David Klinghoffer: “Darwinists Are Uncivil!”

David Klinghoffer has been granted the title of Senior Fellow (i.e., “full-blown creationist”) by the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). He also operates his own blog, Kingdom of Priests, a part of Beliefnet. What Klinghoffer writes at Beliefnet sometimes shows up at the Discoveroids’ blog, so we regard each blog as an extension of the other.

Today we found this incredible item posted at Kingdom of Priests: Why Darwinists Have a Hard Time Being Civil. David is complaining again, something he does frequently. A previous instance of David’s whining prompted us to post Creationists: Crybabies & Nancy-Boys.

In his latest article, David says, with bold font added by us:

It’s been so illuminating to me, dealing with Darwinists all the time on this blog — cleaning up after them (unpublishing their rude comments, personal insults, etc.). Their purpose is intimidation. Normal people don’t enjoy dealing with rudeness, so they are understandably reluctant to enter into the comment thread discourse. Do you not find this to be true?

Poor David. Everyone is rude to him. Could there possibly be any reason why “Darwinists” are unhappy with a fine fellow like David? Well, let’s see if we can come up with something.

As we pointed out here: Discovery Institute: “The Pit of Hell”, when confronted on the radio with this question: “David, would you not say that Darwinism is a lie, from its top to its bottom, sprung straight from the pit of Hell!?” David responded: “I like your formulation!

Perhaps we can overlook that. However, in Whitewashing Darwinism’s Ongoing Moral Legacy, which appears at the Discoveroid blog, David was writing about James von Brunn, the Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter who murdered a guard. He said:

Is it somehow petty, offensive, exploitative, and beyond the pale to point out how the Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter, who murdered a guard on Wednesday, writes about evolution in his sick manifesto? Should it be considered beneath one’s dignity to quote the man and let his words speak for themselves?

In that same article David also wrote (with our interjections):

From Darwin’s own musings on the logic of genocide [What?], to his cousin Francis Galton’s influential advocacy of eugenics [What?], to the Darwin/monkey statuette on Lenin’s desk [What?], to Hitler’s Mein Kampf with its evolutionary theme [What?], to the biology textbook at the center of the Scopes trial that advocated racism and eugenics [What?], to the modern eugenics movement right here in the U.S., to recent school shootings in which the student murderers invoked natural selection [What?], to yesterday’s tragedy at the Holocaust Memorial Museum [What?], and much more along the way — the thread is persistent, if widely ignored.

That’s a lot for a “Darwinist” to overlook, but maybe we could if that article were a solitary lapse of judgment. But at his Beliefnet blog, David wrote this: Slouching Toward Columbine: Darwin’s Tree of Death, blaming Darwin’s theory for the Columbine shootings. That article was cited with approval by John West at the Discoveroid blog, here.

Still, the question lingers: Why don’t “Darwinists” like David? Can anyone figure it out? Oh, David posted this gem at the Discoveroid blog: Darwinism & Communism, Part I. Yes, it was the start of a whole series. When the first part was published, we recognized it for what it was and wrote this: Discovery Institute: Enter the Sphincter.

In Part II of that series, David links Darwin to Stalin:

In 1891 in Gori, Georgia, a 13-year-old choirboy with dreams of becoming a priest, Iosef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, was discovered by his mother at dawn, having stayed awake through the night reading Darwin’s Origin of Species.

That boy was Stalin, of course. Read David’s article. It gets worse. In that same article he also drags in Lenin with a powerfully persuasive bit of evidence — it’s that statue we were wondering about earlier. There’s also a lot of mind-reading involved:

Lenin kept a statuette prominently situated on the desk in his Kremlin office, depicting a monkey contemplating the skull of a man and surmounting the single dedicatory word, “DARWIN.” It had several meanings. The ape statue signified Lenin’s contempt for fellow men, who were nothing but apes’ children … . For Lenin, as for Darwin, “extermination” was a favorite word.

So where does all that leave us? David — adopting the guise of a religious scholar peacefully studying his parchments — actually spends his time alleging that Darwin’s work is causally linked to communism, racism, and the depravities of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and various other criminals. The only thing he hasn’t blamed on Darwin is the Kennedy assassination. Maybe he’s working on it.

But David wonders why “Darwinists” don’t like him. It’s a great puzzlement.

Copyright © 2009. 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

7 responses to “David Klinghoffer: “Darwinists Are Uncivil!”

  1. retiredsciguy

    Ya know, Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, and the Big Bad Wolf all probably “believed in” the Law of Gravity, so does that make Newton’s writings morally suspect?

    This guy David Klinghoffer has been named a “senior fellow” by the creationists at the Discovery Center? Tells you something about the Discoveroids, no?

  2. Curmudgeon wrote: “The only thing he hasn’t blamed on Darwin is the Kennedy assassination. Maybe he’s working on it.”

    Maybe he can team up with Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum and work on “intelligent bullet theory.”

    On another note, I thought Luskin was the most cartoonish of the Discoveroids. Has Klinghoffer taken the lead?

  3. retiredsciguy

    Frank J writes,
    “On another note, I thought Luskin was the most cartoonish of the Discoveroids. Has Klinghoffer taken the lead?”

    Luskin is almost rational compared to Klinghoffer.

  4. retiredsciguy, I agree completely with you, but one feature of a pre-scientific mindset is that we are supposed to draw our values from nature, so your point is apt to be interpreted by creationists as if you were conceeding a connection between the acceptance of the reality of evolution and certain social/political movements of the early 20th century. And the creationists are not likely to appreciate the irony in that, even if these movements did appeal to a science, they were sharing a pre-scientific mindset in doing that.

    I suggest that therefore we point out how these
    movements were generally opposed to evolution in the sense of Darwin. Whatever mention of evolution, it would be evolution of the sort acceptable to creationists, that is,”micro”evolution, evolution within a “kind” (namely, “mankind”). And, like the creationists, insisting that “random variation and natural selection” could only lead to “deteroration” of the “kind”.

  5. You missed mentioning Klinghoffer’s “Strip Clubs v. Darwinism” ( http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/06/strip-clubs-v-darwinism.html ) which I found very enlightening. So, when are you going to give David the Buffoon Award? He seems a most deserving candidate.

  6. Roger asks: “So, when are you going to give David the Buffoon Award?”

    He’s not important enough.

  7. waldteufel

    Klinghoffer’s scholarship and his reasoning abilities hover somewhere between Denyse O’Leary and the gray squirrel who lurks about my pond in the back yard.

    retiredsciguy — if you think Luskin and Klinghoffer are good for a laugh, try one of Anika Smith’s breathless little pieces . . . . 🙂