The Quest for Right… FAILED

I don’t think that I usually get comments that are quite so appropriate for FSTDT.

In addition, Darwin was a FLAMING HOMOSEXUAL. Do you want your kids to learn theorys by a raging HOMO? Fags want to insert there penises into other mens anuses. Is that what you want taught in public schools? Sounds like it to me. Have fun in hell.

C. David Parsons

At first, I badly wanted to believe that he was joking. I wish that once, just once… Anyway, I followed the link to his blog and became rather disappointed. A Google search shows that he’s a bit of a bigger name than I thought, having written a “text book” on the subject. Considering that he spelled “theories” wrong, it can’t be very good.

But good for you, Mr. Parsons. You’ve demonstrated that you can accuse people of being homosexuals with no grounds to do so. But, even if it were true that Darwin was a homosexual (which he wasn’t… he had a wife and several kids), why would his sexual desires play a role in biology class? I’m having trouble seeing a teacher walk into a classroom and say “Today we will learn about evolution… homosexuals want to sodomize other men!”

What’s wrong with learning science from a homosexual anyway? Does Mr. Parsons really mean to suggest that you can’t do good science if you don’t share his sexual orientation? So what if homosexuals want to put their penises in other men’s anuses? Straight men want to put their penises in other women’s vaginas.

That doesn’t make a difference in the quality of science done by people with different sexual orientations. Mr. Parsons who is straight as an arrow (though we can’t be certain of this seeing how those who are piously against gays in public have a tendency to practice homosexuality in private) is a good demonstration of how sexual orientation has nothing to do with good science.

You go on believing that there’s a direct link between teaching quality science and teaching kids that they have to be homosexuals, and I will have fun in Hell if I go there. We can still be friends if you end up in Hell with me because it turns out the Judeo-Christian god doesn’t exist and Allah, Ba’al, Ra, Thor, Wotan, Zeus, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn actually does.

Update: Thank Poe, that wasn’t actually the real C. David Parsons (see comments below).


8 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Alex, FCD on June 3, 2008 at 2:28 am

    Alan Turing, without whom modern computing would probably not exist, actually was gay. I hope he didn’t write that particularly disgusting piece of ignorant blather using a computer.

  2. Darn it, Alex beat me to it–I was going to bring up Alan Turing (who was not only gay, but was prosecuted for it and eventually committed suicide). Homosexuals can’t make great contributions to science? I don’t think so.

  3. Unfortunately the person who blogged yesterday posted from the Western United States, while C. David Parsons lives in the East. Also a ‘Corey Washington’ is listed as the owner of the questforright site at The same ‘Corey Washington’ has a blog post up at the Frank Walton Chronicles which discussing impersonating people on Blogger

    On this occasion the balance of evidence is that it appears to be someone wishing to discredit C. David Parsons who posted comments here.

    I’m not saying that C. David Parsons isn’t a lunatic, I’ve seen his website. Just not this lunatic.

  4. I put a “random fundie quote” module at the top of my blog after reading this post. Thanks for the link to FSTDT!

  5. Dear Mr. Parson,
    (Taken from AvenueQ)
    If you were gay
    That’d be okay
    I mean cause hey
    I like you anyway
    And if it were me
    I would feel free
    To say that I am gay
    (But I’m not gay.)

  6. Google alerted me to the inflamatory post. Please know that I did not post anything about Darwin’s personal life.

    the·o·ry n., pl. the·o·ries. I checked the site for an incorrect spelling of “theories” and could not find one.

    If I had posted anything about Darwin, it might have been this:

    The investigation’s assessment of protracted gradation is far from being new. Darwin was fully cognizant that he could not prove the “theory of evolution” and could not explain its mechanism, especially in so-called well-defined species: the connotation erroneously suggests that there are less-defined or more primitive species when all evidence is to the contrary. The scientific council uses language as a ruse in lieu of documented facts in order to promote protracted gradation; hence, the phraseology is offensive. Again, stability, not variance, is the third law of procreation.

    Darwin’s studies revealed a wide variety of life forms, but what caused these varieties? Again, natural selection was thought to be the answer. In theory, those species best adapted to the environment tend to reproduce more offspring and transmit hereditary improvements (in slight variations); those less able to adapt to the environment leave fewer offspring and eventually die out. After a succession of generations, there is a tendency for the species to adapt to a greater degree, thus, improving the lineage.

    Regrettably, Darwin was unable to grasp the reality of certain rudimental processes which he had observed; for instance, the runt of a litter being abandoned by its parent or a sickly creature preyed upon by a fox or wolf. Although these familiar aspects of procreation are vital to the continuance of the species, the phenomena must not be confused as protracted gradation in the process. Darwin, misguided by his obsession, incorrectly deemed the ritual to be natural selection, when, in truth, he was observing an inherent process of procreation which may be correctly called the guardian of the wild. The familiar process is responsible for weeding out weak and sickly members of the species (i.e., those less likely to survive), not to improve the species but rather as a measure to insure the health and strength of the species as a whole. Make no mistake; new species are not derived by the guardian of the wild.

    Darwin, incognizant of the manifest workings of procreation, attacked the “benevolence” of God, disdaining the guardian of the wild as the “clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horribly cruel works of (Mother) nature.” It revolted his understanding to suppose that God’s “benevolence was unbounded” in such instances (benevolence—”an inclination to perform kindhearted, charitable acts”). Although it may seem a curiosity, those men and women who hate God will always attack His benevolence by asking the questions: If God is so benevolent, why are there wars? Why is slavery so cruel? Why is there so much injustice in the world? And so on. Be it known that one or more transgressions of the holy commandments are the culprits in such instances, not God. A more definitive answer will be forthcoming in Volume 7 of The Quest for Right.

  7. I was told of the possibility that that was actually an impersonator and I was hoping that Poe’s law would kick in.

    If you’d like to see where the comment by your apparent impersonator was made…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: