ACCORDING to some people, any misfortune that befalls a creationist is Darwin’s fault. Well, Darwin himself is no longer stalking around, but his disciples — the global conspiracy of “Darwinists” — are dedicated to bringing ruin and misery to creationists everywhere. That may sound crazy, but it’s the way the creationists look at things.
You want examples? WorldNetDaily regards Kent Hovind as a martyr, notwithstanding his conviction for tax evasion, not creationism.
And then there’s Expelled, the goofy “documentary” staring Ben Stein, claiming that numerous brilliant creationists are the victims of an evil academic conspiracy that discriminates against their wonderful scientific theory. (But see: Expelled Exposed). A similar conspiracy must be at work to keep astrologers from becoming astronomy professors, but that’s another story.
We’ve also written about allegations that this Darwinist conspiracy includes the Templeton Foundation, the Vatican, and various universities: Discovery Institute: They Get No Respect! Here’s yet another post of ours about a Discoveroid blog article complaining that their brilliant science is being ignored: Whining Again About “Censorship”.
Well, the word in Seattle is that the Darwinist conspiracy has struck again. By now you know the news we wrote about here: Ben Stein: Expelled by the New York Times. Poor ol’ Ben was “stripped of his Sunday New York Times business column because of his work as a pitchman for a credit monitoring company.” That company was FreeScore.com, about which we know nothing, but the internet is filled with allegations that justify the Times‘ action.
What happened next was entirely predictable. The neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids) are now claiming that this setback for Stein has nothing to do with his being a pitchman for an allegedly dubious company. That wasn’t even a consideration.
According to the Discoveroids, Stein’s dismissal was caused by the very conspiracy about which he droned so boringly in Expelled. Here’s the post which makes that claim at the Discoveroid blog: New York Times Expelled Ben Stein. The Darwinist attack on Stein is a matter of such importance that the Discoveroid article was written by none other than Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute. He says, with bold font added by us:
Ben Stein probably thought he could do his work on the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and not himself endure the kind of personal attacks that, in the film, he defended Darwin critics against. In fact, what he found was that Darwinism is at the root of the worldview of the materialist Left and even the materialist Right. You can’t say or do anything to offend them. You can’t even advocate academic freedom.
The people who demanded free speech in the 60s and shouted down figures of authority are now the tenured faculty and newsroom editors of the Establishment. And now they are disallowing any criticism at all.
So, unlikely as it seems, Ben Stein became a martyr.
This is amazing. Stein has been writing for the Times for years, and he continued to do so all last year while Expelled was being shown. One would think that if Expelled were the problem, the Times would have dumped Stein last year. But they didn’t.
Yet there’s no hint in Chapman’s article that Stein even might have been fired for promoting FreeScore.com. None at all. You can find stories about that outfit with very little effort to judge them for yourself. It’s not our purpose here to criticize them or to defend the actions of the New York Times. But it’s noteworthy that Chapman doesn’t defend FreeScore.com. He doesn’t even mention them. That issue — the Times’ justification for dumping Stein — simply doesn’t exist in Chapman’s universe. Indeed, he says:
Typically, when firing Stein as a business columnist the Times couldn’t give the actual reason — which is ideological — and instead had to insinuate that he had a “conflict of interest.” That is a joke as well as an insult.
That’s as close as Chapman gets to mentioning that there actually might have been a non-ideological reason why the Times took the action it did. To Chapman, the only possible reason was revenge — by the imaginary Darwinist conspiracy.
We don’t think Chapman is intentionally lying. He’s probably sincere. It all depends on one’s worldview. When someone sees shadowy Darwinist agents hiding behind every tree, he’ll think like Chapman. His is a strange world.
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.