Currently the US intelligent design (ID) movement seems to be in disarray. They have, for the moment, forgotten their story about ID being a scientific issue. For the moment they have put aside their persistent attacks on science, particularly evolutionary science. Instead they are directing their invective as theistic evolutionist. They are exposing this as a religious fight, not a scientific one.
And it’s getting pretty extreme. Bill Dembski’s called for bloodletting in his comment on Kenneth Miller’s new book Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. Dembski has followed this with other articles attacking theistic evolution. (Mind you he always seems to mention his upcoming book so perhaps he’s using extremism as a gimmick to get publicity).
He labels “theistic evolutionists” as “spineless appeaser.” Accusing them a forming a pact with the devil – with atheistic scientists. And he warns us of how evil the latter are:
“As soon as the atheists have vanquished the more blatant god bothering creationists from post-modern western civilization they’re going to go after the so-called theistic evolutionists. If any one of the theistic evolutionists thinks that the likes of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, or their ilk are going to be happy working side by side with serious theists of any stripe then they have another think coming.”
Talk about paranoia.
Mind you Bill and Dave aren’t the only ones spouting such hysteria. Have a look at the article “Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Vote?” by Tom Willis in the July/August 2008 issue of the newsletter of the Creation Science Association for Mid-America:
“Therefore, in a sane society, evolutionists should not be allowed to vote, or influence laws or people in any way! They should, perhaps, make bricks to earn enough to eat.”
“The arrogance displayed by the evolutionist class is totally unwarrented. The facts warrent the violent expulsion of all evolutionists from civilized society. I am quite serious that their danger to society is so great that, in a sane society, they would be, at a minimum, denied a vote in the administration of the society, as well as any job where they might influence immature humans, e.g., scout, or youth, leader, teacher and, obviously, professor” (original spelling).
It’s all part of the attempt to demonise atheists, on the one hand, and evolutionary scientists, on the other. They purposely label evolutionary science as Darwinism and scientists as Darwinists. By using this -ism they hope to create a public perception of Darwinists as the new communists or Nazis.
Wake up and smell the daisies.
The fact is that in our our modern pluralist western civilisation people with different beliefs can and do coexist. In my career I worked with scientists who were Chrsitians, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu. And those are only the religions I knew about. From time to time we may have had friendly discussions about religion and philosophy. But religious belief never came into our work. There is no such thing as an atheist science, a Christian science, a Buddhist science, a Muslim science or a Hindu science. Science deals with evidence – not belief.
We certainly never felt any need for bloodletting, to “go after” each other, to deny basic human rights to each other or force them to “make bricks to earn enough to eat.”
Isn’t that what the Nazis, Stalinists and Maoists did?