The Discoveroids — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page — are known for promoting more items of misinformation than their creationist theory of intelligent design.
As part of their incessant propaganda barrage, they package their “theory” with a set of companion untruths, alleging that: (1) they’re not creationists; (2) scientists are unfairly censoring and actually bullying them; (3) spending time in school on their nonsense somehow improves students’ reasoning ability; (4) Darwin’s theory is responsible for Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, eugenics, racism, and various other evils; and (5) sane, scientific-minded people (“Darwinists”) are uncivil brutes.
It’s that last item we’ll be discussing today, inspired by this charming little essay at the Discoveroids’ blog: Why Darwinism and Incivility Seem to Go Together. It was written by someone named Stephen A. Batzer — whom we haven’t encountered before. The Discoveroids introduced him recently with a note added to his first Discoveroid post. They say he’s a mechanical engineer who does a lot of expert witnessing in court. Now he writes for the Discoveroids.
Before we get into Batzer’s little essay, we should remind you of some previous attempts by the Discoveroids to describe their opponents as brutes and savages. Back in July of 2009 we posted David Klinghoffer: “Darwinists Are Uncivil!” Re-reading it just now was a good reminder of why we hold Klinghoffer in such low esteem. More than two years later we wrote Discovery Institute’s Uncivil Critics, describing their standard misrepresentations about the allegedly “Darwinist” eugenics movement resulting in over a hundred million murders.
Okay, that’s the background. We’re almost ready to discuss Batzer’s essay, as he joins the Discoveroid chorus claiming that they are the sweet and wonderful folks, while their critics are a bunch of barbarians. At this point you should click on the video above this post — it’s only ten seconds long. Now you’re ready. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Recently, David Klinghoffer posted a thoughtful article … . I too have been reflecting lately, wondering why Darwinists you come across on the Internet are, let me be charitable, so uncivil?
Why, Batzer wonders, are Darwinists on the internet so uncivil? We respond with a question of our own: After years of being falsely and maliciously labeled as soul-mates of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc., how should we respond to those whose business it is to produce such propaganda? In what fantasy universe does their activity earn a civil response? The only real puzzle here is that we behave as well as we do.
That was the beginning. Stick around as Batzer continues to wrestle with the great incivility mystery:
There are several answers.
Now he offers six paragraphs which represent his attempt to explain the peculiar behavior of Darwinists toward Discoveroids. The first two don’t merit any discussion:
1. They’re human. That says a lot that’s negative about them and of course about us, too.
2. They’re typing, probably anonymously, on the Internet. I’m sure you have noticed the level of discourse on the Internet.
No big deal there. Let’s read on:
3. You are challenging their religious beliefs, which they know, just know, to be true.
That’s coming from a creationist. What’s the psychological term for that — projection, transference? Actually, it may be less complicated than that. It’s more like our old schoolyard technique, tu quoque: “I’m not a poop-head; you’re a poop-head!” Batzer’s list continues:
4. Thought leaders in the Darwinian movement, such as Dawkins, Prothero, Shermer and so on, inculcate and advocate incivility by their own example.
He’s got a point there! You can’t take Dawkins anywhere without getting involved in a brawl. The guy is always waving a busted whiskey bottle around while challenging creationists to debate him. We keep telling him: “Calm down, Richard, this isn’t a soccer game!” but he doesn’t care. That’s how it is with leaders in the Darwinian movement.
Now Batzer’s reasons for our incivility become even more interesting. Here’s the fifth:
5. “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” That Darwinism is a FACT has been proclaimed since before all of us were born. Saying that the Darwinian mechanism of speciation is not a fact strikes many folks as if you’re intimating that there is no Japan. It’s just a made up country. When I try to measure the level of personal knowledge that Internet advocates have of evolutionary theory, it is almost universally superficial. This includes biologists.
The more you read that one, the funnier it becomes. But he’s serious! Now we come to Batzer’s last and presumably best reason for Darwinist incivility:
6. They have not taken the time to understand what the issues are or what evidence is convincing to those who disagree with them. They are ignorant in a nearly comprehensive way about why thoughtful, educated people find the “generate and filter” paradigm causally insufficient.
Yes — that’s probably the main reason you’re so uncivil, dear reader. You are “ignorant in a nearly comprehensive way” compared to “thoughtful, educated” people like the Discoveroids. You just can’t help being uncivil.
Okay, having given us what he thinks are the causes of our ghastly behavior, Batzer concludes with a couple of paragraphs. We’ll give you what we think is the best from that:
One thing that draws me to the ID movement is that it has the polite and understated ethic that science is supposed to have — but does not have when the subject is evolution.
There you are, dear reader. A new talent boldly and proudly joins the Discoveroids’ crusade to promote their wedge strategy. He thinks your behavior is disgusting and he also knows why you behave that way, so don’t plan to get away with anything while Batzer is on the job.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
The most ‘civil’ response I can come up with to this remarkable Discoveroid screed is, “And tell us, Mr. Batzer, exactly when you stopped beating your wife?”
I just amended the original post to add a ten-second video from “Blazing Saddles.”
Seems like the DI just can’t even figure out how to go out and buy credibility with cash these days. They hired Batzer, a mechanical engineer, to write about civility. But one of the first things they teach in engineering school is never to practice engineering outside the limits of your specific training. What the DI wants for a discussion of civility is maybe a civil engineer.
The Discoveroids, including attorney Casey Luskin, should have learned to stick to their professional fields of expertise a while back, when biologist Larry Moran handed Batzer his head for trying to be an expert forensic witness in the field of biology.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/08/more-creationist-objections-to-unguided.html
No wonder if Dr. Dawkins doesn’t calm down when you call the fine game in which the ball is only played by foot soccer. Now this is indeed incivil.
Shermer, uncivil? It appears as though simply being a skeptic and /or a critic of ID makes on uncivil. I have seen Stephen Meyer in action first-hand, and he is one of the most arrogant uncivil people I have ever encountered.
[Discoveroids] package their “theory” with a set of companion untruths, alleging that: (1) they’re not creationists; (2) scientists are unfairly censoring and actually bullying them…”
And 99% of the time we help them by:
(1) Saying “ID is too creationism” instead of showing how they bait-and-switch 2 definitions of the word. Face it, ID is certainly “creationism” in the sense of promoting unreasonable doubt of evolulution, but it is not “honest belief in literal Genesis” as most people on the street would define it.
(2) By merely showing that we don’t censor or “bully,” while omitting the most important part, how the they are the true censors. When was the last time they demanded “equal time” for the refutations of their misrepresentations?
Frank J says:
Frank, you and I will never agree, and I doubt that the Discoveroids think I’m helping them. They are creationists, albeit deeply closeted, science-denying “cdesign proponentsists”.
I don’t care if most of them claim they’re old-Earthers and not the Genesis-based young-Earth type of creationist. That trivial distinction is irrelevant to almost everyone except Ken Ham. William Jennings Bryan was an old-Earther too.
Batzer: “Saying that the Darwinian mechanism of speciation is not a fact strikes many folks as if you’re intimating that there is no Japan. It’s just a made up country.”
Say … do we know there is any such country as “Japan”? Have we been there? Even if some people claim to have visited this alleged country, how do we know they are not lying?
“Japan” was (supposedly!) an ally of the Axis Powers during the war. Hitler believed in Japan! Plainly there is an intimate historical connection between Nazi ideology and belief in the existence of Japan. All people who promote the idea that “Japan is a fact” stand revealed as members of a Neo-Nazi conspiracy.
In public schools, teachers ought to “teach the controversy” about the dubious existence of Japan to the pupils. The kids should be presented with two distinct world maps, with and without Japan, and decide for themselves which map is the more reliable. Do remind them that Hitler was a Japan-believer! Teaching children that Japan really exists reinforces the notion that the Nazis have allies all over the world. Obviously the kids will want to become Nazis themselves, to be on the winning side. These are the tragic consequences of poisoning young minds with pro-Nazi “Japan is a fact” propaganda.
Batzer and the DI are old news, curmie! Try to keep up.
Okay, Jeffrey Shallit, you beat me to it.
I think Batzer should write a follow-up article titled, “Why All Creationists Lie.” Perhaps Batzer could answer the question as to which is worse, lying or being called out on it. What’s worse, lying in public or having someone publicly call you a liar?
How desperate is the DI that they publish this childish essay by a clueless mechanical engineer? I didn’t realize that 150 years of biological research was a “Darwinian movement” and I certainly didn’t know that Michael Shermer was a leader of it! Hey, Mikey, when did you get a field promotion? Good old Shermer is probably due for some back pay if that’s the case.
But, yes, I’ll admit, creationists are a polite bunch. Never a harsh word or inappropriate language. Of course our host wouldn’t exactly tolerate the language I copied from a single thread over at the Panda’s Thumb forum where the occasional creationist happens to stop by for a “chat,” but here goes:
**Creationist then proceeds to cite Wikipedia to support his “argument” with no sense of irony.
Here’s a nice bit of “evolutionist” incivility for Batzer to chew on — I propose that henceforth, the old epithet be changed to “Batzer crazy”.
(if you’re having a hard time figuring out which old epithet I have in mind, think “guano”.)
I usually don’t like ad hominem comments, but hey! — it sure fits.
Like they say, if the bat 54175, wear it!