Klinghoffer: Darwinists Are Racists

Things are getting nasty at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog. Their latest post is The Return of John Derbyshire, written by David Klinghoffer — a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. He’s really flinging the stuff today. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A friend sent me a link to an online racialist journal, VDare [Link omitted], where I got the unpleasant surprise of seeing a screen shot of an article from Evolution News [the Discoveroids’ blog] with my name on it. This accompanied a post by John Derbyshire.

That’s a name we haven’t seen in a while — not since the earliest months of this humble blog. He’s definitely not a creationist — see John Derbyshire on Jindal and Creationism in Louisiana. Klinghoffer says:

Derbyshire, I now saw, had responded to my commentary on Razib Khan, the genetics PhD candidate who took to the online pages at National Review to urge conservatives against engaging with Darwin skeptics.

You remember that. We wrote about it a week ago — see National Review Has a Pro-Evolution Article. The Discoveroids posted at least four times about it, accusing Khan of having some articles in dubious publications. Now Klinghoffer’s going to do the same thing with Derbyshire. He tells us:

His writing now appears at racialist publications including VDare, Taki’s Magazine, and The Unz Review. The last is particularly vile, but Derbyshire runs his pieces at all three.

We’re not familiar with those publications. Does Derbyshire write racist articles? That’s the one thing Klinghoffer never tells us. It’s all guilt by association. He continues:

So, down to business. He [Derbyshire] chides me for hypocrisy. I wrote against “blackballing and guilt by association,” yet says Derbyshire, I “then proceed[ed] to blackball/ guilt by association Razib because he has been ‘canoodling with the racist Alt-Right.’” I guess I should explain myself better.

This should be fun. Let’s read on:

If you are going to argue for turning the mute button on against those who say biology gives evidence of design, excluding them as discussion partners, you do need to examine your own associations pretty carefully. Khan, it seems, has failed to do that.


Perhaps I should have been clearer that “blackballing and guilt by association” are a problem when the association does NOT tell you something important about the person under consideration or about his thinking. That is, it’s unfair when it’s arbitrary. If someone is a member of the Nazi Party, where he associates with other Nazis, that’s significant. If he runs his articles at a grotesque online venue like Unz, that’s significant.

We don’t know that publication, but again, Klinghoffer isn’t telling us that Derbyshire writes Nazi stuff. Instead, he goes into full-blown Discoveroid mode:

Khan’s association with the alt-right, and Derbyshire’s, is not by chance. The thread of what the racist Right calls “Race Realism” has never been completely absent from Darwinian theorizing from Darwin himself down to today. See our colleague Richard Weikart’s book From Darwin to Hitler [Link omitted.] for more about this persistent taint.

The Discoveroids never hesitate to play the Hitler card when criticizing Darwin — see, e.g.: Discovery Institute: Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Part X. They’re also adept at playing the racism card — see Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin — and that’s exactly what they’re doing here.

Klinghoffer’s final paragraph is a real gem. See what you think of it:

Derbyshire can be a charming and interesting writer — I regret that he took the course he did. [What “course”?] I doubt he or Khan is a hateful person. [Right, except that Klinghoffer’s post strongly suggests the opposite.] But wise? Wise enough to offer counsel to fellow conservatives about who to talk with and learn from about science? When they can’t muster the wisdom to decide how to expend the precious resource of their own names? No, their own lack of wisdom is noteworthy. It says something about themselves, but more importantly, it should be a cause for reflection about the ideology, Darwinist materialism, that they promote.

Slick, huh? Klinghoffer never specifically says that Derbyshire and Khan are racists, but the innuendos are never-ending, and he ends by saying that the racism he implies is inevitable for those who promote Darwinism. Klinghoffer has certainly earned his pay today. He has written a classic Discoveroid post.

Copyright © 2019. 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

15 responses to “Klinghoffer: Darwinists Are Racists

  1. Discussions about racism never lead anywhere very interesting.
    They quickly descend into verbal tit for tat about who’s more holier-than-thou. But the Discoveroids can’t dissociate themselves entirely from the alt-right, despite Dummkopfer’s protestations They’re pretty much aligned when it comes to anti-evolution and anti-abortion, for example. They still all bond over the Bible.

    Klaptrapper plumps for an all-embracing Abrahamic nationalism to unite America, and fight the scourge of evil godless materialism. The alt-right share a similar sentiment. They just want to excise the Jewish component of that makeup, and make it all-white Christian.

  2. Michael Fugate

    If a racist accepts evolution, then evolution is racist, but if a racist is a creationist, then creationism isn’t. Another John Lennox bit of logic and why science works. Great job David!

  3. Karl Goldsmith

    “Science has greatly improved our understanding. None of the new things we have learned supports Creationism; none of them has overthrown orthodox biology, as Creationists of the 1990s were promising was about to happen any day.

    Meanwhile, as real science has advanced, Creationism has stood still, adding nothing to the stock of human knowledge. The science versus Creationism match-up has turned out to be no contest.”

  4. “The Discoveroids never hesitate to play the Hitler card.”
    Which means that Klinkleclapper is guilty of exactly the same he accuses Derbyshire of. Classic IDiocy indeed – and nasty.

  5. This is just a corollary of Godwin’s law that, as a discussion grows longer and people run out of arguments, the chance of Hitler and the Nazis entering approaches 1.

    None of this of course says anything at all about the veracity of Darwin’s theory, and none of it contributes any evidence to the existence and goals of the Designer.

  6. Darwinist and followers of darwinism may be racists. By the way could you name a few? I don’t know anyone who follows darwinism or is a darwinist and I’ve been associated with scientist of all sorts since 1959!

  7. @L.Long
    The creationists like to use words without meaning.

  8. @TomS and L.Long
    Creationists will stoop to the lowest of slurs, if they think it will further their cause. If they could get away with branding Darwin as a pedophile or rapist, they would. In today’s culture, calling someone “racist” is about on the same level.

  9. @ChrisS
    What creationists wil not stoop to is work.

  10. @TomS: the only work creationists will stoop to is combing scientific articles for quotes they can mine. That’s to say, that activity takes time and effort, though we could wonder if it deserves to be called work.

  11. @FrankB
    I had considered making an exception for working in the quote mine.

  12. Michael Fugate

    Does anyone believe Klinghoffer would lift a finger to end racism? Isn’t it all just a game to him?

  13. Hitler, Hitler, Hitler……………………………Hitler

  14. Who knew that all of those pro-slavery southerners were actually Darwinists?
    It is also interesting that they use “Darwinists” as a proxy for “Evolutionists”, like biological science hasn’t advanced at all over the last 150 years.

  15. jimroberts

    It is important to remember that “Evolutionism” encompasses cosmology, physics, astronomy, planetology, chemistry, biochemistry, abiogenesis, paleontology, taphonomy, biology, taxonomy, and anything else you can think of that has been or could be studied by observation and logic.