Darwin’s Arch Collapses, Discovery Institute Cheers

You probably remember the arch news, because it was only a month ago that we posted Darwin’s Arch Collapses, Creationists Are Silent. We said that we were expecting some creationist website to start cheering that the collapse of Darwin’s Arch is a divine sign that the theory of evolution is also in a state of collapse, but it wasn’t happening. We speculated that they may be thinking:

• Churches sometimes burn down and collapse, but that says nothing about the value of religion.

• Darwin didn’t build the arch — or name it — so its collapse doesn’t reflect on him at all.

• Saying that the collapse is a divine omen will sound stupid.

Anyway, none of the usual suspects said anything — until now. We just found this at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: You’ll Never Guess What Just Collapsed. It was written by John West (whom we affectionately call “Westie”). At the end of his post he’s described as Senior Fellow, Managing Director, and Vice President of the Discovery Institute. Very impressive! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

For generations, “Darwin’s Arch” in the Galápagos Islands stood as an unmovable monument to the life and work of Charles Darwin. A few weeks ago, on May 17, the arch collapsed. While the loss of this landmark is sad, it’s also fitting — for Darwinism as a scientific and social theory is collapsing as well. [Ooooooooooooh! Darwinism is collapsing!]

Westie gives us examples of the collapse of Darwinism:

In March, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson declared that “intelligent design is valid science.” [What?] In April, researchers writing in the journal Current Biology asked whether Darwin’s “tree of life” should “be abandoned.” [Gasp!]

And here’s another example:

In May, it was reported that Sheffield University has stopped hiding Darwin’s deadly social views from students. [Huh?] A university handbook now accurately notes that Darwin “believed… his theory of natural selection justified the view that the white race was superior to others, and used his theory of sexual selection to justify why women were clearly inferior to men.”

Groan They never abandon their old clunkers, do they? Okay, we’ll give you links to a few old posts of our own. See: Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin, and also Morality, Evolution, and Darwin, and we’ll toss this in too: Hitler and Darwin. Okay, back to Westie. He says:

When you are winning in battle, you continue to press forward, you don’t retreat! Will you help us continue to press forward? [Link omitted!]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids are winning the battle! Hey — the second half of Westie’s post is a big plea for funds. We won’t bother with any of that, so this is where leave him. If you want to contribute, go ahead — click over there and send whatever you can afford. Oh, be sure to tell ’em the Curmudgeon sent ya!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

5 responses to “Darwin’s Arch Collapses, Discovery Institute Cheers

  1. I mean, he has to type something to fill up the space between the top and the place where everyone gives them free money.

  2. Dave Luckett

    The Sheffield University handbook appears to be real enough, but it has apparently been withdrawn by the university, perhaps because of the outcry. A sardonic wit could no doubt make something of the irony: from the far reaches of decolonisation theory, a preserve of the woke left if ever there was one, comes a description of Darwin that provides aid and comfort to the religious right. Wit has deserted me. I must admit that I can only turn away with disgust.

    But then, I was there when feminism and Islam joined hands. Nothing should surprise or revolt me, after that.

  3. As an argument for creationism, it follows the pattern of negativism. How do supporters of creationism stand scrutiny? The last major biologist who rejected evolution was Louis Agassiz, who was a racist, even by the standards of the 19th century.
    So let’s discuss the ideas, rather than personalities.

  4. @ TomS: And look what happened to the statue of Louis Agassiz!