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

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

"They must be atheists because Christians would not have done it"? You don't see the fallacy in your reasoning there?Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT}

'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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

#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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

I repeat: Where is your evidence that [the attacks on Criada-Perez and Creasey] had anything to do with atheism?Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

'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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

'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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

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 Murraybornagain77_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

Except that you just made that up, Axel.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT}

'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_{August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT}

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_{August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

#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_{August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

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_{August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

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_{August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

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_{August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

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://uncommondescent.com/religion/fearless-scholar-frank-furedi-takes-on-claims-that-religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists/#comment-468468bornagain77_{August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

#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_{August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

#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_{August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

Joe @ 13: Yes, in the United Kingdom he is. He's also buried in Westminster Abbey.Barb_{August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

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_{August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

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_{August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply