Klinghoffer: Darwinism Is a Culture of Death

They have, at least for the moment, stopped blogging about their own books, which is a welcome change for the neo-Luddite, neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

The Discoveroids’ latest post is Wesley Smith Launches New “Human Exceptionalism” Blog at NRO. It’s by David Klinghoffer, whose creationist oeuvre we last described here, and upon whom the Discoveroids have bestowed the exalted title of “senior fellow” — i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist. His name has some of the resonance of Red Skelton’s Clem Kadiddlehopper.

Klinghoffer says, with bold font added by us and his links omitted:

Wesley Smith is not only our Discovery Institute colleague — he’s also a hero. That’s two reasons why it is so delightful to be able to announce the launch of his new blog, Human Exceptionalism, at National Review Online.

We’re very sorry to learn that National Review has gone openly creationist. Perhaps they’ve been that way for a while but we weren’t aware of it. Well, we are now. Let’s find out what else Klinghoffer says:

No one has done more than Wesley to bring home the very practical consequences, in the most powerful moral terms, of the Darwinian-materialist picture of the world. His subject matter is not theoretical stuff but the gross crimes against our own humanity that result — and are doing so right nowwhen a culture increasingly turns to a conception of man that see us as nothing more than animals. That’s what Darwinian evolutionary theory is all about at the end of the day, isn’t it?

Darwinism causes crimes against humanity? What? Oh, we forgot for a moment that we’re writing about a Discoveroid essay. Let’s read on:

You can put your cat or dog down when it becomes too expensive or troublesome to keep caring for their illness, so why not human beings as well? This is the horrible perspective behind what is sometimes called by the euphemism “death with dignity.”

Are they now going to blame euthanasia on Darwin? It was practiced by the Greeks and the Romans in ancient days — if it weren’t a common practice, the Hippocratic Oath wouldn’t mention it. Anyway, Klinghoffer continues, telling us that Wesley is writing that euthanasia is being practiced in Holland, Belgium and Switzerland. Then he quotes Wesley:

Here’s the moral of the story: Once a society agrees that some suicides are good, the categories of the killable never stops expanding.

Here’s how Klinghoffer wraps it all up:

So we see the logic of Darwinism working itself out. The outcome is a culture of death.

There you are, dear reader. Today’s news is that National Review has gone creationist, and Klinghoffer has something new to blame on Darwin — euthanasia.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

26 responses to “Klinghoffer: Darwinism Is a Culture of Death

  1. And I thought American Exceptionalism was about as bad as it could get….

  2. No, creationism engenders a culture of death. Every time I read Klinghoffer, I wish somone would smother me with a pillow.

  3. Hey, the real question is: will Weasley permit comments at his neo-fascist anti-science NRO blog? I commented at NRO once, NRO seemed like total fascist nutjob hard-righties. The comments were like YouTube for barely literate gunsucking fascists.

  4. Diogenes says: “No, creationism engenders a culture of death.”

    Wrong! Now that I realize my ancestors used to look like Tiktaalik, I want to be put out of my misery.

  5. We’ve heard this song before. Have they ever offered concrete proof of a single person who committed suicide or murder due to belief in natural selection?

  6. Ceteris Paribus

    klinghoffer whines: “[a] culture increasingly turns to a conception of man that see us as nothing more than animals. That’s what Darwinian evolutionary theory is all about at the end of the day, isn’t it?”

    I would certainly hope so. Yes, humans are animals. And as Carl Sagan said, the planet and all life that inhabits it are made of ancient star dust.

    Pretty spectacular view of life – much better than Klinghoffer’s religious view that his creator employs us as lab rats waiting to be cast into an eternal lake of fire.

  7. The whole truth

    klinghoffer and his creobot ilk are exceptionally ignorant and arrogant.

  8. NRO has gone creationist? Oh happy freaking joy. As if I didn’t have enough reason already to be utterly disenchanted with the political-establishment Right this year.

  9. @ The whole truth – thanks for teaching me a new word:

    1. creobot
    A slang term for a creationist, emphasizing the prerecorded nature of creationist arguments and the inability of creationists to listen to counterarguments.

  10. Creationists understand neither science nor the scientific method and seem to go to great lengths to avoid any understanding. To them it’s a political, religious or economic ideology and since it disagrees with their own ideology it must be destroyed. Even that may be giving them too much credit. Most of them have never read the Bible they defend with such zeal, they don’t seem to know much history, etc so they don’t even have a clear grasp of what they think they are defending.

    How they can be that scared and uninformed while being that arrogant is stunning.

  11. Charles Deetz ;)

    Calling evolution evil doesn’t prove it wrong. Isn’t that what the Discoveroids are really supposed to be doing?

  12. NRO hasn’t “gone” creationist. They do, and always have, had writers who are creationist, and writers who are not. Some of their readers are creationist and some not.

    I’ve wasted any amount of time there arguing with creationists, and global warming deniers, and never been censored.

  13. Gabriel Hanna says:

    NRO hasn’t “gone” creationist. They do, and always have, had writers who are creationist, and writers who are not.

    I didn’t know that. I’ve never paid much attention to them — at least not since the Buckley days. He had (or claimed to have) problems with evolution, as I recall.

  14. @anevilmeme:Most of them have never read the Bible they defend with such zeal, they don’t seem to know much history, etc so they don’t even have a clear grasp of what they think they are defending.

    The ones like Klinghoffer know a great deal about the Bible and history. It’s not wise to underestimate people. If you say something like that to a person who isn’t sure what to think about it all, they will see for themselves that there are many literate and educated creationists, and that will only reflect on you. In fact if all they know of creationism came from NRO, they would see that literate and educated creationists are the only ones there. People like Klinghoffer are not fundamentalists, and they’re not ignorant. That’s why they are dangerous.

    The messenger shouldn’t discredit the message, and if humans were angels it wouldn’t, but unfortunately it does. While it’s certainly fun to vent about how awful the people who disagree with you are, it rarely gets you anywhere with people who are not on your side to begin with.

  15. I’ve been reviewing that “Human Excpetionalism” blog. It’s been up for months. I never saw it because it does not have a link on the main page, and so far none of the other regular NRO writers seem to have mentioned it. It’s not new, and so far I haven’t uncovered any explicit endorsement of creationism or ID. I haven’t yet seen a pot which had evolution or creation as the main topic.

    The main thread running through it is scientism. The blog is against it. Sometimes that scientism strikes me as bit of a straw man.

  16. Oh, I get it now.

    He’s imported his own blog, including posts back to 2006, into NRO. And I think it’s just happened.

    Anyway, from the couple hundred I looked at, it’s about scientific ethics, scientism, eugenics, euthanasia, health care issues. While I don’t doubt that a Discoveroid is a creationist, he keeps the creationism pretty quiet there.

  17. Based on his writings, Wesley Smith seems obsessed with issues that most of us rarely hear about. Transhumanism? Really? His fretting about assisted suicide and what he terms euthanasia is rather strange as well. Who is he to judge anyway? Oh, yeah, he’s exceptional.

    I’m assuming from Klinghoffer’s spittle that he believes the large number of mainstream Christians who accept evolution are evil materialists who are eager to euthanize their parents and anyone else they hanker to put down. It doesn’t matter what religious belief one has, if they accept the results of modern science, they are evil. That’s what Intelligent Design Creationism is all about at the end of the day, isn’t it?

  18. @SC:I didn’t know that. I’ve never paid much attention to them — at least not since the Buckley days. He had (or claimed to have) problems with evolution, as I recall.

    There’s a variety of perspectives on NRO, and while I certainly have seen writers leave there, sometimes not voluntarily, it takes quite a lot before they are so out of step that they aren’t welcome anymore. Evolution and even climate science have their defenders there.

    I know of no one with creationist sympathies at NR who is a young-earth creationist. Even Klinghoffer accepts that humans have evolved.

  19. @Ed: His fretting about assisted suicide and what he terms euthanasia is rather strange as well.

    I think those are entirely reasonable concerns. It’s one thing to have the option–it’s another thing for it to be imposed as a cost-saving measure. The problems is that lots of things that start out as voluntary don’t end up that way (the IRS will tell you that paying your taxes is voluntary) , and I think the case can be made that in Europe there have been abuses, and that these are driven by the desire to reduce costs.

    It doesn’t matter what religious belief one has, if they accept the results of modern science, they are evil. That’s what Intelligent Design Creationism is all about at the end of the day, isn’t it?

    No, that’s a caricature. He thinks that rejecting the idea of a creator makes one more susceptible to evil, because it removes some of the arguments against it. He is wrong about that, but his position is very different from what you said.

  20. PROTIP: When you see something with Klinghoffer’s name attached, it contains serious misrepresentations of whatever his topic is.

    When he says “Wesley’s blog is going to show you the evil Darwnism leads to”, it means that Smith hasn’t written a word about evolution there. What it means is that Smith is talking about something else entirely, which Klinghoffer says has its roots in Darwinism. But it is Klinghoffer who made the connection.

    If you read that blog you would not know Smith was a Discoveroid. He does not seem to have written on intelligent design. His books are all bioethics, medical ethics, and scientism. He’s written books together with Ralph Nader, FWIW.

  21. @Diogenes:Hey, the real question is: will Weasley permit comments at his neo-fascist anti-science NRO blog?

    There’s always been comments allowed, at the previous incarnation and the current one. And I think “neo-fascist” is a bit strong to use to characterize the views of someone you’re not familiar with, don’t you?

  22. If you read that blog you would not know Smith was a Discoveroid. He does not seem to have written on intelligent design. Well, his old blog at First Things made it pretty clear he is a Discovery Institute fellow (or contributor). And he has written supportive comments about his ID colleagues, even though he has not himself, as far as I can tell, come out against evolution.

  23. John Farrell says: “And he has written supportive comments about his ID colleagues, even though he has not himself, as far as I can tell, come out against evolution.”

    He’s at least a fellow-traveler, and not very covert about it.

  24. GH: “And I think “neo-fascist” is a bit strong to use to characterize the views of someone you’re not familiar with, don’t you?”

    Fair enough, perhaps I should not judge him just because he is popular with neo-fascists like Klinghoffer.

  25. GH: I’ve wasted any amount of time there arguing with creationists, and global warming deniers, and never been censored.

    I argued with some fellows at NRO about how to interpret the Second Amendment, and my comments were punted.

    What would Buckley think if he could see the intellectual level of the commenters at NRO? What I saw was YouTube level.

  26. techreseller

    So I read Klinghoffer’s argument as follows:
    If A then B
    From that I derive C.

    As you can see there is no causality from B to C. I just assert that C is a result of the A driving B.

    Simple eh!