Recently, retired New York Times writer Nicholas Wade wrote a book, Troublesome Inheritance , which seems to be an effort to resurrect Darwinian racism. One aspect of the book’s fans’ campaign has been calling the non-racist Darwinians liberal creationists (or cultural Marxists).
I (O’Leary for News) was blind copied on an e-mail sent by one “Julie” (who could be one of Nick Wade’s gang), advising
But there is a new movement called “HBD” (human biodiversity), where its adherents are basically Darwinists but they’re sick of the political correctness of the liberal form of Darwinism, especially as it relates to race and gender.
Anyway, there are at least hundreds, if not thousands, of HBD tweeters on twitter and they have been lambasting politically correct academics.
Hmmm. Hundreds, maybe. Certainly not thousands. More like dozens.
For one thing, this could turn out to be no more than a clever sales strategy to force Darwinian non-racists who would otherwise try to ignore the book to pay attention to it.
The only problem with that thesis is that it’s hard to see why the non-racists wouldn’t pay attention anyway. This is an age when careers get wrecked over “racist dog whistles,” where everyone seems to be the dog (i.e., if I’m not the dog, I won’t even hear the whistle, let alone respond).
Unless, of course, what some of us suspect is true: They all just genuflect at the sacred name of Darwin, no matter what the context, and would never dream of attacking any nonsense barked, wittered, or whined in Darwin’s name. Now, we’ve sure seen lots of that.
And darn, never a cloud of mosquitos around when you need one …
So jury’s still out over what exactly Wade’s followers had in mind.
Meanwhile, from “Julie,”
The funny thing about it, however, is that they’re calling them creationists:Example.
The example given offers us someone named Holly Dunsworth: “At least @HollyDunsworth is now being open about her creationism.”
Disinclined to pursue a possibly circular Twitter feed, I ran a search on Holly Dunsworth, probably the biological anthropologist at the University of Rhode Island:
I teach courses in biological anthropology which include Human Origins (APG 201), Sex and Reproduction in Our Species (APG 310), Human Variation (APG 350), and The Human Fossil Record (APG 300). Also, I regularly contribute to the science blog The Mermaid’s Tale.
Okay, an unexceptional leftist academic; what’s the news here, among so many thousands?
From Julie again: “Which is really pissing off some of the politically correct academics, since being called a “creationist” is about the worst thing imaginable to them.”
Yes but also the least likely to be believed.
Others, however, are worried about offending the Third World creationists and are actually attacking Dawkins and many of the more atheistic HBD tweeters.
The Third World creationists being who exactly? Who is worried about offending them? Why?
Okay, here’s what I now think: Someone thought up a strategy to promote the book by labelling anyone who disagreed with the thesis a “creationist” (including anti-creationist PZ Myers). The numbers don’t show that the strategy failed, but neither did it score a top ten-for-months success:
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #729 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
That’s pretty much where one might have expected a book of that type to sit just about now anyway.
This episode probably won’t do any long term damage to the general meaning of the word “creationist” (= a person who accounts for key developments in life via creation ex nihilo, that is, from nothing).
Unless, that is, Wade’s faction can keep the Twitter feed going indefinitely against people like Holly Dunsworth. But I’m calling that it’ll peter out after a few months. For one thing, I don’t believe that “thousands” of people are doing it, or ever were.
– O’Leary for News
Follow UD News at Twitter!