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

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 18, 2013

Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

#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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

#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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

#65 Andre Have you not heard of the No True Scotsman argument?Mark Frank_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

If that is what Barry is saying, he is making the same error as you are.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

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://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/elizabeth-liddle-channels-humpty-dumpty/bornagain77_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

I noticed Churchill is now the majority to go....Andre_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

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://uncommondescent.com/religion/fearless-scholar-frank-furedi-takes-on-claims-that-religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists/#comment-468468bornagain77_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

.. Christianity being one of many theist and deist alternatives to atheism.Axel_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

'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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

#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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

#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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply