July 21, 2018 | David F. Coppedge

Darwinism Breeds Bigotry, Arrogance, and Hate

How to start a mud volcano: say something that hints at some disagreement with Darwinian evolution.

There’s a puzzling sociological phenomenon going on in the world today. These are supposed to be days of tolerance. If you dare to say something derogatory about any politically-correct protected class, you can be hounded out of your job and lose your reputation, even if you said it decades ago. Some internet giants and NGO’s monitor “hate speech” regularly. Without any warning they can scrub accounts they feel step over the line. Other organizations will post lists of ‘hate groups’ to shame them and deny them business. We are all taught to be “tolerant” and to engage in “civil” dialogue, with dire consequences for those who engage in defamatory rhetoric. We recall one unfortunate soul who used the word “niggardly” (a legitimate word meaning “stingy”) and lost his job, because somebody thought he used the “N-word.”

There is one group that remains unprotected from the most blatant hate speech found anywhere. That group is Darwin doubters, or Darwin skeptics. It includes creationists and advocates of intelligent design (ID), but is broad enough to include anyone who is not 100% convinced that Darwinian evolution is absolute fact. Darwin skeptics are not necessarily theists or members of any creation group or advocates of intelligent design. If they voice any disagreement with pure materialistic evolution, here is the kind of treatment they can expect. (Note: these are some of the milder examples.)

Creation-Evolution Headlines uses Twitter to announce new articles. Many times, people of good will who agree with our positions will “like” or “retweet” our posts. Sometimes, though, a report on something that challenges evolution brings out the pro-Darwin attack dogs in force. We try to respond to honest questions, but we demand civility, and enforce a three-strikes rule for ad hominems and profanity. Occasionally, that rule leads to a thoughtful exchange. Often, though, other atheists and pro-Darwinists get word of the conversation and jump in, interjecting filth and hate. When warned, they pour on more hate! A dogpile ensues, and trying to carry on a rational discussion is like trying to talk to a blowtorch.

Many atheists and Darwin attack dogs are actually proud of their hate speech. When called on it or given “Strike one” for violating the rules, they treat this like a badge of honor. If their words were spoken against any protected class, they would be bounced off Twitter faster than you can say “No!” But they not only get away with it, they pass around their favorite profanities to all their friends, none of whom ever call them on it. They add us to their ‘lists’ like “Liars for Jesus” and “Creatards.” We cannot post the worst tweets due to their vulgarity, but here’s a taste:

It’s very clear that many of the atheist/Darwinist tweeters do not even read the articles they complain about. Just hearing about something that lumps a person in with “them” (creationists), or seeing something that questions the Darwinian consensus is enough to set them off. They don’t see the irony in their words, because they commit many of the same faults they attack in their enemies:

  • They will lie, and then call you a liar.
  • They will display bigotry, but call you a bigoted creationist who refuses to look at evidence.
  • They don’t understand their own theory, but will call you ignorant.
  • They accuse you of trusting a holy book, but will rely on authority of the scientific consensus.
  • They will make fallacious statements, but accuse you of logical fallacies.
  • They will rush to judgment, then say you don’t use the scientific method.
  • They will say you don’t have any scientific evidence, then ignore the evidence you give them.
  • They demand specific answers, but speak in broad generalities.
  • They will say you don’t understand science, but then use religious arguments.
  • They will call you irrational, but then engage in mockery.
  • They will threaten you, then call you a threat to society.

What is it about Darwinism that does this to people? In a sense, you could say that they are acting in accordance with their beliefs. They need to prove survival of the fittest so they can spread their genes. Just like rams butting heads, they go after rivals with vengeance. That would make sense, because they truly believe they are evolved mammals who arose without purpose or mind. One of their best evolutionary strategies, therefore, is to attack and charge. Ironically, though, they don’t see themselves doing this on purpose. They have actually convinced themselves that they are defenders of truth and evidence, and so they feel righteously obligated to stop Darwin skeptics, envisioning them as threats to truth. But when evidence and logic is presented to them, they attack with even more vitriol. This makes sense if they are mere mammals, because Darwinian survival of the fittest is not concerned with truth. The chief value is fitness, which involves removing rivals by any and all means possible. The irony is lost on them.

Many will attack the Bible specifically, calling it “tribal superstitions” or worse (so much for religious toleration). Their favorite attack, though, is to call Darwin skeptics “ignorant.” They do this to any Darwin skeptic, even to ones with multiple PhDs like Dembski, Wells and Meyer, categorically denying them a fair hearing just for the crime of doubting Darwin. Intelligent design scientists get the same filth-arrows as young-earth creationists, because they feel their idol, Charles Darwin, has been blasphemed (or might have been; it makes no difference).

Social media platforms, with their anonymity, may have made these attitudes more visible and easier to spread, but it’s important to recognize that this attitude of hate and intolerance has gone on for a long time by Darwinians. The vicious attacks against Darwin doubters began soon after The Origin, when Darwin used his X-Club to promote his views (12 Sept 2004). Initially, they pleaded for fairness and freedom of inquiry. Once power was in their sights at the Scopes Trial, their hate really took off. The Discovery Institute writes,

It’s one of the most powerful stereotypes out there:

Supporters of Darwin’s theory are open-minded champions of free inquiry, while critics of Darwin are intolerant bigots who want to replace the teaching of evolution with religious dogma.

Ever wonder where this awful stereotype came from?

Look no further than an event that took place 93 years ago this Saturday. That’s when high school teacher John Scopes was convicted of teaching human evolution in Dayton, Tennessee.

Indeed, some modern Twitter atheists seem to have taken lessons from Darwinians in that hot summer of 1925:

  • Darrow to Bryan at the Scopes trial: “You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion.”
  • [a newspaper reporter]: “he [William Jennings Bryan] is still engaged in battling earnestly for organized ignorance, superstition, and tyranny . . . He has illuminated vividly for the rest of us the essentially bigoted position of himself and his followers, and the degree of religious intolerance which they will undoubtedly enforce upon the country if they ever get the chance.”
  • Dudley Field Malone at the Scopes Trial: “We do not fear all the truth they can present as facts. We are ready. We stand with progress. We stand with science. We stand with intelligence. We feel that we stand with the fundamental freedoms in America. We are not afraid. Where is fear? We defy it!” Turning and pointing a finger at William Jennings Bryan, he cried, “There is fear!” According to a report, “the crowd went out of control – cheering, stamping, pounding on desks – until it was necessary to adjourn for fifteen minutes to restore order.”

Anti-creationist vituperation became a virtual art form for decades afterward. Some of it is so over-the-top, it would make good comedy, but the haters are really serious:

  • Horatio Hockett Newman, 1932: “There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted idea of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”
  • “…to require teachers to give serious consideration to creationism is as unjustified as requiring them to teach other doctrines – such as astrology, alchemy and phrenology…” (Stephen G. Brush, The Science Teacher 4/1981, p. 33)
  • Isaac Asimov, in a fund-raiser letter for the ACLU: “These religious zealots neither know nor understand the actual arguments for – or even against – the theory of evolution. But they are marching like an army of the night into our public schools with their Bibles held high.”
  • Densely-packed loaded words from Michael Ruse (July 2002): “Why should science journals give space to intelligent design (ID) or any other crackpot pseudo-theory, manufactured to cover the nakedness of biblical literalism in scientific dress to get around the U.S. Constitution’s separation of church and state?”

Some well-known atheistic Darwinians like Richard Dawkins have actually encouraged their followers to use mockery and ridicule (see article in World Magazine). In that particular “Reason Rally” in 2012, Dawkins targeted Catholics, but to him and many atheistic Darwinists, there’s little difference: being a non-atheist of any stripe is enough to make one a target of Darwinist hate. Christian, Jew, creationist, ID advocate, theistic evolutionist, Darwin skeptic, even a well-meaning reporter who doesn’t know any better and uses the wrong terminology – it makes little difference. Merely doubting Darwin earns what we might call “The Darwin Sneer.” At best, the target gets a look of disdain, and is treated differently from then on. At worst, the hateful rhetoric and mudslinging comes with a vengeance that nearly incites violence.

No worries. He hasn’t replied to me & the FACT is he’s wrong so it doesn’t matter if he does reply or lies more. He can’t suddenly become “not wrong”. I was done in November of 2016 with these imbeciles. They hate women, POC and the LGBTQ community because of an imaginary deity. That’s basically the end of the discussion. Morons made up a god thousands of years ago in order to control other people who know it’s all bulls***. They’ve never been content minding their own business. They want smart people to be forced to live by their idiotic myth. And I’m done with that. I assume he’s American because half of them are dumber than dirt. They have a crappy education system and allow con artists to run around telling people that magic and superstition are true things. And then they use a COMPUTER to spread their nonsense.

The Darwinist hatemongers also jump to the conclusion that anybody who doubts Darwin must also be anti-gay, anti-transgender, anti-abortion, racist, homophobic,  – in short, a person representing everything the Left despises. That’s because Darwinism is a key foundation to all that the Left believes. It’s a package deal. Few are the atheistic Darwinians who are politically conservative. Read their Twitter pages and you will see many of them trashing Ken Ham one moment and mocking Donald Trump the next.

Dr Bergman has published 3 books of true stories of careers ruined by Darwin bigots

In chapter 2 of Silencing the Darwin Skeptics (volume II of the Slaughter of the Dissidents series), Dr Jerry Bergman addresses “The Name-Calling Problem.” He points out that name-calling is the first stage in marginalizing a group before persecuting them. The Holocaust was preceded by years of hate speech against Jews, but there have been other cases.

In fact, one of the tell-tale signs of discrimination in action is when any group is broadly described in all-inclusive terms, i.e., all are ignoramuses, religious nuts, pseudo-science advocates, etc. This is no different than claiming all African Americans are lazy, shiftless bums. Most Americans know this is inaccurate and will not tolerate such stereotyping when it is directed towards a protected class of citizens. Where no allowance for differences within any group exists, and when all members of a group are referred to disparagingly, discrimination is usually afoot.

Bergman supplies many examples of the name-calling tactic used against Darwin skeptics in the media, in blogs, in periodicals, book reviews and academia. Having a PhD or being a renowned expert is no protection against the Darwin Sneer: doubt Darwin, and expect humiliating attacks. At the beginning of the chapter, Bergman conducted a non-scientific poll to see what would turn up in Google searches about Darwin skeptics. His list of 48 frequently-found terms included incompetent, ignoramus, stupid, liars, inept, IDiots, mentally retarded, creatard, dolts, dummies, simpletons, nitwits, silly, senseless, ludicrous and other terms of derision. He tabulated search results that included fear-mongering terms like dangerous, a threat, and bigots, Others committed the association fallacy, lumping Darwin skeptics with “Flat Earthers.” Needless to say, anybody so smeared loses respect or the right to be heard in the minds of many. So who are the real bigots?

Good read on the damaging consequences of Darwinism on human behavior

We can predict some atheists responding to this article, calling it the work of “crybabies” whimpering about not getting any respect, adding that nobody who “denies science” deserves any respect. Thus, they will demonstrate further that they not only have no shame or conscience, but have no substantive arguments to make in defense of Darwin. Victimhood has nothing to do with it. We don’t take it personally anyway, because the haters don’t even know the person they’re talking to; it’s their Pavlovian response to any and all Darwin doubters. They hear the dog whistle that a creationist is on the line. They come running over, and dogpile on with boilerplate hate.

Why does Darwinism do this to people? Why can’t they do better than engage in hate speech? Why can’t they defend their idol with reason and logic? Their behavior reflects badly on them, not their targets. The irony of “survival of the fittest” is lost on them. Rightly do we point out that according to their own worldview, their behavior amounts to glorified head-butting. Rightly do we point out, too, that Darwinism breeds hate and violence. A doctrine that glorifies selfishness, with no foundation for morality— what would you expect? You get what you pay for: pride, selfishness and hate. Christians will envision Satan clapping his hands at his most successful scheme for deluding God’s creatures and turning them against their Maker, fooling them into thinking they have gained knowledge of good and evil.

In my experience (and I have observed the creation-evolution debate for decades), the Darwinians are the worst at name-calling. There may be a few creationists who have engaged in it here or there, but for the most part, creationists are the ones calling for a fair-sided, civil discussion about evidence. Those creationists who are Christians are taught by the Bible to be gentle toward all and to love their enemies. None of the major creation groups or ID organizations I know endorse hate speech or name-calling. They may go after bad ideas strongly, but do not attack individuals. At CEH, we use cartoons and use the Darwin dictionary for rhetorical purposes to make a point. Darwin—now long dead—has long ago morphed into an icon for his ideas, so portraying him in a cartoon image makes a point about Darwinism rather than about his personal life. That’s very different from smearing a particular living creationist as a “creatard” or attacking all creationists as “liars” and “nincompoops.” We laugh at the latest just-so stories, but do not disparage the human worth of the storytellers. Jesus mocked behaviors, too: he called the Pharisees “blind guides” who “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel,” but he warned against calling someone “Thou fool.” Certainly none on the creation side should ever use profanity and vulgar expletives. If they do, they deserve to be admonished. We’ve seen atheists and Darwinians on Twitter, however, take great pleasure in trying to outdo one another applying obscene terms and four-letter words to creationists.

Jesus also warned, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matthew 7:6). In that picturesque analogy he did not call Mr. Pharisee X a pig. The analogy was generic; the audience knew what he meant; you can waste your time on some opponents, just like swine will have no appreciation for pearls when their intent is to attack you in the mud. Wisdom demands seeking out those willing to listen even a little bit, but recognizing the point when it does more harm than good. Our hope with Twitter debates is not to persuade the attackers, but to show followers watching quietly on the sidelines who has the best arguments, and who is acting civil. Atheists: if you are listening, we have some advice to help you. Stop making our point for us. You’re only hurting your case. Make our debate challenging by acting respectable, respectful, being good listeners, sticking with the topic at hand, and focusing on the evidence and logic. We would love to hear you explain—using Darwinian mechanisms alone—how logic evolved. Achieve that, and we may act dumbfounded!

 

Comments

  • dsg727 says:

    I have spent years on Yahoo message boards debating atheists and evolutionists and agree with you that most are incapable of honest dialogue anymore. Some will debate, but even within those ranks I find that they can use the same arguments over and over, even when soundly refuted. Such is then simply put to the next Christian in line to try and stumble them with a faulty argument.

    I’ve seen attempts with reductionism to argue against the Bible and God. One person reduced love to simple chemical reactions in the brain. I then posited the argument that she could never be mad at or hurt by her then boyfriend if he walked out on her because he found better “chemical reactions” with someone else. I even used the preposterous example of that person being a 70 year old man.

    Another instance was one critic that misused translation of a particular word to “prove” that Jesus was a liar about when He would return. When the original Greek was presented, he refused to listen to and heed that definition and continued to use his refuted argument.

    One last argument I remember was with an evolutionist attempting to explain away my question about how insects developed the ability to walk on a modern invention such as glass. Over a dozen papers were referenced for me to read but none talked about how the ability developed, but rather the physics behind how the walking is performed. Basically, that’s nothing more then assuming “evolution did it”. The best answer given by him about how it developed was what was called “exaptation”, or the idea that some trait evolved for one purpose, but had another fringe benefit unassociated with the first purpose. In other words, a guess at what happened, but no proof.

Leave a Reply