Okay, Darwinism IS a religion … and a crappy one, too

Obviously, the distinction is between a No Scotsman argument vs. a No True Scotsman argument. If one is claiming that the perpetrator is, in fact, a German and not a Scotsman at all, then one is not using the No True Scotsman argument. Similarly, in order to claim that one is making a No True Scotsman argument wrt a Christian racist, one would have to fist establish that the racist was, in fact, a Christian (that is a follower of Christ). Phinehas

Nope. You need to call your interpretation something else to avoid confusion. Alan Fox

Phin: Does this mean that if my father was German and my mother was Dutch and I claim to be a Scotsman, that others making a counter-claim would be making the No True Scotsman argument? Isn’t the point of the No True Scotsman fallacy not simply that someone has claimed to be a “Scotsman,” but that the claim has validity (i.e., they actually have the heritage to back it up)?

AF: Does this help?

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again”. Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”. The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing”. Antony Flew

It certainly doesn't help Mark Frank's argument, nor does it address mine. Allow me to demonstrate my point by using the Antony Flew quote, but with an important modification.

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again”. Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”. The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about Hans Schwartzenberger from Dusseldorf whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. Apparently, Hans is claiming to be a Scotsman, but having evidence to dispute such a claim, Hamish feels that his initial opinion that "No Scotsman would do such a thing" is justified.

Now, Hamish might still be wrong in his assessment of Scotsmen, but Hans' brutal actions are hardly evidence of this. Nor is the suggestion that a Christian racist is akin to a Scotsman named Hans who was born and raised by German parents in Dusseldorf a No True Scotsman argument. Does that help? Phinehas

Mr. Fox, since you are hesitant to attribute the slightest to blemish to anything Darwinian, let's go straight to the horses mouth shall we and see what your hero, Darwin, said? Darwin on women: Women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis. In The Descent of Man, Darwin argued - “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than can a woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” In The Origin of Species, natural selection was developed along-side of sexual selection. Males were like animal breeders, shaping women to their liking by sexual selection on the one hand along with the recognition men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war and competition for mates, food, and clothing on the other hand. From Darwin’s perspective, males have evolved further than females from a Darwinian perspective. As Jerry Bergman explains, “Natural selection would consequently operate far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/08/darwin-zealots-reign-of-terror/ Darwin on races: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla (p. 521). In fact Darwinism has a very dark history of being the root cause of 'pseudo-scientific racism': Summary Of Evidence For Human Evolution & The Racism Evolution Engenders – Don Patton – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032606 In fact the 'pseudo-scientific racism' Darwinism engendered was so insidious, and obvious, that Darwinism can be traced back as a primary root cause for the NAZI holocaust: From Darwin to Hitler - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A The Dark Legacy Of Charles Darwin – 150 Years Later – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060594 bornagain77

...this type of behavior is enigmatic of accepting Darwinism wholesale.

Ah, the enigmatic true Darwinist! What can one do against such reckless stupidity? Alan Fox

Moreover, it is found that Christians respond better to psychiatric treatment than atheists do,, Christians respond better to psychiatric treatment than atheists: – July 21, 2013 Excerpt: “Our work suggests that people with a moderate to high level of belief in a higher power do significantly better in short-term psychiatric treatment than those without, regardless of their religious affiliation. Belief was associated with not only improved psychological wellbeing, but decreases in depression and intention to self-harm,” explained Rosmarin. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/religion/if-religious-believers-are-crazy Studies: Belief in God relieves depression – Sept. 2010 Excerpt: The operative term here is “caring,” the researchers said. “The study found that those with strong beliefs in a personal and concerned God were more likely to experience an improvement.” ,,,The researchers compared the levels of melancholy or hopelessness in 136 adults diagnosed with major depression or bipolar depression with their sense of “religious well-being.” They found participants who scored in the top third of a scale charting a sense of religious well-being were 75 percent more likely to get better with medical treatment for clinical depression. “In our study, the positive response to medication had little to do with the feeling of hope that typically accompanies spiritual belief,” said study director Patricia Murphy, a chaplain at Rush and an assistant professor of religion, health and human values. “It was tied specifically to the belief that a Supreme Being cared,” she said. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/25/research-indicates-belief-in-god-relieves-depressi/?page=2&feat=home_headlines Whereas atheism, besides impeding psychiatric treatment, also leads towards more irrational beliefs overall,,, Look Who’s Irrational Now – 2008 Excerpt: “What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html Thus I find much room to doubt the validity of the recent meta-study that had found a slight advantage of intelligence for atheists when compared to the rest of the 'religious' population Verse and Music: II Tim. 1:7, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and a sound mind.” Kari Jobe – Revelation Song – Passion 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dZMBrGGmeE (Preview) bornagain77

I guess it would, Joe. At which point, it would be worth reporting as news. But until then it's fantasy. It seems there's been a third arrest btw. And for anyone following along, here's a first hand account from the recipient of the rape threats: Internet trolls, Twitter rape threats and putting Jane Austen on our banknotes No mention of Darwin (unless you count a comment by a poster called "Darwins Beard" denouncing the tweets). BTW, I see why Denyse thought that this happened "the same week" as the Myers-Schermer thing. She's late to the party. The news broke long before the Roiphe piece appeared. Yet another failure to fact check. Elizabeth B Liddle

Moreover, for one to deny that one even has a mind is to undermine the very ability of a person to reason in a coherent fashion in the first place: “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.” —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason) If you disagree with C.S. Lewis on this conclusion, here are some atheists who have reached the same exact conclusion as Lewis as to the epistemological failure inherent within atheism/materialism: Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism – Mike Keas – October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga’s nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: “Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not.” Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True – video Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs Evolutionists Are Now Saying Their Thinking is Flawed (But Evolution is Still a Fact) – Cornelius Hunter – May 2012 Excerpt: But the point here is that these “researchers” are making an assertion (human reasoning evolved and is flawed) which undermines their very argument. If human reasoning evolved and is flawed, then how can we know that evolution is a fact, much less any particular details of said evolutionary process that they think they understand via their “research”? http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolutionists-are-now-saying-their.html The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?); Evolutionary guru: Don’t believe everything you think – October 2011 Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?) Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s critique of the atheist Dr Rosenberg’s book, in the short video that follows, to get a glimpse for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s position turns out to be in regards to maintaining the epistemological integrity of our mind in relation to material reality. Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ also of related note: Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer – video – (Notes in video description) http://vimeo.com/32145998 Moreover, and not so surprisingly, in this following video there is reference to some studies that show that people who do not believe that they have a soul/mind are a bit more anti-social (psychopathic) than the majority of people who do believe they have a soul/mind: Anthony Jack, Why Don’t Psychopaths Believe in Dualism? – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUmmObUi8Fq9g1Zcuzqbt0_g&feature=player_detailpage&v=XRGWe-61zOk#t=862s Finding out that atheists who do not believe in a soul/mind are a bit more psychopathic (anti-social) than the rest of us is really not that surprising of a fact to find out as this following author points out: The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 bornagain77

my thoughts are that this type of behavior is enigmatic of accepting Darwinism wholesale. Though the trigger may in fact not have been directly attributed to Darwin's removal from the banknote (I definitely think some of the responses are attributable to it but I would have to know more of the facts in more detail to say for sure) We, none-the-less, have very good evidence that, number 1, there has been a steep decline in altruism of young people since prayer was removed from school and a strictly secular origin story has been taught in American schools, number 2, atheism is responsible, by far, for the most horrific atrocities of the 20th century and in all of history, number 3, the general mannerisms of atheists/Darwinists on the internet, as anyone who has dealt with internet atheists can tell you, is entirely consistent with this type of behavior that was displayed in the banknote fiasco. Thus, though while Darwinists trying to make the best on a minor technical point of the OP, that would be somewhat difficult to flesh out in detail(i.e. there claim that none of this had anything to do with Darwin's removal), the fact of the matter is that the larger overall issue as to what enabled such behavior in the first place is almost directly attributable to the acceptance of atheistic neo-Darwinism. Notes, here is an e-mail I recently sent to a psychologist about the irrationality found within atheists: Here is an atheist’s reservation about the recent study that found Atheists to have a slight advantage of intelligence than the rest of the 'religious' population,, Before We Make Too Much of the Intelligence and Religiosity Study Excerpt: I mention these points for two reasons. First, I am seeing quite a few atheists gloating about the results of this study, and I expect few understand the limitations. From what I have read so far, these include but are not limited to the narrow definition of intelligence used by the authors, the reliance on studies conducted in the West and emphasizing U.S. Protestants, and the inclusion of studies that have been criticized by other researchers in the data set. Second, I am seeing too many comments like, “Duh! Was there ever any doubt?” Because we are likely talking about small differences here, I’m not sure such reactions are warranted based on this one study. This stuff tends to be quite complex and far from obvious. http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/08/before-we-make-too-much-of-intelligence.html This paper also doesn’t sit well with me for I know for a fact that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world: The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930 You can see the dramatic difference, of the SAT scores for private Christian schools compared to public secular schools, at this following site; Aliso Viejo Christian School – SAT 10 Comparison Report http://www.alisoviejochristianschool.org/sat_10.html There was a secular study that tried to ‘correct’ for the discrepancy between private Christian schools and public schools by ‘correcting' the scores for public schools upward because of economic concerns. But the following article points out the flaw in the 2007 study that found equality in education between public schools and private schools by ‘falsely correcting’ the test scores upwardly for public schools so as to match private Christian schools: Do private schools educate children better than public schools? Excerpt: However, moving past the dueling tests and studies, what’s clear is that private school students have better SAT scores, and better college admission and graduation rates, regardless of socioeconomic level. http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/private-schools-educate-public-schools Thus it seems, as with the ‘dueling tests and studies’ between private christian schools and public schools, that the results of these intelligence studies, may very well depend as much on the bias of the researcher(s) conducting the study as to what the evidence may actually say. Thus as with this current meta-analysis, and knowing for a fact that SAT tests for private Christian schools are, and have been, higher than public schools since prayer was removed from public schools, then I think it is fair to say that the bias of the researchers may certainly have played a large part in the results of this recent meta-study. Especially considering this fact, 'the inclusion of studies that have been criticized by other researchers in the data set.' Moreover, the removal of prayer from public schools has had a dramatic negative effect on the American society at large in regards to crime and drug use by young people,,, United States Crime Rates 1960 – 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in crime rate from the mid 90s until now is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes. (a nip it in the bud policy) http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray – David Barton – graphs corrected for population growth http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html What Lies Behind Growing Secularism by William Lane Craig – May 2012 – podcast (steep decline in altruism of young people since early 1960?s) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-lies-behind-growing-secularism I have no idea exactly what type of intelligence tests were analyzed to ascertain whether Atheists are more intelligent than everyone else who is religious or not, (definitely not an emotional intelligence test as is witnessed by the rude manners of many internet atheists) and exactly how biased they may have been in their selective use of date, but I do know that atheists deny they even have a mind separate from their brain in the first place. Thus, from a common sense point of view, I have no choice but to conclude that atheists have literally ‘lost their minds’ in their atheistic beliefs. Especially considering the fact that the most sure thing, most concrete thing, that we can know about ourselves and about reality is that we do indeed have a mind. This point was drawn out years ago by Decartes, who made that fact, that the most sure thing we can know is that we have a mind, into the semi-famous philosophical dictum 'I think therefore I am!' “Descartes remarks that he can continue to doubt whether he has a body; after all, he only believes he has a body as a result of his perceptual experiences, and so the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind, i.e. that he thinks. So he knows he exists even though he doesn’t know whether or not he has a body.” http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/philosophy/downloads/a2/unit4/descartes/DescartesDualism.pdf Decartes’ semi-famous ‘I think therefore I am’ philosophical dictum has, ironically, found now purchase in modern cosmology in the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ bornagain77

It would be funny if those two chumps went to trial and admitted they did it for Chucky Joe

Andre:

Well if the shoe fits…..

Good grief! Apparently Andre thinks Lizzie's parody is accurate. Thanks for the confirmation, Andre! Alan Fox

#118 Andre That article is yet another argument on the lines of "Darwinists do bad things. Therefore these tweets were sent by Darwinists." It is also rather silly. Does he think there are no Christian theists who behave as badly? Mark Frank

Well if the shoe fits..... Andre

What I'm reading here amounts to: Look, some people sent rape threats to women who had campaigned for a woman to replace Darwin on the English tenner, so they must been Darwinists, and even if they were antifeminists then they must have been Darwinists too because no Christian would do such a thing, and darwinists are atheists so they must have been darwinists, and anyway internet atheists are trolls, and they didn't want to see Darwin dropped from the tenner on Jerry Coynes blog, so they must have been Darwinist atheists, and anyway, an American Darwinist accused an American atheist of rape only one week later, coincidence, I don't think so and anyway Christians get rape threats all the time. Sheesh. Elizabeth B Liddle

#116 Andre The "thing" we were discussing was who sent those tweets and why. Your figures are evidence as to which character readers of Coyne's blog would prefer to have on the bank note. Surely you can see that the two are totally unrelated? Mark Frank

Andre:

Dr Liddle Ever heard of looking at all the facts? 55% said Churchill must go 35% said queen must go 7% said Darwin can go Get it? This is not a feminist thing its the demise of the guy that killed God thing

And what about the fact that none of the people who voted on that blog made any rape or death threats whatsoever, and the fact that the people who did sent them to feminists who had objected to the replacement of Elizabeth Fry by Churchill, and the fact that all banknotes are redesigned regularly to reduce counterfeiting and Darwin was scheduled to go anyway, and the fact that there was absolutely no fuss made in England about the demise of Darwin, but only about the choice of Jane Austen? Yes, Andre, look at all the facts please, and do not conclude from evidence on an American blog that Darwinists would have liked to have kept Darwin on the English tenner, that the English people who sent rape and death threats to Criado-Perez and Creasey did so because they didn't want to see the Darwin banknote withdrawn, even though Criado-Perez and Creasey had absolutely nothing to do with the withdrawal of the Darwin banknote. I can't believe how willing people here are to defend the indefensible, rather than admit to have made a simple factual error. Elizabeth B Liddle

Here is a great article highlighting the problem http://sententias.org/2012/11/01/the-problem-of-internet-atheists/ Andre

Andre,

Get it? This is not a feminist thing its the demise of the guy that killed God thing

What is? Denyse's ridiculous conflation or your irrelevant example? Alan Fox

Dr Liddle Ever heard of looking at all the facts? 55% said Churchill must go 35% said queen must go 7% said Darwin can go Get it? This is not a feminist thing its the demise of the guy that killed God thing Andre

Lizzie, you don't know what the facts are Joe

And, as Mark says, the comments on Jerry Coyne's blog are nothing to do with the rape threats that were sent to the feminist group who had had successfully lobbied to keep a woman on the English banknotes, and I see no rape threats, or threats of any kind, on that blog. Elizabeth B Liddle

So only Americans can read and respond on Coyne's blog? And yes, we realize that most Brits are not bright enough to question evolutionism. So what? Joe

It is a Darwin thing and here is why! 1.) 55% of Jerry Cone’s readers where happy to replace Churchill with Jane Austen… Only 7% said Darwin can go…… Do you guys have an ounce of truth in you?

What is truth? Leaving that matter on one side for the moment. The OP is about abusive twitter messages sent to two prominent British feminists. You dragged in a thread from US Jerry Coyne's blog that regrets the passing of the Darwin tenner. No abuse of feminists or anyone else took place on Coyne's blog. Where's the relevance? Alan Fox

Andre

Guys I’m not saying other people are innocent but the outburst here is not about feminism it’s about Darwin being replaced. That is the issue.

No, it isn't. The issue was Elizabeth Fry being replaced by Churchill on the £5 note. A feminist group called The Women's Room got up a petition to ask the bank to make sure that a woman was represented on the English banknotes. The petition was called: "Keep a Woman on English Banknotes". There was no request to remove Darwin. English banknotes are regularly redesigned to reduce counterfeiting. The replacement of Darwin was a complete non-issue. Darwin would have been replaced come what may. The issue was the replacement of Elizabeth Fry by Churchill. The group wanted a woman on at least one of the banknotes, and the Churchill replacement would have resulted in none. The bank responded by choosing woman, Austen, as the replacement for the Darwin tenner, rather than a man. Denyse is wrong, Philip is wrong and you are wrong. The facts are not as they are represented here, and the rape threats are sadly typical of what feminists receive whenever they are in the public eye, as they were in this case following their successful lobby to Keep a Woman on English Banknotes. Elizabeth B Liddle

#08 Andre Jerry Coyne runs an American blog which is read by people who have a specific interest in evolution and the US cultural debate about evolution. This nothing, zilch, nada to do with a bunch of loonies sending tweets in another country where there is very little interest in the debate over evolution. Mark Frank

Elizabeth:

So why were feminists targeted?

1- Cowards like to attack women 2- Those women were on the front-line of this event Joe

I'm not sure why you guys are trying to say its not a Darwin thing but a feminist thing. It is a Darwin thing and here is why! 1.) 55% of Jerry Cone's readers where happy to replace Churchill with Jane Austen... Only 7% said Darwin can go...... Do you guys have an ounce of truth in you? Andre

There's zero evidence for unguided evolution actually constructing something, yet that doesn't stop you guys from blindly accepting it. Joe

#103 Andre But there is zero evidence that the outburst was about Darwin being replaced. That is our issue. Mark Frank

#99 Alan You mean Denyse uses BA77 as a source? I begin to understand. Mark Frank

Andre:

Dr Liddle This is not about anti-feminism. This is 2013 feminism is here to stay

So why were feminists targeted?

read the slate article it really asks some good questions about this.

Such as?

Why don’t you contact Katie Roiphe and ask her what she has found? If you do will you report back here about your findings?

Katie Roiphe wrote:

The appalling threats on Twitter aimed at the activist and journalist, Caroline Criado-Perez, who lobbied originally for a woman on a bank note, and the Labour party member, Stella Creasy, who supported the campaign are another example of a reaction that has nothing at all to do with the specific issue at hand. (These threats included lines like “I’m going to pistol whip you over and over until you lose consciousness then burn ur flesh” and “ I will rape you tomorrow at 9pm” and “a bomb was placed in front of your house.”) The 21-year-old and 25-year-old men who have been arrested for these threats on Twitter can’t really have been staunch Charles Darwin defenders or violent Jane Austen haters; they must have been responding more to the idea of a woman saying anything.

And if you think that we are past the era in which anyone objects to feminism, then I suggest you ask a woman whether she agrees. Me, for instance. Elizabeth B Liddle

Guys I'm not saying other people are innocent but the outburst here is not about feminism it's about Darwin being replaced. That is the issue. Andre

Well Mark, obvioulsy you, Graham, Alan and Elizabeth don't care that you are judged by your nonsensical posts wrt darwinism/ evolutionism... Joe

No true Darwinist would refrain from nefarious acts! Alan Fox

#95 Andre Have you read the piece you linked to? It includes zero evidence or claims that this was linked to Darwinism. It's main point is:

The 21-year-old and 25-year-old men who have been arrested for these threats on Twitter can’t really have been staunch Charles Darwin defenders or violent Jane Austen haters

I can't say I totally agree - it follows a series of excerpts from the tweets that are very much aimed at Jane Austen - but certainly the piece supports the case that this was nothing to do with Darwin. Mark Frank

I don’t know who Philip Cunningham is...

He posts under the pseudonym of BA77. Alan Fox

I don't know who Philip Cunningham is, but his response is pathetic. All his comment (and indeed Andre's comments #90 and #91) amounts to is - "Darwinists do horrible things so it must have been them". Yes some Darwinists do horrible things. So do some Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics and any other sect you care to name. As Lizzie has pointed out the only direct evidence we have indicates these tweets were misogynist. None of it points to any hint of Darwinism. Neither Darwin or evolution are referred to in the tweets. As Axel says in #73 they are probably just total nutters, but to jump to the conclusion they were somehow promoting Darwinism is just absurd. On the same basis you could conclude that any unpleasant act for which the motive was unclear must be part of a Darwinian conspiracy because Darwinists are such awful people. As Graham #82 says - do you guys really want to be judged by the arguments in this thread? Mark Frank

Dr Liddle This is not about anti-feminism. This is 2013 feminism is here to stay read the slate article it really asks some good questions about this. Why don't you contact Katie Roiphe and ask her what she has found? If you do will you report back here about your findings? Andre

Dr Liddle This is not about anti-feminism. This is 2013 feminism is here to stay read the slate article it really asks some good questions about this. Andre

More for you Dr Liddle http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/roiphe/2013/08/the_anger_over_jane_austen_on_a_10_pound_note_proves_people_can_rage_over.html Andre

So Dr Liddle when we make the claim that it was Darwinist we speak from experience, as theist we are open to this type of abuse 24/7 all day everyday.

So if anyone abuses someone else it must have been a Darwinist? And no further research is required? Are you kidding? I have frequently seen horrible rape threats posted by people claiming to be Christians on feminist blogs and youtube. Would it therefore be right for me to claim that misogynists who sent rape threats to these feminists must have been Christian? I don't think so. Do you? Elizabeth B Liddle

Andre says:

Dr Liddle if they are racist, they ain’t christian, no matter what they may or may not believe,but christian they are not. Racism completely contradicts the gospel.

Paraphrasing: "No true Christian could be racist". PS it was Mark Frank, pointing out your commission of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Alan Fox

Only hooligans or darwinists- mostly the same people- would send that sort of stuff. Joe

So Dr Liddle when we make the claim that it was Darwinist we speak from experience, as theist we are open to this type of abuse 24/7 all day everyday. Andre

The Darwinist twits, tweeting their profane world view to the rest of the world examples; http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/joey-barton-in-bizarre-twitter-darwinism-1544189 http://news.uk.msn.com/trending-blog/tom-maynard-death-edwina-currie-darwinism-tweet-criticised-016488 We are use to the crap the Darwin gang tweets all the time.... Andre

Has News interviewed the people who sent to tweets? If not, then she has nothing to say at all about whether they were "Darwinists" or not. But she does, say it, nonetheless, on the completely spurious grounds that the bank responded to a request from feminists to make sure that the end of the Fry fiver would not leave women unrepresented on English banknotes, by selecting the tenner, previously featuring Darwin, as the new woman-bearing note. Note that the threats were NOT sent to the bank governor, who scheduled Darwin's retirement, but to the feminists who campaigned for a woman to replace Fry, and the senders did NOT mention Darwin, but did mention Austen. Denyse then provides an even more spurious post hoc rationalisation for the already spurious connection by saying that the following week, in a different country, PZ Myers accused an American atheist of rape. It isn't that News "may be mistaken". It's that she has absolutely no grounds for her allegation. It's quite possible that the men are Darwinists. They could be Flat Earthers for all we know. But we have no grounds for saying either, so neither is News. Elizabeth B Liddle

Elizabeth- Have you interviewed the people who sent the tweets? If you haven't then you really don't have anything to say except that News "may be mistaken". Joe

It is scarcely a "minor technical point" that the "uproar" you cited was by misogynysts against feminists for campaigning to make sure that the retirement of the Fry fiver would not leave women unrepresented on English banknotes, rather than by "Darwinists" against the bank that had scheduled Darwin's retirement years ago. And as for your observation that "The tenner uproar occurred during a week of high profile revelations from the new atheism movement" - there is simply no "profile" at all for these revelations in the UK, nor, as far as I can tell, outside this small corner of the internet. In any case, PZ Myers posted his "grenade" (if that is what you are talking about) on the 8th August. The twitter-Jane-Austen story broke on the 28th July. So there's absolutely no reason at all to think they were related. In July, misogynists in Manchester tweet rape threats to feminists who campaigned to make sure that Elizabeth Fry's scheduled retirement from the UK £5 note would not leave women unrepresented on English banknotes. Two arrests are made. In August, PZ Myers alleges that a prominent American atheist raped a woman, in America. The "news" desk at UD concludes that it must have been "Darwinists" who sent misogynist rape threats about Jane Austen to feminists. Denyse, this is is not responsible journalism. It isn't journalism at all. It is nasty unfounded speculation, spun as propaganda, and passed off as "news". Elizabeth B Liddle

Hi I meant no true atheist would ever become a theist? Andre

Alan Fox So no true atheist would ever become an atheist? Anthony Flew contradicted his own "Scotsman" fallacy. I still don't get why you even used it? IF you are a christian there is no room for racism period! Andre

UD comes up with some pretty dumb stuff, but this op is the limit. Is this how you guys want to be judged ? In the real world, that is. Graham2

Re the tenner uproar, News asked Phillip Cunningham, via whom original info received, Denyse O'Leary 7:11pm Aug 20 OT: Phillip,what do you make of the claim in the combox at Uncommon Descent that the replacement of Darwin by Jane Austen on the 10-lb note in Britain was not controversial among Darwinists, only among misogynists? Reply: Philip Cunningham 9:12pm Aug 20 Denyse O'Leary, my thoughts are that that type of behavior is enigmatic of accepting Darwinism wholesale. Though the trigger may in fact not have been directly attributed to Darwin's removal (I definitely think some of the responses are attributed to it but I would have to know the facts in more detail to say for sure) We, none-the-less, have very good evidence for, number 1, there has been a steep decline in altruism of young people since prayer was removed from school and a strictly secular origin story has been taught in American schools, number 2, atheism is responsible for the most horrific atrocities of the 201h century, number 3, the general mannerisms of atheists/Darwinists on the internet is entirely consistent with this type of behavior. Thus, though while Elizabeth was trying to make the best on a minor technical point that would be somewhat difficult to flesh out, the fact is that the larger overall issue as to what enabled such behavior in the first place is attributable to the acceptance of Darwinism. Note: The tenner uproar occurred during a week of high profile revelations from the new atheism movement, for whom the promotion of Darwin is a passion. It's a little hard to believe, I am afraid, that it was unrelated. Nice try, though. News

Elizabeth:

But if you post something that I know to be factually wrong, I will correct it.

Just as we do to you guys- daily/ hourly/ whenever you post. Joe

And Anthony Flew became a theist… your point?

My point was to clarify the "no true scotsman" fallacy for Phinehas by quoting Flew, who is credited with coming up with it. Does that help? Alan Fox

And Anthony Flew became a theist... your point? Andre

Does this mean that if my father was German and my mother was Dutch and I claim to be a Scotsman, that others making a counter-claim would be making the No True Scotsman argument? Isn’t the point of the No True Scotsman fallacy not simply that someone has claimed to be a “Scotsman,” but that the claim has validity (i.e., they actually have the heritage to back it up)?

Does this help?

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing".

Antony Flew Alan Fox

Have you not heard of the No True Scotsman argument?

Does this mean that if my father was German and my mother was Dutch and I claim to be a Scotsman, that others making a counter-claim would be making the No True Scotsman argument? Isn't the point of the No True Scotsman fallacy not simply that someone has claimed to be a "Scotsman," but that the claim has validity (i.e., they actually have the heritage to back it up)? Not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord," will enter the Kingdom. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is. And you shall know them by their fruit. Phinehas

Axel #73

Well, Lars, they do seem to have studied Austen’s works, judging from a comment above, but presumably under the duress imposed by university-degree requirements. I suspect they’re just total nutters, as you do. A real-life cross between Private Eye’s Dave Spart and Harry Enfields’ Kevin. Heck, maybe even Eric Jarvis Thribb – though he did seem to have a lot of respect for Keith’s Mum

So presumably you accept that Denyse was wrong to condemn atheists/Darwinists in general based on the behaviour of these nutters? Mark Frank

Lothar Sohn at 13

... yeah, but belief in something supernatural is required for being considered a religion…so you see, they’re not religious at all!

Atheists believe that dirt can create machinery, new organs, new body plans and even create life. Tell me that is not belief in supernatural InVivoVeritas

Lartanner Firstly, you know the atheist favorite passage from the bible? The one that says "Don't Judge" Well if you read a little further it says "Don't judge hypocritically" So yes in my judgement racists are contradicting the Gospel. Firstly I do not agree with anti-Semitic sentiments and in the same vain I do not agree with what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, unfortunately this is a people problem not a God problem, people are by nature evil as you know, the tweets sent to the lady that wanted Jane Austen on the notes is a clear example of that. But let me ask you a question? Have you ever wondered why despite all the odds and by the best efforts of the world, nobody has able to exterminate the Jews. They have more Nobel peace price winners than any other nation, the have the best farming methods, and a host of other things that they cannot be topped on, it could just perhaps be that they truly are God's people and although they sin and have rejected Jesus, The promise He made to them has endured, the evidence in 2013 looking back into history seems to echo that point. Ever wondered why the Arabs are so blessed too? Perhaps that promised made to Hagar that her son will become the father of a nation that will be blessed also holds true. History again echo's this point. Now please take note and this is important; There are obviously many things wrong both in Israel and in the Arab world but that is caused by people and their hunger for power, lust and greed. What is unchanging through; is God's promise to those nations. And I really trust a God who can keep His promises! Andre

Sorry. I should have said, 'a lot of respect for the obiter dicta' of Keith's Mum. I'm also sorry if this is all double dutch to you Americans. If some kind Brit has one of Eric's poems he could transcribe for them, preferably with a reference to Keith's Mum (they tend to be valedictory and sententious to a fault,) I'm sure they would be very grateful. Axel

Well, Lars, they do seem to have studied Austen's works, judging from a comment above, but presumably under the duress imposed by university-degree requirements. I suspect they're just total nutters, as you do. A real-life cross between Private Eye's Dave Spart and Harry Enfields' Kevin. Heck, maybe even Eric Jarvis Thribb - though he did seem to have a lot of respect for Keith's Mum. Axel

LaTanner, had you been one of the group of Pharisees, Jesus was addressing on one occasion, I'm sure you would have asked him the same question, in relation to Judaism, just as they did, when he told them that they were no children of Abraham, but had the devil for their father. Which, by the way, I'm happy to say, I truly am not in a position to say concerning yourself, however barmy you may appear at times. Axel

#67 Axel Yes it is crazy to have that reaction to Jane Austen but read the quoted tweets. These guys were a bit nuts. Mark Frank

#67 Axel Yes it is crazy to have that reaction to Jane Austen but read the quoted texts. These guys were a bit nuts. Mark Frank

Frankly LT, I would like to side with you on this and say that Christianity is very inclusive, and if one were to go strictly by the Near Death Experiences of Judeo-Christian cultures one would get that impression, but if one steps outside of Judeo-Christian cultures one is hard-pressed to find a extremely positive Near Death Experience to which one can refer, with the vast majority of experiences, contrary to NDE's within Christian cultures, ranging anywhere from weird, to negative, to horrific even hellish. But Andre is right, the gospel is very clear as to being doers of the word not just hearers of the word,, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ bornagain77

#65 Andre Have you not heard of the No True Scotsman argument? Mark Frank

This nonsense about their going crazy about Jane Austen is itself crazy! There must be plenty of people who find her subject material like a kind of less-grounded form of soap opera. But get worked up about it? Come off it. Axel

Andre, since when do you get to decide who is a true Christian? By your statement, do you mean to assert that any person of the past who holds beliefs you consider racist is now not a Christian? Interesting. What about antisemitism (ahem, Robert Byers)? If someone is antisemitic are they also not Christian? Please do tell. It seems the ranks of the world's historical Christian population just shrank considerably. LarTanner

Dr Liddle if they are racist, they ain't christian, no matter what they may or may not believe,but christian they are not. Racism completely contradicts the gospel. Andre

Elizabeth B Liddle, as the post from Barry clearly illustrates, you are a intellectually dishonest person. You can disagree with Barry, who is a lawyer by the way and is expert in flushing out such linguistic gymnastics as you displayed (and as you continue to display), but I call them as I see them. This is why I now ignore your posts as best I can and refuse to chase you down rabbit holes any longer because, as far as I can tell, you refuse to ever be honest with the evidence presented to you. Perhaps this may change in the future, but since I've seen such relentless inanity on your part to defend you beloved atheistic theory no matter what is presented to the contrary, I hold little hope for that change of heart within you and it will take quite a shocker from you to make me ever change my opinion of you. You simply have sadly disappointed me way too many times after so much effort, by others much more qualified than I, was invested in addressing your points one by one, and then only to have you ignore them all and continue on with your charades as if you had a leg to stand on. bornagain77

If that is what Barry is saying, he is making the same error as you are. Elizabeth B Liddle

But Elizabeth B Liddle, I not the only one to note that you are a liar! Elizabeth Liddle Channels Humpty Dumpty - August 13, 2011 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/elizabeth-liddle-channels-humpty-dumpty/ bornagain77

If that's what you want, BA77, then I suggest you check your facts before posting. And that you do not call me a liar, as you have just done. Because I will not willingly let such errors pass uncorrected. Elizabeth B Liddle

Andre: we are not talking about some blog by some American about who would be a good person to put on an English banknote, nor about some people who would like it if Darwin had been retained. We are talking about the bombardment by rape and death threats of two women who had been involved in campaigning to ensure that at least one woman would be represented on an English banknote after the Elizabeth Fry tenner was replaced. Please do not conflate these two issues. They are completely separate. What is happening on this thread is that the actions of a small group of hateful misogynists are being used to tar a large group of people who have done nothing more "hateful" than opine that it would have been nice to have kept Darwin and junk the Queen, neither of which were actual options. How would you feel if Christians were accused of being violent because racists sent death threats to a black man who had successfully campaigned to have Elizabeth Fry (a Christian) replaced by Samuel Coleridge-Taylor (a black man)? And how would you feel if they then said: but look, these feminist bloggers want to keep Elizabeth Fry, not this Coleridge-Taylor guy, that just shows that it's really about feminism, not racism? Because that is a very precise parallel. Elizabeth B Liddle

I noticed Churchill is now the majority to go.... Andre

Dr Liddle & Mark Frank It's one thing to be obtuse, it's another when it needs to be pointed out to others on why, Less than 7% of Dr Coyne's readers suggested it is ok to replace Darwin with Jane Austen, they majority rooted for the queen to go. Andre

Elizabeth B Liddle, please keep your word and refrain from addressing me ever again whether you personally believe me to be in error or not. I don't care if I say a known falsehood, such as that you are an honest person, and then you want to correct me on that to tell me that you are in fact a liar. I don't care! Please restrain yourself as I have better things to do than waste hours on a dogmatist! bornagain77

BA77: then don't read what I write. But if you post something that I know to be factually wrong, I will correct it. In this case, as I live in England, I know that you (and Denyse) are factually wrong. This case had absolutely nothing to do with the retirement of the Darwin tenner, which was completely uncontentious, but rather to do with the retirement of Elizabeth Fry from the five pound note, which would have left no women apart from the Queen. The Darwin tenner was simply the next note to come up for renewal, so the one that the bank agreed to put a woman on, following lobbying by a feminist, who was then barraged by rape threats. Elizabeth B Liddle

Elizabeth B Liddle, as I don't read anything you write, I'd appreciate if you kept your end of the bargain that you agreed to and ignore what I write as I ignore what you write. As to the decay of society in general due to secular influences,,, United States Crime Rates 1960 – 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in crime rate from the mid 90s until now is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes. (a nip it in the bud policy) http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray – David Barton – graphs corrected for population growth http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html What Lies Behind Growing Secularism by William Lane Craig – May 2012 – podcast (steep decline in altruism of young people since early 1960?s) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-lies-behind-growing-secularism As to the inability of atheism to ground our ability to reason, and the tendency of atheism to lead to increased psychopathic behavior https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/religion/fearless-scholar-frank-furedi-takes-on-claims-that-religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists/#comment-468468 bornagain77

BA77

Since England is dominated by the Darwinian philosophy, not anti-feminism, the likelihood of flood of anti-feminism seems as remote as a comprehensive theory of evolution.

You don't need many tweeters to generate a flood of anti-feminist misogynist bile, which this was. Two people have been arrested. There may have been a few more. We are not free of anti-feminism and misogyny in the UK, unfortunately. However, the likelihood of a flood of "Darwinist" protest is remote precisely because "Darwinism" isn't even an issue in the UK. Nobody feels threatened by the loss of Darwin on the tenner because nobody think he is anything other than an important 19th century scientist we are rather proud of who's completed his turn on a banknote. And the fact is that there was no protest at all to the bank for removing Darwin, merely to a feminist who had campaigned to ensure that a woman would be featured on at least one banknote after the Fry fivers are withdrawn. Elizabeth B Liddle

A correction - the women did not mount a campaign for Jane Austen. They mounted a campaign for a woman. Jane Austen was chosen by the Bank of England. Mark Frank

Axel These tweets were not in response to removing Darwin from the notes. That decision was made a long time ago. You have zero evidence that these tweeters were enraged about removing Darwin. Let's get some sanity into this. The point of issue is why did those nutty people send those tweets. 1) All the characters on bank notes get replaced eventually. Everyone who is familiar with how the system works has known that Darwin would be replaced one day. No one got upset about it. 2) These two women mounted a campaign to have Jane Austen for feminist reasons. There was nothing anti-Darwinian about their campaign. They were responding to the decision to remove Elizabeth Fry in 2016. They did not say which man they would like removed. Interestingly they proposed Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Seacole or Rosalind Franklin - hardly an anti-Darwinian selection! 3) When they succeed they receive this horrible tweets. All the quotes we have seen from those tweets are either direct threats to the two women or remarks about Jane Austen - none mention Darwin. 4) Darwin and evolution are not topics of political controversy in the UK. The only exception that occasionally comes up is teaching creationism in faith schools and that rarely makes the op-eds. On the other hand feminism is discussed and debated incessantly. I am glad you realised in #50 that there are many alternatives to atheism and Christianity. There of course many Christians who are quite capable of sending those tweets - Christians come in all sorts of flavours just like any other large group - but in addition there are all those other non-atheists groups. These people might have been Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, agnostics who knows. Mark Frank

You are moving the goalposts Axel. Denyse was reporting on the rape-threats sent to Criado-Perez. Two men have been arrested. There is absolutely no reason to think that their actions had anything to do with Darwin's removal and everything to think that they had to do with misogyny against the feminist who had succeeded in arguing for Jane Austen as the scheduled replacement. Now you are saying that some bloggers regret the demise of the Darwin tenner. So do I. But neither I, nor any Darwinist that I know of, has sent rape-threats - or any threats - to anyone. The only straw man I am seeing is the one you erected yourself. Elizabeth B Liddle

.. Christianity being one of many theist and deist alternatives to atheism. Axel

'Would you really be a Darwin groupie and not mention Darwin or evolution at all?' You're impossible, Mark. The points you raise are nonsensical. It's what the brouhaha is all about: one of atheist bloggers' most sacred icons, DARWIN! It's Darwin's removal from the note that they're enraged about. It's their RESPONSE to the removal of Darwin's face. They don't need to mention him. Still, what makes you so sure they didn't mention him. Or are you talking about criminal exhortations of theirs that have been published? If so, there is a larger context, in which it would have been impossible to avoid mentioning him! For goodness sake! I've never known anyone so regularly use 'straw men' as apparently inadvertently as you do. How about this? 'I think Christians, especially nominal Christians, are capable of every form of bad behaviour. You would be hard put to prove otherwise. My point wasn't that nominal Christians wouldn't be capable of the wickedest behaviour. Indeed, it was the opposite. What I was adverting to was that they wouldn't have proclaimed it publicly, least of all in an exhortation. And I should have thought it was obvious that I was alluding to nominal Christians who favoured preserving an appearance of retaining their faith - not merely baptised as Christians, such as Hitler and Stalin. 'But anyway the alternative to Christian is not atheist.' It is in this context, unless you include satanism as a religion. Axel

Andre: how does your link do anything to support the claim that the rape threats sent to Criado-Perez and Creasey had anything to do with Darwin? Lots of Darwinists are sorry to see him go (me, for instance) but there's no evidence at all that any of us sent rape-threats to the woman who succeeded in making her case that the replacement should be a woman. English banknotes designs are regularly changed. Dropping Darwin is no big deal. What appears to have angered the men who attacked Criado-Perez was the choice of replacement. I find the capacity of people here to believe anything bad about Darwinists, however ill-founded, quite astonishing. And, as KF would say, telling. Elizabeth B Liddle

#46 Andre If you think that this is proof that the horrible Tweets were something to do with Darwin then I really don't know how to conduct a rational conversation with you. This post was written by an American who supports the initiative to get Jane Austen on British bank notes. The tweets were from British subjects who condemned Jane Austen and attacked to two women who conducted the campaign on British bank notes. You could hardly imagine two more different positions. Mark Frank

Dr Liddle & Mark Frank. Do you want proof of the accusation that it's all about Darwin? Here go see for your self! http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/07/27/jane-austen-to-replace-darwin-on-the-10-pound-note-you-vote-on-the-issue/ Andre

#41 Axel

Of course, we know significant things about those characters. We know that they are atheists, since even a nominally Christian rapist or would-be rapist, would not be publicly exhorting others to rape.

I think Christians, especially nominal Christians, are capable of every form of bad behaviour. You would be hard put to prove otherwise. But anyway the alternative to Christian is not atheist.

We know, furthermore, that they are either Darwin ‘groupies’, anti-feminist extremists, or perhaps most likely of all, both.

We know from the quoted texts that they were anti-Jane Austen. They also seem to have some weird hang-up about the journalist and politician. They might have all sorts of other crazy motives. There is nothing to indicate they had any particular attitude to Darwin. It just happened to be the picture that was being replaced but they didn’t mention it or evolution in any of the quoted texts. Would you really be a Darwin groupie and not mention Darwin or evolution at all? Mark Frank

I read your second sentence, Axel. It doesn't make any more sense than the first one, except possibly for the part about anti-feminists. It seems like, from the content of their attack, that what enraged them was the idea of a woman writer on a bank note. I see absolutely no evidence that it had anything to do with "Darwin groupies" all, and personally I observe more misogyny among theists than among atheists. YMMV. And I see nothing "objective" about any moral code derived from theism. Elizabeth B Liddle

See my second sentence in #41, Elizabeth. Whereas, technically, rape should be just 'nature taking its course', at least under Darwinian atheism, were its adherents even half rigorous in their world-view. And maybe not an offence at all in moral relativism, depending on the individual's subjective moral code (and whether a subjective moral code is worth a cracker, in any case). Axel

"They must be atheists because Christians would not have done it"? You don't see the fallacy in your reasoning there? Elizabeth B Liddle

Your #38, Mark. Of course, we know significant things about those characters. We know that they are atheists, since even a nominally Christian rapist or would-be rapist, would not be publicly exhorting others to rape. We know, furthermore, that they are either Darwin 'groupies', anti-feminist extremists, or perhaps most likely of all, both. In other words, your ascription of such a limitation on the meaning of the word, 'know', in this context, is absurd. Axel

It isn't an atheist blog, Axel. So where is your evidence that the attacks on Criado-Perez and Creasey had anything to do with atheism? There isn't any, is there? Elizabeth B Liddle

'Posted a response here.' I don't visit atheist blogs, Elizabeth. It's a matter of common sense, imo. No one who is anyone, intellectually, is an atheist. It's just fundamental. Atheism is a pathology of the heart, the seat of wisdom. Atheists cannot forbear, however, from visiting informally inimical blogs, such as this one, and formally Christian forums, so any need to visit their 'lame ducks'' cockpits would be notional. But you do have your moments, mercifully. I have to say I laughed at your sauciness in concluding your #32 with the terse line: 'You house is built on sand.' The fact that you had to borrow from Christian scripture to give your words force just gives that extra piquancy. 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ...!' But you are learning to be a bit more abrasive, and to soft-pedal the soft-pedal a mite. Which is nice. Axel

#35 Axel

On the contrary. Darwinism is their putatively scientific rationale for their atheism. Take their Darwinism away from them, and it would be of absolutely zero significance.

I repeat we know nothing about these people except they are bit nuts and appear not to like Jane Austen. We don't even know they are atheists. Mark Frank

I repeat: Where is your evidence that [the attacks on Criada-Perez and Creasey] had anything to do with atheism? Elizabeth B Liddle

'If so, where is your evidence that they had anything to do with atheism?' The relationship of Darwinism to atheism, Elizabeth. Where else? Atheist bloggers - at least the more ingenuous of them - are even wont to proudly sport an image of Darwin's head as their online 'avatar'. Axel

'And there is absolutely no reason to suppose the people who did make this silly tweets did so because Darwinism had corrupted them.' - Mark Frank #18 On the contrary. Darwinism is their putatively scientific rationale for their atheism. Take their Darwinism away from them, and it would be of absolutely zero significance. But to them, THE SKY'S FALLING! THE SKY'S FALLING. It's their last sad, wee redoubt. Axel

BA77: are you denying that the attacks on Criada-Perez and Creasey were misogynist rather than "atheist"? If so, where is your evidence that they had anything to do with atheism? Elizabeth B Liddle

Like I said Mr. Frank, denialism is you MO whenever something reflects badly on atheists. Moreover, in your appeal to 'reason' you completely forgot that reason itself cannot be grounded within your atheistic worldview in the first place. So much for you really being reasonable in all this eh Mr. Frank?!? “If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.” - William J Murray bornagain77

Posted a response here. What is extraordinary about UD is that someone posts something that is not in fact true (that "Darwinists" wrote misogynistic rape threads because Darwin was being replaced on the £10 note), then other people, without checking the facts, build conclusions based on that first error. No, Axel, "antitheists" are not "bound .. by their fear and hatred...of being bound by a religious code of morality". And even if it were (and I've seen no evidence that it is), it not demonstrated by "this case" because "this case" is not an example of "antitheists" doing anything at all, but rather "anti-feminists" doing a great deal of something very nasty. They may be theists for all we know. So your case is built on sand. Elizabeth B Liddle

Except that you just made that up, Axel. Elizabeth B Liddle

Lothar's Son, we consider antitheists to be religious, because they are bound (religere) by their fear and hatred (at times, hysterical and rabid, as in this case) of being bound by a religious code of morality: slaves of sin - merely slaves of a different God; but what a difference in the general character of the people and the rewards they receive in this life and the next. Best wishes, another of Lothar's sons. Axel

Seriously, Denyse, you need to read further into the news stories you report - look at what follows the sentence you quoted:

No sooner was Darwin’s demise on the 10-pound note announced then anger flared up from every angle. There were attacks on her for being “a bitchy marriage broker who never married,” and “the sneering chronicler of petty squabbles and small lives.”

It's absolutely obvious from the context (and the headline even!) that the anger was at the Jane Austen proposal, not "Darwin's demise". Nobody objected to "Darwin's demise" - bank notes change and he'd had a good innings. This is really irresponsible reporting, Denyse. The threats against Criada-Perez were utterly disgusting, but don't mistake them for anything to do with Darwin. It was misogyny, pure and simple and horrible. Elizabeth B Liddle

Oh, for goodness sake. The uproar wasn't about removing Darwin - it was because a feminist had succeeding in proposing a female replacement. Sheesh. The rant was from misogynist assholes who hate women, not "Darwinists". I bet most of them wouldn't know a phylogeny if you slapped them in the face with a wet one. Elizabeth B Liddle

For one thing, I should be surprised if the anti-feminist 'movement', if such it could be called, is much more than a reaction against the excesses of the putative, but desperately ill-conceived 'feminism' of the atheist brigade. Not so dissimilar to the reaction of ordinary people against the wicked and deranged excesses of the more aggressive, homosexual lobby, who want the terms, 'mother' and 'father' removed from official documents, for example. Of course, there is a shared catchment involved. Axel

'This is utterly absurd. We have no idea what the motivation was behind these mindless tweets or how many people were involved but feminism is a far bigger issue than evolution over here. The vast majority of people just accept evolution as science and don’t even think of it as a controversy.' What utter nonsense, Mark. Anti-feminists may be ever so slightly crazy, but they're surely not daft enough to go potty over something as unspecific and unremarkable as the replacement of one big-wig's head on a banknote with another! Darwinists on the other hand... Axel

Barb #19

I’m concluding that they’re messed up. Why else would they threaten bodily harm and rape to a person who merely made a suggestion for replacing Darwin on a piece of currency? What other explanation can there be for such amoral behavior?

As WD400 says, no one is denying they are all messed up. When you write "what other explanation" do you mean what explanation other than being messed up? That I agree with. Or do you mean other than idolising Darwin and Darwinism? The answer to that is that there are masses of other explanations. The most likely one is a reaction to the feminist campaign to put Jane Austen on the bank notes (which was a bit of an odd campaign - there have been several women on bank notes before). This was what was in the news. Or maybe they didn't like the idea that a politician and journalist should attempt to influence what went on bank notes. Or maybe they hated Jane Austen (which is after all what all the bits of tweets that were quoted implied). In the USA evolution is something people get worked up about but over here it is a minor issue - occasionally cropping up in the context of faith schools and such like. It is most unlikely that these idiots would be worked up about something with such a low profile. Mark Frank

#20 BA77

Mr. Frank, I anticipated your denialism (which is your preferred MO when anything that reflects badly on atheists) and thus that is why I provided you a refresher on the meta-tweet study! And what thanks do I get??? I get accused of ‘loss of reason’? So much for you improving your lot!

But you study about tweets was about cheerful Christians were as opposed to atheists. I am extremely doubtful about its validity but even if it is true that Christian tweets are in general more cheerful than atheist tweets it is utterly irrelevant to the chances of these vicious tweets by a few sick people being anything to do with Darwinism. This is what I mean by a lack of reason. Denyse, you and Barb seem to be jumping to a wild conclusion about why these people tweeted and therefore Darwinists and atheists in general based on no evidence at all. Mark Frank

As someone who lives in the UK I can say that the majority of Brits simply accept the scientific consensus about evolution etc. It's not particularly controversial here. Also, not sure what's wrong with these fruit cakes but I've always found the UK to be very accommodating on issues like race and gender. humbled

No one is arguing they aren't messed up. The point is they are directing their messed up rage rage and vileness at the woman who campaigned to have a woman on a banknote. Isn't it more likely these are anti-feminist nut cases, rather than "Darwin Zealots". As others have said, outside of the USA evolutionary biology is not a cultural flash-point. It's very strange that people would jump, against all the evidence we have, to the idea these people were outraged by Darwin being removed from the note. wd400

Mark Frank @ 19:

And how do you know? Yet you are quick enough to jump to the conclusion that they are Darwinist atheists … based on what?

I'm concluding that they're messed up. Why else would they threaten bodily harm and rape to a person who merely made a suggestion for replacing Darwin on a piece of currency? What other explanation can there be for such amoral behavior? Barb

Mr. Frank, I anticipated your denialism (which is your preferred MO when anything that reflects badly on atheists) and thus that is why I provided you a refresher on the meta-tweet study! And what thanks do I get??? I get accused of 'loss of reason'? So much for you improving your lot! as to reason in general, well Mr. Frank as I pointed out in another thread this morning, atheism cannot ground reason in the first place and leads to psychopathic behavior: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/religion/fearless-scholar-frank-furedi-takes-on-claims-that-religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists/#comment-468468 bornagain77

#10 Barb

They can’t have been Darwin defenders? Who says? They can’t have been Austen haters? Again, who says? How do you know what’s going on inside their (considerably messed-up) heads?

And how do you know? Yet you are quick enough to jump to the conclusion that they are Darwinist atheists ... based on what? Mark Frank

#15 BA77

So Darwinism has corrupted the manners of the once staunchly prim and proper British so much that this type of brutish behavior is considered normal for the British culture? Way to go Charlie D! Maybe the Brits will finally stop looking down their nose at the rest of the world!

Has everyone on this thread lost all sense of reason? No one is saying this type of behaviour is normal. That's why it is a shocking news story! And there is absolutely no reason to suppose the people who did make this silly tweets did so because Darwinism had corrupted them. Mark Frank

Joe @ 13: Yes, in the United Kingdom he is. He's also buried in Westminster Abbey. Barb

Mr. Frank as to the brutish behavior of Atheists in general, especially on the internet, I remind you of this recent study on tweeting which found results which surprised no one who has had to deal with atheists on the internet,,, Study finds Christians tweet more cheerfully than atheists - 27 June 2013 Excerpt: The research found that overall, tweets by Christians had more positive and less negative content than tweets by atheists.,,, (Previous studies were done) However, most of the (previous) studies had relied on individuals to tell researchers about how satisfied they are with their lives or their emotional state at a given time. Professor Preston said: "What's great about Twitter is that people are reporting their experiences – good or bad – as they occur.' 'As researchers, we do not need to ask them how they feel because they are already telling us.' While the authors have drawn their conclusions that Christians appear to be happier than atheists on Twitter, they are careful to say that their results are based on observing correlations. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2349478/Study-finds-Christians-tweet-happily-analytically-atheists.html Christians happier than atheists – on Twitter - June 28 2013 Excerpt: Two doctoral students in social psychology and an adviser analyzed the casual language of nearly 2 million tweets from more than 16,000 active users to come up with their findings, which were published in Social Psychological and Personality Science. The team identified subjects by finding Twitter users who followed the feeds of five prominent public figures. In the case of Christians, those select five were Pope Benedict XVI, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, conservative political commentator Dinesh D’Souza and Joyce Meyer, an evangelical author and speaker. In the case of atheists, the five followed feeds included Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Monica Salcedo and Michael Shermer - the latter two respectively being a self-described “fiercely outspoken atheist” blogger, and a science writer who founded The Skeptics Society. With the help of a text analysis program, the researchers found that Christians tweet with higher frequency words reflecting positive emotions, social relationships and an intuitive style of thinking – the sort that’s gut-driven. This isn’t to say that atheists don’t use these words, too, but they out-tweet Christians when it comes to analytic words and words associated with negative emotions. Christians, they found, are more likely to use words like “love,” “happy” and “great”; “family,” “friend” and “team.” Atheists win when it comes to using words like “bad,” “wrong,” and “awful”,,, http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/christians-happier-than-atheists-at-least-on-twitter/ bornagain77

as to: "feminism is a far bigger issue than evolution over here. The vast majority of people just accept evolution as science and don’t even think of it as a controversy." So Darwinism has corrupted the manners of the once staunchly prim and proper British so much that this type of brutish behavior is considered normal for the British culture? Way to go Charlie D! Maybe the Brits will finally stop looking down their nose at the rest of the world! bornagain77

Darwin is on a bank note? Joe

Antitheists generally say: yeah, but belief in something supernatural is required for being considered a religion...so you see, they're not religious at all! Lovely greetings from Germany Liebe Grüße aus Deutschland Lothars Sohn - Lothar's son http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com Lothars Sohn

Realising my previous comment may not be self-explanatory to the target audience, I refer to the fact that attitudes, culture and society elsewhere in the World do not invariably follow a US model. Alan Fox

Good grief! How ill-informed and proud of it can some people be! Alan Fox

From the Katie Roiphe article on Slate: "The 21-year-old and 25-year-old men who have been arrested for these threats on Twitter can’t really have been staunch Charles Darwin defenders or violent Jane Austen haters; they must have been responding more to the idea of a woman saying anything. The minor and banal nature of the bank note controversy is our latest sign that anything at all can trigger the terrifying, free-floating rage adrift on the Internet. If Jane Austen makes people mad, one has to wonder, what doesn’t make people mad?" They can't have been Darwin defenders? Who says? They can't have been Austen haters? Again, who says? How do you know what's going on inside their (considerably messed-up) heads? Barb

This is utterly absurd. We have no idea what the motivation was behind these mindless tweets or how many people were involved but feminism is a far bigger issue than evolution over here. The vast majority of people just accept evolution as science and don't even think of it as a controversy. Mark Frank

'At least England is finally taking some measures to separate religion from state.' Hilarious, johnnyfarmer! Secular fundamentalism. And Darwin - the buckle on their bible-belt. Axel

Chimera: While reporting on the motives of the zealots centers on anti-feminism theme in the media, the demise of Darwin is undoubtedly the real elephant in the room. Since England is dominated by the Darwinian philosophy, not anti-feminism, the likelihood of flood of anti-feminism seems as remote as a comprehensive theory of evolution. A Google search found only one anti-feminism political group in the UK known as “Justice for Men & Boys and Women Who Love Them” that started in February of this year. The group headed by British writer Mike Buchanan, author of a number of book including the upcoming the 2014 book entitled Feminism: The Ugly Truth. Could these anti-feminists launch the magnitude of the reign of terror experienced by Criado-Perez and Creasy? It is possible, but not likely. The pro-Darwin lobby far exceeds the anti-feminism lobby. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/08/darwin-zealots-reign-of-terror/#more-5415 bornagain77

Interesting how this has been portrayed over here in the UK. As these vile threats have been directed against women who want to see another woman appear on a bank note its simply been seen that its just about certain men who really hate women. Until reading the blog post I wouldn't have thought that is was all about Darwin, and to be honest I'm still not sure what to believe. Chimera

Wow, death threats? And this from a theory that supposedly explains altruism? And threatening rape? Well, considering that they view rape as part of evolutionary biology, that's to be expected. What a bunch of hateful, intolerant bigots. And these people are supposedly the rational, intelligent ones amongst humanity? Not. Barb

Interesting, isn't it? If the Archbishop of Canterbury had been on a banknote (he wouldn't be, of course), for sure, there'd be no riot if it was proposed to replace him with Jane Austen. Jane, wherever you are, I hope you are not wearing stays when you read about this. They will all burst from laughter, every one of them. News

I guess these guys are just rendering unto Darwin what is due Darwin when they act in such a manner?!? Luke 20:24-25 "Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription does it have?” They answered and said, “Caesar’s.” And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Quote: "When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment or as the Nazi liked to say, of Blood and Soil. I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers." Viktor Frankl - in 'The Doctor and the Soul' Music: Eric Church - Like Jesus Does (Acoustic) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuG1rLPjVkk bornagain77

;) News

At least England is finally taking some measures to separate religion from state. Johnnyfarmer