THE article we’re writing about today is such an incredibly tangled mess that it’s difficult to determine whether it’s the random result of impending brain death or if it’s an example of intentionally designed obfuscation. We’ll let you decide.
At the website of something called Oregon Faith Report we read: Separating Darwin from Evolution . It appears to be an interview conducted by Georgene Rice — whether she’s a staffer or an inmate isn’t clear — and Dr. Benjamin Wiker, author of “The Darwin Myth: the Life and Lies of Charles Darwin”. Catchy title, huh? Here’s an Amazon link so you can grab a copy.
Who is Benjamin Wiker? Oregon Faith Report says he’s “a senior fellow at St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology and is also a senior fellow at Discovery Institute.” Great! He’s one of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). We haven’t come across him before, but sure enough, the Discoveroids’ creationist website includes him on their list of fellows. They say his Ph.D. is in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University.
Wiker is a theologian, which is worth remembering as we try to traverse this wasteland into which we’ve wandered. It’s also worth remembering that he undoubtedly imagines himself to be some kind of ethicist. We’ll let you decide that one too.
Here are some excerpts from the interview, with bold from the original to highlight who’s speaking. We don’t need to emphasize anything else, because every sentence is a howler. We’re guessing that this is one of those interviews where the guest hands the compliant “interviewer” a scripted list of the questions he wants to be asked. If we’re right about that, then everything in the interview, questions and answers, are by Wiker. Indirectly, he’s giving us the Discoveroid line on things. Here we go:
Georgene: Charles Darwin spread the myth that anything scientific could not include God; a myth which has grown to define science for the last 150 years. He thought everything could be explained through natural selection without the help of a divine hand. So he deliberately left God out of his version of evolution known as Darwinism.
Wiker: Yes, I thought I would focus on his life as the backdrop of the Darwin myth. This is the year of Darwin. It’s the 200th anniversary of his birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book, “The Origin of the Species”. I wanted to show you the man behind the theory. That’s the key: what was this man really like and why did he put forth the version of evolutionary theory he did? We tend to identify Darwinism with evolution, and there are important reasons not to identify the two.
Right, forget about the science. Let’s talk only about the godless monster who gave us “Darwinism.” The interview continues:
Georgene: You write the problem with Charles Darwin is not evolution itself but his strange insistence on creating an entirely Godless account of evolution. That evolution must be Godless to be scientific is the Darwin myth, which is so profoundly misleading that it must be called a “great lie”.
Wiker: Yes, absolutely, because it’s still with us and going strong. If you are currently a scientist, you are not allowed to express any wonder at creation because it may lead you to suspect that there is a creator. In other words, you can’t mix religion with your science. Darwin was part of a larger, secularizing movement that believed we were moving away from the dark ages — the religious ages, the age of superstition — to an enlightened, secular future. And his version of the theory fit right in to this. In other words, if you believe this, you realize you don’t need God anymore. That has been the effect: it has become entrenched in the scientific establishment.
Ah! Darwin was part of the satanic plot we call the Enlightenment — an evil scheme that diverted us from the perfect joy of the Dark Ages. Observe carefully, dear reader, not only what these people are saying, but what they’re not saying. There’s nothing here about evidence or reasoning. There’s no science being discussed. It’s all about atheism, allegedly caused by the Enlightenment. Got it? These people (we think it’s all Wiker, really) hate reason, they hate freedom, they hate science, and they probably hate you too. Are they wannabe witch burners? That’s another one for you to decide.
We continue:
Georgene: You make the point that this has distorted our understanding of the scientific evidence and debates about it. It’s just as distorting to science as idealistic Marxism is to the study of economics.
Wiker: That’s the kind of connection I want people to make. …
No need for us to comment. Well, see: Marx, Stalin, and Darwin. Okay, here’s more:
Georgene: In your opinion, the worst lie was the one Darwin told himself: that he could have his moral cake and eat it too, pushing forward a Godless account of evolution that made morality a mere transient effect of natural selection, and at the same time, holding up particular moral traits.
Wiker: This is an interesting story. “The Descent of Man” was written a little over ten years after “Origin of the Species”. It came about because Darwin’s own allies pointed out to him that his theory of natural of selection did not explain the development of human beings — their moral and intellectual development … . But Darwin attempted to explain it — that’s “The Descent of Man” — it made him reduce morality to the survival of the fittest. When you do that it turns out pretty ugly. For example, he hated slavery, but his own theory supported it.
Let’s see now: According to this Discoveroid “senior fellow,” Darwin’s myth-making was intentionally devised to support atheism, Marxism, and even slavery. Moving along:
Georgene: You point out that his family heritage allowed him to breathe in evolutionary doctrines that had been in the air for almost a century — his upbringing sort of spawned the man he was and the way he moved his theory forward.
Wiker: Once you tell his story, you see why he came out with his theory. What’s his background — religion? No, he was a third generation enlightenment skeptic. Erasmus, Robert and Charles were all part of the radical intellectual set. The notion that he was a secret or open Christian is nonsense.
Right! We’ll just overlook the fact that, at his father’s insistence, Darwin studied theology at Cambridge as preparation for a career as an Anglican churchman. Okay, here’s the last excerpt:
Georgene: “The Descent of Man”, which was an irrational reflex of ignorance in his treatise on religion was simply a revival of ancient Greek and Roman pagan philosophical views that downgraded religion as superstition and that was revived during the enlightenment and used directly against Christianity, so even that was not really original with Darwin.
Wiker: He had a ready made account of the rise of religion that itself was independent of evolutionary theory, and he put it out there as if it depended on natural selection when, in fact, it did not. Again, that’s part of his radical skeptical upbringing.
There you are, dear reader — now you’ve seen the thinking of a Discoveroid “senior fellow,” one who was trained in Theological Ethics. You may see things differently, but in your Curmudgeon’s humble opinion one can obtain more accurate information by hanging out at the Flat Earth Society.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
. 
. Permalink for this article
