Darwin & the Nightmare of Human Cloning

The “intellectual” argument of the Discovery Institute to support their “theory” of intelligent design is based on two fallacies: (1) the God of the gaps; and (2) William Paley’s watchmaker analogy, which is also the basis of their “design inference,” about which they babble using undefinable terms like “specified complexity.”

But they also have a purely emotional argument — which appeals to most of their followers. It’s their revulsion for the idea that they are related to other species — especially monkeys. They’ve lately been blogging a lot about that, which is the reason for the song above this post. The latest at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog is Macaque Monkeys and Human Dignity, written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Why does the evolution debate matter so intensely? In an interview with P.J. Media‘s Tyler O’Neil [link omitted], our biologist colleague Ann Gauger [a/k/a “Annie Green Screen”] hits the nail on the head. The profound importance of the controversy lies in human dignity, and our rapidly dissolving sensitivity to it. She spoke in the context of news about the cloning of macaque monkeys by Chinese researchers, a major and disquieting step toward human cloning.

[*Groan*] Again? See The Discoveroids’ Crusade Against Cloning. Then he says:

Will scientists take it that far? The present culture certainly gives reasons to think they won’t stop at monkeys. [Big quote from Annie Green Screen.]

After a lot more quotes from her he says:

What’s the source of it all? “She pointed to Darwinism as the key threat behind the loss of understanding of human dignity.” That seems hard to deny.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Why is it hard to deny? Klinghoffer explains:

The whole agenda of evolutionary thinking is to erase the exceptional status of human beings in nature, considering us as one among many animals competing for existence amid the blind churning of the cosmos and of terrestrial biology.

Wow! He finishes with this frightening thought:

From Darwin’s visions to nightmare scenarios of human cloning, it’s a straight shot from premise to conclusion.

We can’t think of anything clever to say. Perhaps you can, dear reader.

Copyright © 2018. 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

11 responses to “Darwin & the Nightmare of Human Cloning

  1. Michael Fugate

    Human dignity? It is worse now than when the Bible concluded that people could be enslaved and they and women treated as property. Are these people serious?

  2. I get it: they’re so insecure, their ego is so fragile, that the idea that they have any connection to other animals is terrifying. Hey people, get over it – we’re just one of the great apes!

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    “The whole agenda of evolutionary thinking …”

    Tinfoil hat crazy when you think the opposition is an organized conspiracy with an vague, purposeless goal that isn’t written anywhere or leaked by anyone.

  4. Q: Why does the evolution debate matter so intensely?
    A: Money. Please donate!

    Can’t beat a good Q&A.

  5. If the best that they can get their opinions published in is PJ Media (a fairly obscure, if notoriously wingnut, ‘news’ site, that amounts to not much more than a blog), then it doesn’t say much for the state of their PR campaign. If they can’t even get themselves onto Fox, then why should we care?

  6. “a purely emotional argument”
    Of course the appeal to emotion is also a logical fallacy. It has been said to be summarized by a critic of Galilei: “It should not be true, so it cannot be true, so it isn’t true” (regareding the moons of Jupiter, iIrc).
    According to psychologists such emotions are the real cause of human judgments. God of the Gaps and Paley’s Watchmaker (plus above all of course “Evolution is wrong, no matter how”) are nothing but rationalizations. What fascinates me is the idea that at least some of those IDiots and creacrappers (Paul Nelson for instance) are actually more intelligent than me. So I must accept that I’m as susceptible to such foolishness as them and have to work hard to avoid it. Every time I mock them I try to protect myself and implicitely admit that I’m not any better.

    “The profound importance of the controversy lies in human dignity.”
    Perhaps it helps that I am Dutch. Two worldwars, a Holocaust (or if you don’t like this Godwin, the Banda genocide commanded by the Dutch hero JP Coen), global warming, wiping out lots of other species have made me think not very high of human dignity. Thus far Homo Sapiens has been a catastrophe that very well may result in the next mass extinction event.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

    IDiocy a la Green Screen Annie and Dr. Klinkleclapper obviously does nothing to avoid it.

  7. Why, to a ratonal denier of evolution, would it be more worrisome that monkeys are cloned? More worrisome than sheep being clonned? Is it that monkeys are somehow more closely related to humans than are sheep, or frogs?
    Is it so much worse to be descended from primates than from the dust of the earth?

  8. When the facts don’t support you, turn to character assassination. That’s what Klinghoffer is doing here, just as it’s what creationists are doing when they blame Darwinism for Hitler and/or Stalin.

    And TomS makes a good point. Why are creationists so hostile to the idea that humans evolved from more primitive creatures but so friendly to the notion that the first humans were formed directly from dirt?

  9. “Why are creationists so hostile to the idea that humans evolved from more primitive creatures but so friendly to the notion that the first humans were formed directly from dirt?”

    Most informed people will have to admit that creationists are as dumb as dirt, so there is that obvious relationship.

  10. I suggest that the relationshipt is so objectionable because it is so obvious.

  11. “[my ancestor] didn’t swing from a tree”
    Human shoulderblades?