write an article in 2016 entitled, “The Moronification of Western Man: Are We All Becoming More Stupid?” Lasha Darkmoon can aggressively argue that “Western Man” is slowly “becoming more stupid,” but Jonas E. Alexis has committed an intellectual sin for using words such as “cowards”! If we take Lasha’s essentially incoherent arguments to their logical conclusions, then the ad hominem charge could easily be placed on her shoulder as well.
If Lasha is still not convinced about what has been said so far, then what would she say to people like Daniel Dennett who keep calling critiques of Darwinism “bullshit”? That was precisely what Dennett said to mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski when Berlinski produced a number arguments against Neo-Darwinism.
Dennett had similar things to say to philosopher Thomas Nagel when Nagel wrote the Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Dennett even moved on to say that Mind and Cosmos is “not worth a damn” without the slightest evidence.
Dennett got involved in a heated interaction with Michael Ruse a few years ago, during which Ruse blurted out:
“I am a hardline Darwinian and always have been very publicly when it cost me status and respect – in fact, I am more hardline than you [Dennett] are, because I don’t buy into this meme bullshit but put everything – especially including ethics – in the language of genes.
“I think that you and Richard [Dawkins] are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design … neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas – it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims – more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of goodwill.”
No Darwinist, as far as I know, has ever condemned Dennett and Ruse for their language. When asked about what he said to Dennett, Ruse responded:
“Let’s face up to it: all Dan was doing was slagging me off. He has had an absolutely brilliant career – he is regarded as something of a demigod in the philosophical community. I think he finds it very difficult when people don’t say to him, ‘You were fantastic. Can I warm the bog seat for you before you take a crap?’”
So, do all those Darwinians lack scruples and conscience for being engaged in these types of interactions? Again, why doesn’t Lasha go after those people as well? Could it be that she didn’t know about these issues?
I am inclined to think that she didn’t because she has said to me some pretty interesting things, such as the following: “There is not a single reputable scientist living today who mocks the theory of evolution and rejects it in toto.” Let me rephrase the question in a modest way: are there reputable scientists living today who question the intellectual adequacy of Darwinism? How about 500, Lasha?
Philip S. Skell, a chemistry professor at Pennsylvania State University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote in the prestigious magazine The Scientist in 2005:
“Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
“I also examined the outstanding bio-discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others.
“I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
“In the peer-reviewed literature, the word ‘evolution’ often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for ‘evolution’ some other word – ‘Buddhism,’ ‘Aztec cosmology,’ or even ‘creationism.’
“I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had become clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.
“Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
“None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.”
Numerous reputable scientists are scared to death to question Darwinism because their academic career would be in jeopardy. Astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez, formerly of Iowa State University, is the man whose studies have led to the discovery of several planets.
Gonzalez is one of the authors of Observational Astronomy, a scholarly study which was published by Cambridge University Press. He “has received fellowships, grants and awards from NASA, the University of Washington, Sigma Xi, and the National Science Foundation.”
Gonzalez was immediately denied tenure at ISU after he coauthored the book The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery. Evolutionary biologist Richard M. Sternberg of the prestigious Smithsonian Institution received similar treatments. We have more than a dozen cases like this.
So Lasha again was dead wrong. But what does the extraordinary statement that “there is not a single reputable scientist living today who mocks the theory of evolution and rejects it in toto” have to do with whether Darwinism is true or not? Is that how science works? Doesn’t Lasha criticize the Holocaust establishment? If her argument here is correct, then she needs to seal her lips and drop her pen regarding World War II and other historical events.
One last point before we complete this article. Lasha quoted me saying that “Discussing these issues with [David] Duke was almost like talking to an ATM machine.” Here is the context of the statement.
I wrote numerous articles discussing serious problems with the position that Duke has taken. I even described what Duke has to do in order to make his position rational. Duke never touched on the fundamental issues, and in the end he said explicitly that Jonas E. Alexis “is black, and that’s his way of affirming himself.”
If Lasha found the “ATM machine” thing disgusting, wouldn’t she say that Duke’s statement is equally outrageous?
One of the issues I discussed is whether Jewish behavior is genetic or not. If it is really genetic, then there is no way to hold “Jewish supremacists” accountable because what happens genetically happens automatically. As Richard Dawkins himself puts it, “DNA neither cares nor knows.”
“Jewish supremacists” could have easily told Duke:
“Excuse us, Dr. Duke. Our corrupt genes made us do it and there is no way to avoid it. After all, Darwinists teaches us that morality is just an illusion. In fact, we have read what Darwinists such as Michael Ruse have said: ‘Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction…an ephemeral product of the evolutionary process, just are other adaptations. It has no existence or being beyond this, and any deeper meaning is illusory.’
“Dr. Duke, we have also read Nobel Laureate Francis Crick’s analysis as well. Crick told us that ‘The astonishing hypothesis is that ‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”
If “Jewish supremacists” do not have free will, doesn’t that imply that their so-called bad DNA are doomed to create trouble? I have addressed numerous other issues and even some of the problems with the sources that Duke continued to cite. Duke repeatedly cited Harry Ostrer’s Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People to buttress his position. He cited an article by the Jewish Daily Forward which had a headline entitled: “Jews Are a ‘Race,’ Genes Reveal.”
But Duke did not even tell his readers that the same Jewish Daily Forward published a later article entitled: “’Jews a Race’ Genetic Theory Comes Under Fierce Attack by DNA Expert.” It was actually based on the work of Eran Elhaik, who was criticizing the work of Ostrer. Elhaik simply asked Ostrer a scientific question:
“It was a great pleasure reading your group’s recent paper, ‘Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era,’ that illuminate[s] the history of our people. Is it possible to see the data used for the study?”
If Ostrer did go by the scientific method, then he would have been more than happy to present the data to other scientists like Elhaik. But Ostrer had other purposes in mind:
“Ostrer replied that the data are not publicly available. ‘It is possible to collaborate with the team by writing a brief proposal that outlines what you plan to do,’ he wrote. ‘Criteria for reviewing include novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people.’”
When I addressed these issues, Duke came out and declared that Elhaik is a flaming communist and had ulterior motives. I responded by saying that Duke had just committed one of the basic fallacies in logic—the genetic fallacy.
I again plead with him to address the fundamental issue. I even said that he needs to tell how people like Gilad Atzmon, Brother Nathanael, and a host of other decent Jews got rid of their bad DNA. Duke was asked to address a similar issue during an interview with the late Alan Colmes of Fox News Channel. Duke said then:
“Certainly [Christ] spoke a doctrine that was diametrically opposed to what Judaism was and is…The Talmud is the core of Judaism. It is extremely racist and ethnocentric religion.”
Precisely. That is where the issue begins and ends. It is this Talmud which allows rabbis from the first century to this very day to say weird and crazy things. As E. Michael Jones historically argues, it is that particular book with its rejection of Logos which eventually provided the political and ideological worldview of what Duke calls “Jewish supremacists.”
So the fundamental issue is moral, not genetic. When I asked Duke to focus on the real issue, he eventually declared that I was “black, and that’s his way of affirming himself.” I eventually concluded that “Discussing these issues with Duke was almost like talking to an ATM machine.”
A final and honest plea to Lasha. You have written on a variety of subjects, and the entire Jewish organization in England and America would unjustly find them extremely offensive. For example, in an article entitled “Controlling Stereotypes: The Big Nosed Jew,” You said: “With the reader’s permission, I shall continue my disquisition on Jewish noses for a bit.”
Well, it sounds that you’ve thought about “The Big Nosed Jew” quite a bit, a subject which is very sensitive and indeed offensive to Jewish organizations. If you get offended by words such as “cowards” or “intellectually dishonest,” then you need to apologize to Jewish organizations for writing “The Big Nosed Jew” article.
-  John Earman, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Arguments Against Miracles (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 3.
-  “Richard Dawkins Review of Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution,” NY Times, April 9, 1989.
-  Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), preface.
-  Ibid.
-  Ibid.
-  Norman Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Burn, A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth (New York: Metropolitan Books, 1998), 4.
-  Michael Ruse, The Philosophy of Human Evolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Darwinism as Religion: What Literature Tells Us about Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016); The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).
-  Michael Ruse, “Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute,” Guardian, November 2, 2009.
-  Ibid.
-  H. Allen Orr, “A Mission to Convert,” NY Review of Books, January 11, 2007.
-  Alvin Plintinga, The Nature of Necessity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979); Warrant: The Current Debate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967 and 1990).
-  Alvin Plintinga, “The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ‘ad absurdum,’” Books and Culture, 2007.
-  Paul Johnson, Intellectuals (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), chapters 1 and 3.
-  Richard Swinburne, “Design Defended,” Think (Spring 2004): 17.
-  David Berlinski, A Tour of the Calculus (New York: Vintage Books, 1995); The Advent of the Algorithm: The 300-Year Journey from an Idea to the Computer (New York: Mariner Books, 2001); The King of Infinite Space: Euclid and His Elements (New York: Basic Books, 2013); Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (New York: Modern Library, 2011).
-  Michael Chorost, “Where Thomas Nagel Went Wrong,” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 13, 2013.
-  Andrew Brown, “When evolutionists attack,” Guardian, March 6, 2006.
-  Ibid.
-  Philip Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?,” The Scientist, August 29, 2005.
-  D. Scott Birney and Guillermo Gonzalez, Observational Astronomy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
-  Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 2004), 155.
-  Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on its History, Philosophy, and Religious Implications (New York: Routledge, 1989), 268-269.
-  Francis Crick, Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Touchtone, 1994), 3.
-  Rita Rubin, “’Jews a Race’ Genetic Theory Comes Under Fierce Attack by DNA Expert,” Jewish Daily Forward, May 7, 2013.
-  Lasha Darkmoon indirectly does commit the same fallacy when she declares: “If I may say so without giving offense, I find it hard to understand how the author of The Culture of Critique can be cast in the role of a pseudo-intellectual by a columnist on Veterans Today! 🙂”
-  See for example Peter Schaffer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).
-  E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008).
-  I guess that applies to E. Michael Jones as well. Jones has also discussed these issues with Duke. E. Michael Jones, “Ethnos Needs Logos: or Why I spent Three Days in Guadalajara Trying to Convince David Duke to Become a Catholic,” Culture Wars, June 2015.