Darwinism Evolution

Panda’s Thumb: IDeological Genocide?

Spread the love

Here’s a modest proposal posted at the Panda’s Thumb:

Comment #150104
Posted by Steve B. on December 13, 2006 2:35 PM (e)

Dayan,

NO it wasn’t a parody – here let me try again.

Roughly:

1) Evolution is objectively real.

2) IDists deny the reality of evolution
which makes them unfit.

3) It follows that since IDists are unfit
they should not survive because they
hinder evolutionary progress.

(I think that We Need To Own This.)

Implementation:

A) How far is one willing to go to act on
#3?

a) For the most part PT exists is to act
on #3.

Example:

Participants on PT routinely use justifiably hateful and dehumanizing language to describe IDists or anyone who even suggests that TOE may not be correct.

Question:

With this much intensity why not advocate carrying our efforts to their fullest extent since doing so is consistent with the reality of evolution?

Source: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/just_so_stories_1.html#comment-150104

[Added 12.14.06 at 12:49CST:] Some commenters are upset that I have posted this because, they suggest, this is obviously the work of an ID-supporting troll creating mischief at PT. That may be. My interest is that PT allows such comments at all, regardless of whom they are from. PT does moderate its comments. So why do posts like this remain? Could it be that the moderators are sympathetic to what Steve B. is writing, hoping that it comes true, even if they are unwilling to say it themselves? I challenge you to find comparable statements about Darwinists in UD’s comments.

32 Replies to “Panda’s Thumb: IDeological Genocide?

  1. 1
    scordova says:

    This comment was posted at PT as well:
    comment-149207

    IDists and creationists should be exterminated or at the very least put in camps somewhere – obviously since their presence does nothing but hinder evolutionary progress.

  2. 2
    TRoutMac says:

    Bring it on, Panda’s Thumb. Bring it on. Show us who the real fascists are.

    TRoutMac

  3. 3
    Lurker says:

    Yes, let’s all do our part so that #3 is carried out in a timely manner. What an idiot.

    He’s also intelligently-challenged because of #1. Translation: “We say unintelligent, unguided evolution is objectively real, therefore it is.”

  4. 4
    Thinker says:

    Uhh, guys, don’t you know a troll when you see one?

  5. 5
    mike1962 says:

    “2) IDists deny the reality of evolution
    which makes them unfit.”

    They do? That’s news to me.

  6. 6
    DaveScot says:

    IDeological suicide

    Very punny. 🙂

  7. 7
    jwrennie says:

    It would be amusing to watch them try and do this. Do they not realise that they exist only at the allowance of a much larger (and I would guess at least in the US significanlty better armed) religious majority that is not on board with their plans.

  8. 8
    Collin says:

    The fact that they have to “help” natural selection do us in confirms that they don’t really believe that IDers are going to naturally go by the way-side. They think we might succeed.

  9. 9
    Chris Hyland says:

    Im pretty sure he’s being sarcastic, as far as I can remember Steve B is an ID supporter.

  10. 10
    Collin says:

    ah, I see

  11. 11
    dodgingcars says:

    His proposal isn’t so bad as long as they don’t want to eat my baby. 🙂

    I’d assume he’s either trolling or being sarcastic… at least one hopes.

  12. 12
    Reed Orak says:

    This doesn’t sound serious to me. As someone who believes in natural selection (to some extent, but not to the extent that it can create new forms), I understand that fitness is not something that gets evaluated and then acted on–it’s a metaphor for circumstances. The reason why it’s “natural” selection is because nobody needs to act on it.

    I think this person is engaging in satire.

  13. 13
    DonaldM says:

    PT is little more than a den of jackels who howl with glee at even a whiff of “fresh meat” in the form of anyone with the audacity to challenge their ‘scientific’ authority. Their motto seems to be “PZ said it, I believe it, that settles it” (or maybe Dawkins or Darwin or Dennett or pick your Darwinists du jour) Their code of argumentum ad bacculum is boring and uninformative. More and more, they are a waste of electrons and time! They serve no useful function except to provide prime examples of bad logic and logical fallacies that every college professor of logic ought to reference in their Intro to Logic classes. They are not the least interested in honest discussion.

    Other than that, PT is a fine blog-site.

  14. 14
    Jaz says:

    Dembski called it a modest proposal. He knows it’s a parody, in the manner of Swift.

  15. 15
    Srdjan says:

    DonaldM,

    if
    1) Evolution is objectively real
    and
    2) “PT serve no useful function”
    than
    3) PT should be eliminated by NS

    However we can observe that PT is trolling along very well so I conclude that PT was designed and not evolved. But we have a problem. You cannot apply IC to PT because if you remove one troll, 5 others take its place. Further on, information content is so low that PT resembles a naturally occurring pattern. The whole matter is very confusing!

  16. 16
    Douglas says:

    Srdjan,

    “However we can observe that PT is trolling along very well so I conclude that PT was designed and not evolved.”

    Haven’t you heard of “ultraconserved genotypes”? What are you, some sort of anti-science ID supporter, arguing from ignorance?

  17. 17
    Douglas says:

    Uh, I meant “ultraconserved PHENOTYPE”. But in either case, evolution is proved true.

  18. 18
    Ekstasis says:

    Somewhat off topic:

    Check this out regarding circumcision!!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12.....nted=print

    Now, what happened to the “religious practices damage humanity” line? And how in the world did a religious practice develop that makes so much sense from a medical standpoint, and not just for AIDS, long before any theory of bacteria or viruses?

    Oh, just lucky happenstance, is it? Hmmm. And how about that old Moses, how did he “receive the Law” thousands of years ago that just happens to have completely solid sanitary rules that were not practised by the Egyptians at the time?

    Pure luck, just like Darwinian evolution, of course!!!

  19. 19
    Joseph says:

    1) Evolution is objectively real.

    2) IDists deny the reality of evolution
    which makes them unfit.

    First what is that alleged “reality of evolution” and next what IDists deny it?

    As for “unfit” I would be more than happy to sort that out for them…

  20. 20
    SteveB says:

    “Im pretty sure he’s being sarcastic, as far as I can remember Steve B is an ID supporter. ”

    I rarely read and have never posted @ Panda’s Thumb (although I’m sure there are a lot of SteveBs out there). I think it’s most likely a troll.

    But if not, it we were to look at it from their perspective, what does it say about NSs inability to weed out such “unfitness” that the PTists feel the need to design a response to make up for its failure?

  21. 21
    jmcd says:

    Ekstasis

    I don’t think any one thinks such practices are dumb luck. People were just as smart then as they are now and were perfectly capable of putting two and two together. Roman docotrs knew to wash their hands inbetween patients even though they knew nothing of bacteria. Without a modern legal code what avenue save religion would wise leaders of society have for instituting sanitary practices save religion?

  22. 22
    rb says:

    a troll yes, and likely an ID advocate, since ID benefits the most from such comments. SteveB (the PT steveb) was trounced on at PT.

    Bill, again sinking to the lowest behavior possible. After DS silly attackes on TOArchive, I thought you all were going to try to do better.

    this would seem another case of Schadenfreude occurring here at UD.

  23. 23
    Fross says:

    with the ease of W.D. accepting that post from P.T. and thinking that could possibly be a common view held by non-IDers makes me think there is absolutely no understanding of the views between IDers and scientists who accept evolution theories.
    For one, holding incorrect views does not make an organism unfit, unless that view somehow inhibits reproduction. Last time I checked, creationists were reproducting quite well.
    While it’s fun to point out how annoying a troll is, that troll shouldn’t be deemed a representative of the PT’ers.

  24. 24
    cdf says:

    This thread is horrible and does a disservice to this blog. The comment is totally taken out of context. “SteveB” is obviously being sarcastic and his comments are hardly worth a thought.

  25. 25
    Drek says:

    My guess is either the PT comment is a pro-ID troll, or it’s a joke. If it’s the latter I’d say it’s in poor taste but, hey, it’s mighty good that the folks here on UD find that sort of humor funny.

    Does that suffice for your challenge?

    “I challenge you to find comparable statements about Darwinists in UD’s comments.”

  26. 26
    trystero57 says:

    “I challenge you to find comparable statements about Darwinists in UD’s comments.”

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1810 – #11.

  27. 27

    Trystero57: You miss the irony — Pinker was actually justifying infanticide by mothers on evolutionary principles. Steve B is doing something similar, only the irony is missed at PT. People upset with this thread need to move to another — there are lots of threads at UD, of varying quality, yes, but always provocative!

  28. 28
    Fross says:

    one more post and I’m done.

    It should be pointed out that no PT’er agreed with this troll and instead they pointed out how incorrect he was.

    So let us celebrate the rare instance where both sides agree. (that killing UD’ers is wrong and can’t be justified using a scientific theory of evolution)

    cheers

  29. 29
    trystero57 says:

    William Dembski:

    “You miss the irony — Pinker was actually justifying infanticide by mothers on evolutionary principles.”

    In my view, that’s a simple summary of a complex argument, which does Pinker an injustice. But this debate has been done already and I suppose this isn’t the thread in which to reopen it.

    In any case, DaveScot’s post may have been “ironic” in the sense that he didn’t literally mean what he was saying, but was that what you meant?

    “Steve B is doing something similar, only the irony is missed at PT.”

    I can understand why the irony was “missed”. When atheism – especially atheism based largely on evolutionary “principles” (although I think this is a loaded word anyway, given its two disparate meanings – scientific and moral – in this context) – is so regularly derided on so-called moral grounds, I can see why it would be hard not to become defensive when such comments are posted.

    If you’re saying that both comments were ironic, why are they not comparable? In pointing out the difference in the *reactions* to the two posts, I think you’re shifting the goalposts.

    “People upset with this thread need to move to another — there are lots of threads at UD, of varying quality, yes, but always provocative!”

    If I’m included in that, I should point out that I’m not “upset”! I was simply responding to your challenge to find a comparable comment on UD. (I agree it’s always provocative – that’s why it’s always worth reading!)

  30. 30
    steveh says:

    I think it was clear to all of the PTers that Steve B. wasn’t actually advocating murder, but was attempting to argue that “Murder is a natural consequence of Darwinism”, as almost all ID supporters and/or creationists do at some time or other. Although, to be fair, I haven’t seen anyone try to argue that here since comment 27. 🙂

    steveNLWTBh.

  31. 31
    Jehu says:

    Speaking of Darwinist genocide. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has an online exhibit on eugenics and its connection to the holocaust.

    http://www.ushmm.org/museum/ex.....ymedicine/

    You know, eugenics, the science Charles Darwin’s son Leonard believed his father wanted him to promote?

  32. 32
    PradeepDh says:

    I just looked at PT and he took on all of the cannibals over there and if you read carefully he does a good job of it too. It is a little rough in places but I guess the morality of the attack sometimes dictates the morality of the defense.

    Anyway, I don’t know if he’s in the ID camp or not but it looks like he’s arguing Darwinian ethics, artificial selection etc.. i.e. a streamlined version of it. He’s also clarified that the genocide aspect is left to others to decide and is not his but if he’s a relativist you would expect that. It’s interesting but it’s amazing how unbelievably sensitive the PT people are when it comes to anything that they think might make them look bad even if it is supposedly coming from one of their own. If that’s the case then it’s hard to see how any or some of them are capable of admitting when they’re wrong especially on pet issues.

Leave a Reply