Discoveroids Say Darwinists Must Be Racists

It was only yesterday that we posted Klinghoffer: Darwinists Are Racists, where we said that Klinghoffer — the Discovery Institute’s journalistic slasher and poo flinger — had earned his pay by writing a classic Discoveroid post claiming that racism is inevitable for those who promote Darwinism.

To our great surprise, Klinghoffer has somehow gone beyond what he did yesterday. This now appears at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: Why Darwinism Can Never Separate Itself from Racism. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

It’s great to have insightful colleagues. [Especially if they’re creationists.] Denyse O’Leary, with Discovery Institute’s Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence [Link omitted], has been writing about evolution for years as well. Having read my post “The Return of John Derbyshire” [the one we blogged about yesterday], she points out something I hadn’t quite grasped. Now a lightbulb goes off.

The Discoveroids used to have a page of biographical information about Denyse, but we can’t find it now that she’s been moved to one of their many other websites. It used to say: “She received her degree in honors English language and literature.” Anyway, she managed to give Klinghoffer a new insight about how horrible “Darwinists” are. He says:

The thread of racism in Darwinian thinking isn’t a chance thing, a mere byproduct of Charles Darwin’s personal views as a “man of his time.” You think if Darwinism had emerged not in the dark age of the 19th century but in our own woke era, it would be different? No, it wouldn’t. The racism is inherent, unavoidable:

Get ready, dear reader, for an ark-load of creationist garbage. How can we be so sure it’s garbage? In this post, Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin, we refute the Discoveroids’ endlessly-repeated allegations; and in this one, Creationism and Racism, we document the racist history of creationism. Not only that, but the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims has a few entries of interest — see Evolution is racist (no, it isn’t), and then Darwin himself was racist (hint — he wasn’t), and also Darwin’s work refers to “preservation of favoured races”.

Okay, the ark-load begins. Klinghoffer quotes Denyse:

Racism is implicit in the Darwinian belief system about how things happen. [Huh?] Even if one’s creationism amounts to no more than the idea that humans have an immortal soul, it makes all humans equal for all practical purposes. Take that away and believe instead that humans are animals that slowly evolved from less-than-human creatures and a variety of things happen, none of them conducive to non-racism.

Ooooooooooooh! He quotes her again:

The problem is not merely that Darwin, a man of his age, was a racist. [He wasn’t.] The problem is that his bias resulted in his and others distorting the fossil record to suit a racist worldview. [What?]

This is really amazing! And we’re not done yet. Klinghoffer tells us:

Those issues with the fossil record are the theme of most of paleontologist Günter Bechly’s recent writing [Hee hee!] at Evolution News. [Link omitted.] She goes on:

[He quotes Denyse again:] To “get past” the fact that Darwin was a racist [Groan!], we must be willing to undo science that begins by assuming that non-European features are sub-human. [What?] … In any Darwinian scheme, someone must be the subhuman. If not the current lot (formerly, the “savages,” currently the Neanderthals and/or Homo erectus), who will it be? … Surely these are the true reasons Darwinists simply can’t confront the race issue and get past it, and so they resort to long-winded special pleading.

Having been enlightened by Denyse, Klinghoffer continues:

The idea of racial equality, perfectly natural to a design perspective [Really?], can be achieved by the Darwinist only by continually and ruthlessly suppressing a built-in tendency. It requires bad faith: fooling himself about his own way of thinking. Like an irremediable birth defect, it’s never going to go away.

This is really tough slogging, but let’s read on:

Of course it’s possible to find people who believe in creation and who are also racists. You can find bad apples in any community of thinkers. But the key point is that the two ideas are permanently at odds with each other. Whereas Darwinism and racism are a match made in… Well, they’re conjoined twins, let’s put it that way.

There’s a bit more, but we’ve had enough. And to our surprise, Klinghoffer has managed to change our opinion. We used to think of the Discoveroids as a source of entertainment. We’re much more realistic in our assessment now, but it’s probably unwise to say what we’re thinking. Be assured, however, that it’s not flattering

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

28 responses to “Discoveroids Say Darwinists Must Be Racists

  1. Michael Fugate

    If your authority is Denise O’Leary, you should throw in the towel; you have lost all credibility.

  2. Mark Germano

    I hate to generalize, but all David Klinghoffers that blog for the Discovery Institute are terrible writers and awful people.

  3. Michael Fugate

    I wonder how creationism accounts for all the racism before 1859 – oh? It doesn’t? Then again how can it ever account for anything?

  4. “Like an irremediable birth defect, it’s never going to go away.”

    Klinghoffer must be referring to himself here, surely?

  5. “[W]hereupon it comes to passe, that although the Lord hath given the earth to the children of men, yet this earth, which is mans feesimple [area of shared ownership] by deed of gift from God, is the greater part of it possessed and wrongfully usurped by wild beasts, and unreasonable creatures, or by brutish savages, which by reason of their godless ignorance and blasfphemous idolatrie are worse then those beasts which be of most wilde and savage nature. As Ahab therefore sometimes said to his servants, I King 22, 13, “Know ye not that Ramoth Gilead was ours, and we stay and take it not out of the hands of the King of Aram?” So may man say to himself, The earth was mine, God gave it me and my posteritie and take it not out of the hands of beasts and brutish savages, which have no interest in it, because they participate rather of the nature of beasts then men.” — R. G. [Robert Grey]. 1609. Goodspeed to Virginia, etc., etc.
    Who did Klinghoffer say were genocidal racists?

  6. Given that neither Klinghoffer nor O’Leary appear to have any scientific training or experience whatsoever, when combining them, this level of clusterf**k is more or less inevitable.

    The Disco ‘Tute has reached peak derp.

  7. docbill1351

    You have to bear in mind that Klinklewanker is a complete sociopath. He has been all his life. Everything he has ever done or written is a projection of his mental illness. I guess it’s a great charity that the Tooters provide for his family, but it’s a low bar.

  8. “To our great surprise, Klinghoffer has somehow gone beyond what …..”
    Really? What else can he do but sinking deeper and deeper in his bottomless cesspool? Take a look at this:

    “has been writing about evolution for years as well”
    Of course. IDiocy is so empty and meaningless that it’s impossible to write about it for more than a few days (and now I’m very charitable).

    “We used to think of the Discoveroids as a source of entertainment.”
    Your old view and new one are not mutually exclusive. The way they “argue” is entertaining, the content is sick.

    @MichaelF asks a question that Klinkleclapper already has answered: “I wonder how creationism accounts for all the racism before 1859 – oh?”
    “bad apples in any community of thinkers”.

  9. Richard Bond

    Darwin’s Sacred cause by Adrian Desmond and James Moore traces Darwin’s efforts to support his rejection of slavery by showing that all human beings are the same species. His problem was to account for the preservation of obvious physical differences, such as that between the neighbouring Xhosa and San peoples in southern Africa. Conventional wisdom would have it that intermarriage should have blended their appearances, if they were one species. Darwin’s solution was the important concept of sexual selection.

    The book is not easy to read: it is crammed with documentary evidence, enough to justify the authors’ conclusion that Darwin was the very opposite of a racist. There is a revealing quotation in AIG’s review of the book:

    So, is evolution the cause of racism? Certainly not. Racism has existed from the dawn of man.

  10. SC, you say ” We used to think of the Discoveroids as a source of entertainment.” You should have known better. They are evil

    Check out climate change on Evolution News. They treat the science just as they treat evolution science. And the consequences of denial are far, far worse

  11. The idea that we draw lessons about value from the facts of the world is an old, old idea. There are the medieveal beastiaries which tel us about the courage of the lion, etc. There is the Scala Naturae, the ladder of things which evaluates them starting from the minerals at the bottom, upwards from plants, animals, humans. And, among humans, there was the obvious superiority of males over females, and nobility over commoners.
    Before Darwin, there was a difficulty in accepting evolution because of the presupposition that evolution meant progress upward. The disapperance of the dinosaurs could not be accounted for if there was a drive toward the bigger. Darwin realized that evolution by random variation (not variation driven upward) and selection solved that problem.
    As far as variation in humans, we have examples like the ability of adults to digest milk, whch has risen in Africa, Asia and Europe; or ability to thrive in high altitudes, in Africa, South America and Asia. Those are not examples of evolution of superior humans Johann Sabastian Bach has no direct descendants alive today, and that des not mean that evolutionists value him less.

  12. Michael Fugate

    The source for racism is found in the Ten Commandments – when one objectifies every human who is not a Jewish male (straight, cis-gender), then racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. follow directly. Out of the thousands of tribal religions from 3000 years ago, why pick this one as truth? Why pick one so hell bent on controlling every aspect of your life?

  13. @Michael Fugate, “the Ten Commandments – when one objectifies every human who is not a Jewish male (straight, cis-gender)”; how so?

    They are addressed to the Children of Israel (“Jewish” as a term only acquired meaning much later), as part of their tribal foundation myth, and condemn (for them, specifically) the worship of gods other than yhwh. They may also condone slavery (depending on how you understand “manservant” and “maidservant” in the last Commandment), but without gender discrimination.

    The idea that morality is baswed on thes Commandments is so ludicrous as to make one wonder if those using it have actually read them. There is also much that is repulsive throughout the OT. But I don’t understand your attack on the 10 Commandments specifically.

  14. The tenth commandment is addressed to men, that they are not to covet the possessions of their neighbor: his house, his cattle, his wives and his slaves (both male and female).

  15. Michael Fugate

    Seriously Paul?

  16. I am completely serious. Though TGom S has already shown that the Commandments are addressed to men.

    Indeed, I cannot make sense of such concepts as “objectified” or “cis-” in an OT context, though there is a prohibition (elsewhere, not in the 10 Commandments) on cross-dressing

  17. Wow, how does the Klingster pack so much stupidity and lies into such a small article? It’s almost a miracle. It also points to an old fundamentalist habit of saying the same old lies over and over again until the followers know them all by rote.

  18. It can be argued that all humans are racist, in that we tend to associate with those who are more like ourselves. However, to be labelled “a racist” should require overt actions or words indicating one’s feelings of superiority over “others”. Racism will most likely exist as long as there are discernible differences between the peoples of the world. Perhaps racism will lessen as we as a species become more homogeneous over time, with the genetic mixing that is made possible by the rise of mobility between the continents.

    As to which group exhibits more racist attitudes today, at least in the United States, IMO that would be the creationists. The Southern Baptist Convention is fundamentally creationist. And the Southern Baptist Convention churches are almost all white.

  19. Steve Gerrard

    “Racism is implicit in the Darwinian belief system about how things happen. “

    Even if it was true, so what? The argument here is equivalent to “my theory has ponies, so it is a better theory.” That’s not how science works.

    If Einstein was suddenly shown to have been a pedophile, we would not then reject relativity because he was a nasty man. Nor we would reject it if it was somehow shown to be racist.

    Also we don’t call it Einsteinism, we call it relativity. The subject of the post is called evolution, not Darwinism. This Klinghoffer guy is being tiresome.

  20. Karl Goldsmith

    It really gets to them that previous humans like they mention, may not have been white. We all know god is white and male.

  21. Eric Lipps

    Groan. What a steaming pile. I have a life away from this blog, so I can’t address every creationist idiocy and slander, but there’s this:

    To “get past” the fact that Darwin was a racist [Groan!], we must be willing to undo science that begins by assuming that non-European features are sub-human. [What?] … In any Darwinian scheme, someone must be the subhuman. If not the current lot (formerly, the “savages,” currently the Neanderthals and/or Homo erectus), who will it be? … Surely these are the true reasons Darwinists simply can’t confront the race issue and get past it, and so they resort to long-winded special pleading.

    There is of course no reason to suppose that any living population is “subhuman.” Nevertheless, Europeans (and Americans) did it for a long time–going back centuries before Darwin’s birth to the native peoples of Africa, the Americas, the Pacific, Australia and New Zealand (whose natives were at one time hunted for sport by English colonizers). And in many cases this was justified on religious grounds: the natives weren’t Christians (of course); they went around scandalously unclothed; they had casual attitudes toward sex. And so on.

    None of this is likely to make any impression on creationists, who prefer “what they know as Christians” over what actual evidence indicates.

  22. @Steve Gerrard, it is not ignorance but strategy when creationists refer to evolution science as “Darwinism”. See https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2017/02/11/even-on-his-birthday-dont-say-darwin-unless-you-mean-it-updated

  23. Karl Goldsmith:
    “It really gets to them that previous humans like they mention, may not have been white. We all know god is white and male.

    Yeah, but is He circumcised? And if so, by whom?

  24. @retiredsciguy
    Holy Foreskins, Batman!

  25. @ChrisS, I thought everyone had heard of the Holy Foreskin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce. Unfortunately, the foreskin was reported stolen from its home in a church at Calcata by a local priest in 1983; otherwise we could sequence its DNA and infer the attributes of God. What a pity!

  26. That’s gotta be a Catholic thing, surely? They’re right into all that creepy fetishism of holy body parts. And is the Virgin Mary’s immaculate womb on display somewhere, or did she take it with her when she rose bodily into the heavens?

  27. “They’re right into all that creepy fetishism of holy body parts.”
    I find it silly rather than creepy. The explanation is prosaic. When in Late Antiquity and early Middle Ages paganism was replaced by christianity the need to worship concrete objects (like the Golden Calf) did not disappear. Now the RCC from the moment christianity became state religion also was a political force. To survive she needed as many members as possible. This agrees with the ambition to spread the Good News all over the world plus the claim that she spreaded the correct version of the Good News. However that meant that she was incapable of preventing new members to hold on to old traditions in new forms. So instead she compromised, especially when it suited her political agenda. So she encouraged replacing worshipping trees or whatever by worshipping holy body parts, icons, crucifixes etc.
    Without claiming direct causation I’d like to remark that the Celts and Germans already used altars, while early christians didn’t.
    Fundagelicals might consider themselves the pure, original christians, but they hardly are, from what we know of early christianity (say 40 – 200 CE).

  28. The strictires on idolatry seem to have been largely forgotten among today’s Christians.