Friday, May 10, 2013

An Example of IDiot "Civility"

Do you remember when Stephen A. Batzer listed several reason why "Darwinists" are so uncivil? [Why Darwinism and Incivility Seem to Go Together] I blogged about it at: Why Are "Darwinists" So Uncivil?. We all had a good chuckle about hypocrisy and stupidity.

You've also seen many IDiots defend their use of "Darwinism" by claiming that it's nothing more than an accurate description of the most important scientific prerspective on evolution.

Here's what David Klinghoffer wrote today in Scientific Anti-Humanism Is Being Refuted by Science Itself.
Scientific anti-humanism refers to the cheapening of human dignity and of the value of human life in the name of science. Among many other pieces of novel information on that theme, the most important point that came out of Michael Medved's discussion with John West just now on the Science and Culture Update is that this corrosive tendency is being refuted by science itself.

Darwin persuasively taught that life is the product of blind, meaningless, purposeless churning, making all life, not just human, hardly anything more special or dignified than cosmic refuse. Indeed in a Darwinian worldview, life is cosmic refuse. While accused abortion butcher Kermit Gosnell may be an outlier, he is an emblematic personality in our Darwin-tutored culture.
How civil of him to link Darwinism with Kermit Gosnell.

Remember, this is Evolution News & Views (sic), sponsored by the Discovery Institute. This is not some backwoods hack operating on his own. It's mainstream civility for the leading Intelligent Design Creationists.

UPDATE Klinghoffer posted the following a short time later in Darwinism Versus Reality: The Painful Divorce. It's just another example of how the IDiots link "Darwinism" with immorality and it puts the lie to the claim that "Darwinism" is just another word for "evolutionary biology."
I wanted to highlight what Josh Youngkin said yesterday in his very perceptive comments about the Jodi Arias verdict. Darwinian materialists like Jerry Coyne end up asserting there's no free will, therefore no such thing as moral responsibility. A murderer may be locked up for everyone else's safety, but not because we're correct to seek to impose retribution. We have no moral right to do so.

As Josh says, this casts the human being who murders as a fundamentally blameless animal, like a man-eating tiger. We would cage or even shoot such a tiger, but we could not blame it for acting as it does.

Profoundly, I thought, Josh's article suggests how remote from human experience a guy like Coyne must travel if he wants to carry his Darwinian materialism to its seemingly logical conclusions.


  1. It's part of the general trend of the Right - especially the Christian Right - becoming more and more deranged: Obama birth certificate, Fed government buying up ammunition to prevent the public from getting it, re-election of Sanford, "lies from the pit of hell", etc., etc. I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.

    1. People like Klinghoffer are training up more terrorists like Anders Breivik.

      In their worldview, life has zero value. The only sacred thing is spreading the faith-- compared to spreading the faith, life is disposable.

    2. How dare you poison the well and engage in guilt by association like that! Totally fallacious!

  2. This is the false civility in which they can draw invidious comparisons between you and infamous historical figures, but since they didn't explicitly *call* you "stupid fucking asshole", it's all perfectly civil, and you're the Big Meanie in the room. See also: Tone Trolling.

  3. It is all part of their sleazy cult mentality. They have nothing to offer in terms of legitimate discourse, so they think that well poisoning, guilt by association, etc., is perfectly fine. On a discussion forum I frequent, someone post that attacking Darwin personally is absurd and accomplishes nothing. A few creationists agreed, but one of the self-proclaimed "science experts" declared that it was perfectly legitimate because by "proving" Darwin had mental issues or whatever, it shows that his scientific clams are in doubt. It is all they have.

  4. Just thought of something -

    The anti-Darwinian supernaturalist worldview gave us Scott DesJarlais, the 'pro-life' pro-family doctor who had multiple affairs and pressured both his wife and his mistresses to get abortions, then lied about all of it. Know the Christian supernaturaist by their fruits.

    1. But do we know DesJarlais was anti-evolution? Sure, he was anti-(other people's) abortions (of course pro-abortion for his wives and girlfriends) and pro-family (meaning anti-gay family), but was he anti-evolution?

  5. Reminds me of a quote by Hector Avalos:
    "One understands nothing about creationism unless one understands that it is meant to be a system of ethics. That is why the assault on evolution has always included a lengthy history of moral judgments against evolution."

  6. Klinghoffer should read B.F. Skinner--one book that he may be able to understand is "Beyond Freedom and Dignity". There are also many Yt videos of his lectures and interviews.