Darwinism: Avoiding accountability – the textbook two-step
|June 11, 2009||Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design|
At African Ota Benga – the missed link, I posted a comment I thought I would enlarge on:
In my experience, in order to avoid acknowledging Darwinism’s contributions to racism, typical Darwinists perform a little two-step: Darwin = good non-racist; Haeckel = bad racist.
So we blame the “bad” German [WWII losers] for what every “good” British/North American Darwinist [WWII winners] really thought.
And for all I know, what every actual living Darwinist really thinks today.
Otherwise, why can’t they just acknowledge the racism, repent and apologize for it, and get past it? Why are textbooks full of explanations about how Darwin didn’t really support it (which I discovered to be false when introduced to his actual writings on the subject – but how many students are?)
Darwinists are accomplished at avoiding accountability. I experienced their two-step recently when a Darwinist smarmed that he disagreed with his “friend” Richard Dawkins about the wisdom of attacking traditional Christians directly.
Like, I – as a trad Christian – was supposed to be thrilled with the prospect of being attacked indirectly.
The very fact that he was that guy’s “friend” warned me off. (If it’s even true – Dawkins is rich, so lots of people probably imagine themselves his friends.)
For the record, I would rather people attack directly. It makes the job of seeing them off the premises more straightforward.
I don’t think we are ever going to get accountability from these people before we bury them intellectually. I don’t even know what accountability would sound like in their case – it would mean acknowledging that the mind is not simply the brain, for one thing, and that one is not simply the product of one’s genes. So why be a Darwinist at all?
(Note: I posted this first as a comment here, and this version is slightly edited.)