and a douche, too
Since then, Law punked both Schilling and ESPN with his initial post-suspension Tweet.
And since then, as Craig Calcaterra explains, with link to Schilling's Facebook feed, Schilling's doubled down on douchery and butt-hurt.
Here he is:
Not sure how many of you, if any, followed the Twitter explosion last week. I was arguing, debating, talking with some folks about Evolution/Creation. Somehow someone made it into me not believing in the Theory of Evolution? I never said it, not even close. I said as a Christian I understand where man came from and how, regardless of whether I can imagine it, God did it, that's good enough for me. Keith Law got suspended from Twitter for publicly arguing the point I think, it certainly wasn't for his opposing view. I like Keith, just thought it odd he'd want to publicly pick that fight, though I had zero problems with it ESPN took action. I actually thought they would suspend me as well, was expecting it.
Anyway, the reason I am posting this is, if you are on my feed, check out the evolution (no pun intended!!) of the conversation. Unsure of what stunned me more, the anger, hatred and vile tweets from Atheists/Liberals, Democrats or the lack of Christians chiming in? I totally buy evolution within species, 100% as science has easily proven that. But as a Christian did people really need me to tweet that to know how I felt? Or was it the simple fact I publicly stated what anyone that knows me already knew? By the way, stunned at the language and commentary made by seemingly 'adults', scientists, teachers etc. Like they were 7 year olds on the playground again.
I understand why non-believers get upset at this conversation, because many know in their hearts that if it's true their future is not in good shape. But the anger? Cussing? Every single follower I blocked had in their profile somewhere "Atheist" "Liberal" "Democrat" or some such label.
What is he really saying?
First, the "God did it, that's good enough for me," is an old classic of Biblical literalists. That's especially true when coupled with the denialism of not believing in evolution. He's claiming that he didn't say anything against evolution, just in favor of conservative Christian creationism.
Second, the old "microevolution" ploy in the second paragraph to prove he's pro-evolution. Not worthy of further comment.
Third, in the second graf, he's butt-hurt because ... well, because he's not as famous as Kirk Cameron or Ken Ham among literalist Christians. Well, he probably rectified that, and will be wanting fundamentalist speaking fees next.
What Schiling really is saying is:
"I get to be a public douche on social media. I get to be a public douche a second time by blocking you for calling me a public douche. I get to be a public douche a third time by calling you the equivalent of a public douche."
Meanwhile, let's not forget this liberal-hater's hypocrisy of taking a $75 million guaranteed loan from the state of Rhode Island for creating 450 jobs, which one HBT commenter notes is about $167,000 per job. (And, Schilling's business venture flopped like a beached Rush Limbaugh.)
That said, I don't get some secularists (or at least I think they are, one in particular) on Hardball Talk who says that religion, like science, is "a way of knowing."
No, it ain't. That's Steve Gould's non-overlapping magisteria, perhaps on steroids.
Religion is certainly "a way of explaining." But, it's not a way of knowing. Nope.