Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design News

Darwinian racists step up attacks on “new creationists” (“liberal creationists”)

Spread the love

Further to “The Darwinian racists vs. the “liberal creationists”: An update,” from Occam’s Razor, July 7:

New Creationism can be thought of as the anti-Darwinian religion of many of the far Left.

In short, New Creationism is the religion of the Cathedral. As the Cathedral subscribes to an ideological form of radical universalism, New Creationism naturally follows from this. And the religious implications are not accidental. Just as many modern values are mere secularized Christian virtues (cf. MacIntyre), so New Creationism is a secularized form of the Christian idea of the unity of mankind through Adam & Eve. The mere thought of taking evolution seriously — i.e. that human biodiversity naturally follows from evolution — is a horrifying thought to the gatekeepers of the Cathedral, so horrifying that the nakedness of evolution must be clothed with the shroud of New Creationism.

Here’s a bibliography you can Wade through: “New to HBD? Requisite materials for novices.” I hadn’t realized that Wade had written so much explicitly on racial stuff, and for the New York Times too.

At least these people are willing to recognize the implicit racism in Darwinian theory. The problem is that they go on to embrace it, instead of taking the hint and hitting the road.  And the influence of Darwin is so powerful, so pervasive, that surprisingly few appear able to say what this looks like: Racism marketed as science.  – O’Leary for News

Follow UD News at Twitter!

9 Replies to “Darwinian racists step up attacks on “new creationists” (“liberal creationists”)

  1. 1
    humbled says:

    “The mere thought of taking evolution seriously — i.e. that human biodiversity naturally follows from evolution — is a horrifying thought to the gatekeepers of the Cathedral, so horrifying that the nakedness of evolution must be clothed with the shroud of New Creationism.”

    When I think of Evolution I think of small scale changes over a period of time. I think of how human biodiversity is the product of local / environmental pressures and adaptation. That we may get bigger, stronger, shorter, taller, dark skin, and a wide range of other adaptations, but that species seem somehow “fixed” and have not, nor can they, adapt or mutate in to something else. Harmful mutations and other irregularities pop in to my mind as well. This is what I consider to be “Evolution”. This seems to be supported and observable.

    But I am also aware of what Evolution means for the Darwin-faithful. How they take the above I.e Micro, add imagination, faith, storytelling and wishful thinking, and extrapolate Micro (evidence based) with Macro (Darwinism, religion, philosophy). That this faith supported theory is now the state religion, that our kids are having this codswallop forced on them, and that genuine inquiry and scepticism will no longer be tolerated.

    The behaviour of the Darwin-faithful is appalling. You are damn right I’m “horrified”.

    Oh and “Evolution” and “Seriously” is an oxymoron.

  2. 2
    humbled says:

    “but that species seem somehow “fixed” and have not, nor can they, adapt or mutate in to something else.”

    Frogs, butterflies etc came to mind but, despite their magical and Darwin refuting transformation, are still the same species.

  3. 3
    Axel says:

    The evident truth of Aldous Huxley’s insight, as evidenced by the history of the Mayan Indians – namely, that it is what interests a people at a particular time that governs their worldly interest and development in that regard – can surely not be stressed too heavily.

    Indeed, it matches perfectly with the history of science, as the cultural patrimony of Christianity.

  4. 4
    News says:

    The key take home point is that even racism can be marketed if it invokes Darwin’s sacred name.

  5. 5
    Axel says:

    Well, it does have extraordinarily magical properties, doesn’t it. In fact, his necessarily naive, 19th-century conjectures clearly transcend empirical science, in the eyes of his acolytes, who I expect are avid Harry Potter fans.

  6. 6
    Axel says:

    Darwin was the L S Lowry of his day. Only instead of painting ‘matchstick men’, he collected ferns, flowers, etc.

  7. 7

    It seems like people are conflating two quite different issues:
    1-all humans “are created equal,” that is in the human dignity sense that we are all created in the image of God.
    2-due to genetic and environmental factors, some people are more successful than others in various endeavors.

    The two concepts are only contradictory for those who are dedicated to philosophical naturalism.

  8. 8
    Robert Byers says:

    Amen
    Evolutionism always led to conclusions that race/sex was a factor in smarts/morality of mankind.
    The rejection that man was made in gods image and innately equal at birth. Just later do people get smarter or gooder relative to choices and circles one moves in.
    the world that accepts evolution can’t escape the conclusion man is not created equal in smarts etc after all.
    yet to prove it they cheat.
    They don’t have controlled experiments.
    They don’t compare segregated populations but compare them AFTER moving to the smarter peoples.
    oh brother.
    I think they are dumb but not innately.

  9. 9
    Paul Giem says:

    One of my sons, who frequently bumps into what are known as “fedoras” in those circles, tells me that they are sexist as well as racist. Or, to be more precise, they, often proudly, espouse belief systems and attitudes that in other venues would be unequivocally denounced as sexist. Perhaps the Judaeo-Christian patina is wearing off.

Leave a Reply