Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On a scheduled banknote replacement,

On July 24, the Bank of England announced removing Charles Darwin from the British 10 pound note beginning in 2017. Shortly after the announcement, the supporters of the change were bombarded with rape and death threats – the vast majority came via Twitter.

Slate reporter Katie Roiphe notes that “No sooner was Darwin’s demise on the 10-pound note announced then anger flared up from every angle.”

Nick Schrifrin of ABC News reported that “the abuse flooded in. Horrible, vile abuse. Hundreds of Twitter users bombarded Criado-Perez on the service, threatening violence. Threatening rape. One Twitter user even created @rapehernow.

Okay, that’s it.

Darwinism is not only a religion, but it is headed up by some seriously questionable people who attract just the sort of adherents you might expect.

It’s only a banknote, folks. And to whose religion does a banknote belong?

We may take it as a given that if one’s religion so easily results in threats of mayhem, it is no good for the adherent or for society.

The next big question is, what about the Christian Darwinists? What ails them?

Note: As between Austen’s understanding of human nature and Darwin’s, bank on Austen any day.

Hat tip: Bornagain77

Comments
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Well Mark, obvioulsy you, Graham, Alan and Elizabeth don't care that you are judged by your nonsensical posts wrt darwinism/ evolutionism...Joe
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
No true Darwinist would refrain from nefarious acts!Alan Fox
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
#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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
I don’t know who Philip Cunningham is...
He posts under the pseudonym of BA77.Alan Fox
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
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.htmlAndre
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Only hooligans or darwinists- mostly the same people- would send that sort of stuff.Joe
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
Hi I meant no true atheist would ever become a theist?Andre
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
And Anthony Flew became a theist... your point?Andre
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
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 FlewAlan Fox
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
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
August 20, 2013
August
08
Aug
20
20
2013
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
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
August 20, 2013
August
08
Aug
20
20
2013
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
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 supernaturalInVivoVeritas
August 20, 2013
August
08
Aug
20
20
2013
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
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
August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply