Hell Freezes Over At Uncommon Descent

April 21st, 2008 midwifetoad Posted in News |

Despite the snarky title, this is not a cynical post. Something important happened at Bill Dembski’s blog, Uncommon Descent. It is tempting to make fun of the actors in this drama, but I choose not to. I view this as a positive development.

Dave Scot is a much maligned member of Dembski’s inner circle. He can usually be counted on to say things that professional biologists consider laughable. But today he is looking pretty good. He begins:

If there’s any real case to be made for Darwin and the holocaust it’s the opposite of what’s messaged in Expelled. The holocaust resulted from a failure to heed Darwin’s warning that eugenics could only be practiced by sacrificing the noblest part of our nature, the very part and only part that separates us from other animals. Those responsible for the holocaust, beginning with the eugenics movement in America, were the true animals. Those opposed were nobler than the animals.

After taking some heat, he continues:

So should we blame Alfred Nobel (the inventor of dynamite) for suicide bombers? Should we blame Einstein for the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Should we blame Christ for the Spanish Inquisition?

However you answer these questions the same answer applies to blaming Darwin for the holocaust.

…

You’re not making sense. Let’s carry it through. You’re saying it’s not Darwin that’s being demonized but rather his ideas. Fair enough. Let’s separate the men from their ideas. Would you then demonize dynamite, e=mc^2, and the New Testament because these ideas were employed by evil men to accomplish evil deeds?

…

I see you took the low hanging fruit and avoided the better analogy I made about the New Testament and the Spanish Inquisition.

You can’t dismiss the New Testament by calling it a “technology”.

Don’t be a lightweight. Tackle the hard one. How is blaming the holocaust on “The Descent of Man” any different than blaming the Spanish Inquisition on “The New Testament of Jesus Christ”?

…

So we’re back again to Darwin being the inventor of racism with your conclusion:

He indicated as well that the elimination of the men closest to apes would improve man’s evolutionary progress.

So what was the rationale behind the anti-miscegenation laws that predated Darwin by 200 years?

Darwin didn’t invent racism. He talked about it as an academic. I seem to recall we’re supposed to be supportive of academic freedom here.

There’s more. Except for the unlikely possibility that Dave’s account has been hacked by someone from Panda’s Thumb, I’m impressed. I would like to think I could have written those arguments. I’ve certainly written similar.