IDealogues Insulting Theistic Evolutionists

| 9 Comments | 1 TrackBack

I have lately been engaged in a conversation that is just making me more and more annoyed. It began with a blogger named Rusty Lopez saying,

Yet, one wonders what thoughts the likes of Eugenie Scott, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, et. al., are having as they smirk behind Miller's back.
And quoting Bill Dembski saying,
Not to put too fine a point on it, the Darwinian establishment views theistic evolution as a weak-kneed sycophant that desperately wants the respectability that comes with being a full-blooded Darwinist but refuses to follow the logic of Darwinism through to the end. It takes courage to give up the comforting belief that life on earth has a purpose. It takes courage to live without the consolation of afterlife. Theistic evolutionists lack the stomach to face the ultimate meaninglessness of life, and it is this failure of courage that makes them contemptible in the eyes of full-blooded Darwinists.

I pointed out that this is both insulting and hypocritical, since the only ones showing any contempt for theistic evolutionists (TEs) at this point are Dembski and Rusty, who dismiss them as dull sheep too stupid to realize that their friends are laughing at them behind their backs. You can follow that discussion here and here. Alas, it seems Rusty and Dembski are not alone.

I'm very disappointed to see Bill Wallo join Rusty in insulting all of his fellow Christians who are theistic evolutionists. He, too, cites John West's NRO article, particularly the section wherein the Understanding Evolution website points out that evolution is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity, then says:

As West notes, the use of these religious "useful idiots" is part of a concerted strategy by NCSE (and other similarly situated groups) to "defuse skepticism of neo-Darwinism."
This is truly astonishing to me. Does Wallo really think that Howard Van Till, Ken Miller, Glenn Morton, Charles Austerberry, Keith Miller, Davis Young, Wes Elsberry, Rob Pennock, and millions of other theists and Christians who accept evolution are all idiots who are too dull to realize that they're being "used" by those big bad evil atheists like Genie Scott? I dare say that these men know far more about evolution than Bill Wallo will ever know in his lifetime, yet he casually dismisses them as easily manipulated idiots, along with, quite literally, millions of his fellow Christians. Is it possible that he doesn't realize how incredibly offensive and insulting that is? Is it possible that he doesn't realize how irrational it is?

He continues:

Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the NCSE, is a signator on the "Humanist Manifesto III," which proclaims that "humans are . . . the result of unguided evolutionary change." Clearly, she, and many others within NCSE, have no faith in a Divine Being of any sort whatsoever.
And he's right, Genie is not a theist. But so what? Others in the NCSE are. Wes Elsberry is a Christian. Josephine Borgeson is a Christian, and the author of the congregational study guides for the PBS evolution series. Phil Spieth is a Christian. All of these are NCSE staff members. Evolution advocates come from a wide spectrum of different beliefs - atheist, agnostic, deist, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim. Creationists and ID advocates are almost uniformly evangelical Christian, with a Moonie thrown in. Yet the IDCs are absolutely frantic to tie evolution to one single position on religious matters, and they are apparently shameless enough to do so with a straight face.

1 TrackBack

Ed Brayton has a post up at the Panda's Thumb that points out an irritating habit by creationists: they make blanket accusations that evolutionists "smirk behind their back" at Christian Read More


Moonies are evangelical christians.

Only in America could there be a converstation like this. Everyone else in the world has long gotten over the idea that evolution and religion are incompatable. (Oh wait, maybe one exception, somebody told me that Osama bin Laden is a creationist.)

The Pope has said that there is no conflict between religious faith and accepting the scientific reality of evolution. But then I guess these guys don’t consider the Pope to be a true Christian.

Pardon me: I am confused. Can someone point me to resources that illustrate how theism and evolution can, in fact, be compatible?

The only possibility that comes to mind is that God set up the Big Bang, and then left leaving everything up to physical (in contrast with His metaphysical) processes. Is this the religion and evolution are compatible view?

Is it possible that he doesn’t realize how irrational it is?

Not just possible, I’d say quite probable. This is a classic case of projection. People who are intolerant towards other belief systems simply don’t understand pluralism. In their eyes, it’s unthinkable that Christians and atheists can get along and share a common purpose, so there must be some sort of sneaky underhandedness going on. Because that’s what they would do.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 12, column 6, byte 519 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/mach/5.18/XML/ line 187.

In response to Muness Alrubaie:

The interpretation you cite is one possible way to reconcile theism and evolution, but it is not the only one. See the following:

*cough* Th. Dobzhansky *cough*

Moonism, it must be said, is very heterodox in some ways. The Moonies believe that Jesus Christ had failed to set up the perfect family, and that Sun Myung Moon will succeed where he had failed, turning all of humanity in to the perfect family with Moon as its head.

However, Moon gets away with his heresies by being a big moneybags for right-wing causes, like bailing out Jerry Falwell’s college and supporting the money-losing Washington Times newspaper.

Muness Alrubaie


Ed - good post. I have always found the attitude of the ID folk and the YEC types who denigrate Christians who accept evolution to be particularly repugnant.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Ed Brayton published on April 6, 2004 11:13 AM.

Leiter v VanDyke Redux was the previous entry in this blog.

Dumping on Dembski is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter