Darwinism, a Worldview for Bigots

Within Darwinism, you don’t have to debate Darwin skeptics.
All you have to do is mudsling and call names.

 

 — You can often tell who is wrong by looking for the one who wants to cancel you —

In our attempts at civil dialogue with Darwinists on Twitter, their arguments often go like this:

• You guys don’t understand evolutionary theory.
• You guys don’t understand science.
• Sorry that Science offends your sky god.
• What kind of idiot doesn’t understand that evolution is a fact?

Those are some of the milder arguments we get from Darwinists. Try as we might to enforce civil rules of engagement (see our Rules, right), there is something inherent in the Darwinian worldview that makes its adherents nasty. Maybe it is the feeling of escape from thoughts of personal accountability to a Creator, or some imagined fear that creationists are trying to destroy science, or disgust with a religious upbringing that hindered their freedom to sin, or something else. But they often approach the dialogue from a position of rage.

Darwinists who respond to our tweets usually come forward with sawed-off shotguns blazing with the stance of ‘shoot first, and ask questions later.’ Twitter atheists and Darwinists love to post prefabricated memes, snippets from movies showing actors shaking their heads at hearing something stupid, or simplistic talking points. Some will add you to their personal list of crackpots.

Come Now and Let Us Reason Together

Granted, Twitter is not a good measure of civil dialogue, but rare is any Darwin advocate who can hold a conversation about facts and evidence for long. They stray off topic and use ridicule. The dialogue often draws in other atheists and Darwinists. When pressed for details about a point in one of our articles, they typically blow off and vanish in a cloud of hot smoke. Sometimes we have to give them three strikes for profanity or ad hominems. What is it about Darwinists that makes them so angry, obstinate and intolerant?

Maybe they learn it from Big Science, Big Media, and Big Education.

Fighting for the future (Dale Jamieson, Current Biology, 13 March 2023). Jamieson is reviewing Michael Mann’s new book The New Climate War. Look how he opens the first paragraph:

Anthropogenic climate change is a fact, not just a ‘theory’. Yet like evolution by natural selection, it has its deniers. But whereas evolution deniers tend to be cranks and fanatics, climate-change deniers are often highly paid professionals who are indifferent to the truth and backed by the power and resources of major corporations. The source of this book is in one scientist’s confrontation with this power.

Granted, one should not generalize from a single instance. But Current Biology, a leading science journal published by Cell Press, printed this attack on “evolution deniers” with no apology or caveat. Nor would they, from our experience. Darwinists declare perennial open season on Darwin skeptics with no accountability, and give no opportunity for rebuttal. Do you know of one fair debate printed in a leading secular journal? After 22 years of reporting, we can’t point to one.

Just call them cranks and fanatics. Job done. One doesn’t have to dialogue with cranks.

But look who some of these cranks and fanatics are:

• David Berlinski, PhD in philosophy from Princeton, mathematician, author of calculus textbooks and books on science.
• Stephen Meyer, PhD in philosophy of science from Cambridge; best-selling author.
• Randy Guliuzza, MD, Air Force surgeon, engineer, president of ICR.
• Neil Thomas, Oxford PhD in literary studies, historian, member of British Rationalist Association.
• Michael Behe, tenured biochemist at Lehigh University, best selling author, former Darwinist.
• William Dembski, PhD Cambridge, philosopher, leading author of books on intelligent design.
• Jonathan Wells, two PhDs: molecular and cell biology (Berkeley), religious studies (Yale).
• Günter Bechly, PhD geosciences, well-published German paleontologist, recent convert to I.D.
• Steve Austin, PhD Univ of Pennsylvania, professor, researcher, field geologist at international locations.
• David Gelernter, PhD computer science, Yale professor, recent Darwin skeptic.
• James Tour, PhD structural chemist at Rice University, tackles errors in origin-of-life experiments.
• John Sanford, PhD geneticist, Cornell professor, author, former Darwinist.
• and many, many more PhD philosophers, historians, engineers, and scientists from all fields.

The above list is just a brief warmup to the thousands of living Darwin skeptics, many who are well published, credentialed with PhDs from leading universities, and highly qualified to speak to the issue of origins. Some of these are not creationists, but they express strong doubts about the ability of Darwinism to account for life and the universe.

The list doesn’t do justice to many more in Biblical creationist institutions with advanced degrees in geology, biology, physics, astronomy and every other branch of science and history. The list doesn’t include theologians who mastered ancient languages and history, literary criticism and the history of ideas. And it completely omits many founders of modern science who affirmed a Creator and, after Darwin, challenged the incipient atheism of evolutionary theory and refuted its proposed evidentiary supports: great scientists like Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell, and Pasteur.

With a sweep of the hand, Jamieson dismissed them all as cranks and fanatics. Current Biology let him do it. If that isn’t bigotry by definition, what is? Dictionary.com defines bigotry as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.”

If that remark were not enough, Jamieson continued his arrogant tirade against skeptics of the climate consensus, accusing them of having political motives. In the process, he appears to suggest that a Marxist utopia would be a cure for climate change:

There are no physical obstacles to creating a society in which goods, capital and services are distributed ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs,’ but that should not make us think that a socialist utopia is currently within reach.

Current Biology allows this, but would they tolerate Jefferson’s famous lines that “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights”? Doubtful. Too politically incorrect. Too religious. Too fringe. It’s something a crackpot MAGA-Republican would say. Fanatical. Dangerous.

And so we repeat our headline: Darwinism is a worldview for bigots. You can always tell a bigot: they tolerate no debate, no reasoned dialogue, no weighing of evidences for and against a proposition, no civility with those who think differently. They just want to ridicule their opponents, attack them, dismiss them, cancel them, censor them and ignore them. Our frequent author Jerry Bergman has three thick books of case studies documenting this.

The Darwin Party, I believe, would engage in book burning and burning creationists at the stake if they could get away with it. What a perfect worldview for bigots. No responsibility to think. No accountability. No hard work of reason. Just attack, censor and ignore.  It almost seems Satanic.

But who are the real fringe thinkers? Who are the real hard-core dogmatic ones? Who are the ones deceiving themselves, living in anti-scientific fantasy worlds dreamed up out of their own imaginations? Who is drinking the Kool-aid of materialism, which is illogical and self-refuting?

Our guest cartoonist Brett Miller has a clever knack for picturing the likes of Dale Jamieson and the editors of Current Biology. Is this not reflective of their worldview?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*If you are a praying person, Brett is struggling with health problems this year. Join with me in prayer for his full recovery.