Atheism Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Yanks put at man on the moon. But they’re really just anti-science rubes. Yeah, really …

Spread the love
image.png
O'Leary/Bencze

Surveying news over the last two weeks, a cultural pattern emerges. Recently, I criticized process theologian (and former Biologian) Karl Giberson for marketing the old “Yanks is hicks” schtick to Britain, in support of his Darwin cause:

It’s a familiar pattern. People try it in Canada too (and we won’t be surprised if Giberson does). But the audience is much less receptive because the inferiority complex is much less.

It was amusing to see a very senior American Scientific Affiliation honch defending Giberson in the combox there, professing not to know what I am talking about – as if everyone doesn’t know what I am talking about: The standard defensive putdown of American achievements: “They put a man on the moon. But they’re really just anti-science rubes.” And the only appropriate response to Americans who try that abroad is: Grow up.

If there is one thing Britain does not need more of, it is self-destructive delusions. Thus, it was cheering to see historian Tim Stanley’s analysis of ultra-atheist Richard Dawkins’ months-late and ten-thousand-dollars-short excuse for not debating American Christian apologist William Lane Craig. He notes, being cruel to be kind,

Dawkins has gotten away with his illiterate, angry schtick for so many years because his opponents have been so woolly. This is a damning indictment not only of him, but of the clerical establishment of Great Britain. But this time, he understood that he was up against a pro. In America, evangelicals have to compete in a vibrant, competitive marketplace of different denominations. That breeds the very guile and theatricality that are so sorely lacking among the Anglican clergy. In Craig, Dawkins met his match. Like Jonah, he was confronted by the truth and he ran away.

Yes, the Anglican establishment was once a great intellectual tradition but its joists are rotten. And the “acceptable” evangelical churches are often no better.

Why give atheists Polly Toynbee, A.C. Grayling, and Dawkins a pass not to debate Craig?

Are there no more white feathers in England?

Why do we somehow know that these people will continue to star on Brit tax burden TV as if nothing had happened? Anyway, Stanley calls it right when he says,

In America, evangelicals have to compete in a vibrant, competitive marketplace of different denominations.

Britain is the home of an established church, whose head is actually the constitutional monarch. It shows.

Look, Brits need to start challenging their tax burden TV (like this Brit exemplarily did) about fronting hate-filled, cowardly, and for all we know, stupid atheist celebs. They’re not worthy. And keep the pressure up.

The sun should never set on the civil protests until such obstacles to a national intellectual life are retired from public importance.

It’s their country. We’ll see if they care enough.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

7 Replies to “Yanks put at man on the moon. But they’re really just anti-science rubes. Yeah, really …

  1. 1

    I was reading recently about the recent opening of Spaceport America in New Mexico, one of British Billionaire Richard Branson’s projects to send rich people into 3 minute space thrill rides. Interesting that Branson with all his billions relies on American ingenuity to get the job done. Not bragging – not even American; but it seems that the private “exploration of space” (if you can call it that) is being facilitated and championed right here on American soil.

    I dare say that some of the engineers Branson is employing come from good Southern US Bible-thumping stock.

  2. 2
    O'Leary says:

    “I dare say that some of the engineers Branson is employing come from good Southern US Bible-thumping stock.”

    Good show that. They won’t drink on the job. Amazing how many industrial accidents that figures in.

  3. 3
    NickMatzke_UD says:

    That’s the problem with having an established church in a modern democracy like the UK — on grounds of fairness, the state also gets stuck paying for the promotion of everyone else’s religious views too, whether atheist, muslim, etc…

  4. 4

    Well in a way it’s the same in the US (only different). While the state doesn’t “technically” end up paying for religious views, religious views get a free ride as far as taxation. But the technicality ends where education is concerned; which is sad.

    I’ve often wondered if there could be a great compromise in education. You’d set up two different science departments in each school; one for pseudoscience and one for science proper. That way you could group all the secular sciences like astrology, ufology and Darwinian evolution in one department, and all the other proper sciences in the other department and everyone would be happy. 😉

  5. 5
    Robert Byers says:

    I note also that everywhere the identity of a person, and so the group, has become fair game in a liberal establishment that demanded identity did not and was not to be said to matter in evaluating human beings.
    In short the Anglo-American civilization created by the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Man was not to look down and act accordingly about the rest of them.
    Yet now its okay to attack Protestants, the true believers,and Men and the Yankee and southern , and earliest ethnic Catholic, stock of North america and I understand like patterns in old England.

    I welcome this.
    Free at last, free at last, Thank the Lord(and incompetent liberal establishment /immigrant tribes/feminists) FREE at LAST.

    Yes identity determines Moral character, intelligence, motivations and actions.

    Accurately determine identity and one can assert conclusions about all things.

    America is the most successful nation, man for man, and collectively in history because its the most moral and intellectual.
    It follows that such a people would have the moral character, and intellectual confidence to challenge or listen to challenges of important presumptions and doctrines given to them from any direction.

    America would be more creationist if creationist was the smarter idea!
    A line of reasoning.!
    America would find it easy to accept creationism(s) or be sceptical , at least, of evolutionism etc if america was innately of sharper wit.

    Why would we expect Bangladesh, Bulgaria, or Botswana to question the origin establishment of evolutionary biology/geology/cosmology!?

    Why would be perplexed that India, Italy, or Israel don’t show up on the radar along with Anglo-American creationist attacks.?!

    Predictions sometimes do matter in analysis.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    von Braun, the man who sent the Saturn V to the Moon was both a Christian and a Creationist. Somehow, that did not make it into the infamous Lewontin NYRB article in which he characterised “fundies” by the case of a woman who said she doubted the TV broadcasts from the Moon since she could not get Dallas on her set.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    Including the First Church of Darwin, Atheist- in- a- Lab- Coat?

Leave a Reply