PZ Myers is for the most part an honest atheist. He worships and mimics Dawkins for his hate speech.
Case in point: Richard Dawkins. How often have you heard the phrase, “I love Dawkins’ books, but” followed by excuses that he’s too arrogant, he’s too hard on the religious, he’s a militant atheist? He’s “far too fierce”, as if that were a shortcoming.
It’s a strength. Creationists hate the guy because he doesn’t just stand against one ludicrous symptom of their belief system, he goes straight to the root with scathing rhetoric against the whole monumental pile of rickety confabulations. Look at how they react to him:
When creationists carp at the uncompromising atheism of people like Dawkins, let’s not pander to them and thereby validate their complaints by offering up some more palatable Christian proxy, but instead stand up for them. We like them. Have you got a problem with that?
I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact, I welcome it. I am formally extending an invitation for Myers to come here and defend his adulteration of Christianity. I want him to justify why Christianity is worst than child abuse and it is a mental illness, explain why he thinks Mere Christianity was such a lame book and the flaws of Lewis’s trilemma. I am not going to hold my breath for Myers to take up this invitation. He is a coward like Wesley Elsberry. Their rhetoric disintegrates under scrutiny. He is even too cowardly to allow my posts to trackback to his blog.
Myers boast of his bravado for the anger that he incites from the Creationists. I think he really has a thin skin and yelps like a crybaby. His latest diatribe against the Creationists is on Coral Ridge’s program Darwin’s Deadly Legacy
Myers disputes Kennedy’s claim that Hitler’s sadistic rampage was largely based on Darwin’s theology of evolution. I thought he likes to be hated by Christians. You think it would make him ecstatic to be compared with Hitler by the Christians. Besides why act like a little crybaby when he regularly eviscerates Christians and Christianity with the most abusive language possible. Why can’t Myers take just a small portion of what he dishes out, without acting like a little crybaby?
Aside from acting like a little crybaby how did Myers respond to the program? Well Myers is an educated man, a professor of biology, a self profess intellectual and scientist. He responded with his usual impeccable systematic logical dissection of the program. He did a point by point analysis of the arguments presented and he countered with facts disputing the arguments put forth by Darwin’s Deadly Legacy. Oops, I’m sorry, I got confused. It was the program that made the systematic dissection of Darwin’s theory and it’s consequences. Myers just started with ad hominem attacks on all the people that appeared in the program.
“FRANCIS COLLINS??!? WTF? So this is the guy we’re all supposed to be grateful to for showing us how Christianity and evolution can be reconciled, and now he’s going to be a talking head for some creationist propaganda? Thanks, Francis. I guess I’ve been too kind.”
Myers was much kinder to Collins than what he remembers. 😆 When he thought that Collins was a useful idiot for his Darwinian Atheism, Collins was one of his leading lights. Myers went as far as saying Collins was able to do good science as long as he keeps his religion in the closet. So now Collins’s religion is out of the closet, he can’t do good science anymore? What has he done from a scientific perspective that is different?
“Coulter is a nobody, a shrill right-wing harpy with no knowledge of science or history; Weikert, Wells, Johnson, and Behe are Discovery Institute hacks; Ian Taylor is a young earth creationist; Lee Strobel is another creationist. Weikert is the only historian in that list (there’s another in the sample video clip, but so is Ken Ham)”
Myers, like a vampire, whose had his fill of blood, in this case his ad hominem attack on anyone who dares to disagrees or criticize his religion, goes on to make 2 unsupported response to the program.
The premise has two strikes against it. One is that it is ridiculous; Darwin himself was an enlightened fellow for his time who opposed the racism endemic to his culture, and while individuals have twisted the science to support social Darwinism or eugenics, that whole line of reasoning is repudiated by the majority of biologists now. For another, it wouldn’t matter if Darwin had been a vicious anti-semite who had launched racist diatribes the theory is not the founder. William Shockley’s racism did not mean that transistors do not work. Social Darwinism is not the same as evolutionary biology.
So it doesn’t matter if Darwinists are racists but Darwin was not a racist. Let’s be honest here, Myers knows perfectly well that it matters a lot if Charles Darwin was a racist or not, regardless if it has any implication for evolutionary
fairytale biology. If Darwin were a racist, it would be a tremendous blow to the Darwinists PR campaign in today’s society. Imagine a teacher teaching evolution in a biology class, telling the children that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact like gravity is a fact. Charles Darwin was the creator of this great theory. He was also a racist. Please don’t tell the NAACP about this but this is what he said.
Finally, although Darwin opposed slavery, he firmly believed that the evolutionary process had created superior and inferior races. He maintained in Descent of Man that human intellectual development was the product of natural selection and that natural selection had produced significant differences in the mental faculties of men of distinct races. [See Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, pp.109-110, 160, 201, 216.] In the same book, Darwin disparaged blacks and observed that the break in evolutionary history between apes and humans fell between the negro or Australian and the gorilla, indicating that he considered blacks the humans that were the most ape-like. [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201] Darwin also predicted that [a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201.] The racist cast of Darwin’s thought is difficult to deny.
And there is this,
In reality, Charles Darwin was an early booster of both eugenics and the application of his biological theory to issues of race and economics. Darwin’s book The Descent of Man has an entire section devoted to the application of natural selection to civilized societies. Darwin’s discussion opens with the following remarkable complaint, which was echoed again and again by later eugenists:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
[Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition), vol. I, p. 168); emphasis added]
Both of these 2 issues were mentioned in the Coral Ridge program. So when Myers tells you that it is ridiculous; Darwin himself was an enlightened fellow for his time who opposed the racism endemic to his culture, who are you going to believe, Myers or your lying eyes? If you think people have problem believing in Darwinism now, just wait ’til they learn the truth about the founder of this theology.
But Myers did say the theory is not dependent on the personal believe of the founder. This is a fair argument. As a Christian, I’ve made the same argument against the injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity. The only thing is that ideas do have consequences. Darwin’s idea as espoused by him linking his theory to racism and eugenics has consequences. His disciples in the form of Hitler and Karl Marx led to the deaths of millions. Regardless if his theory of evolution is scientifically correct or not it did have tragic consequences. This was at least part of the message in the Coral Ridge program. Myers can complaint all he wants but the program was factually correct.
Myers boasts his prowess as a scientist, his ability for rational and logical thinking compared to the mentally insane Creationists, but all he can come up with to rebut the Creationist propaganda are ad hominem and a couple of factual errors.
Myers made this brilliant rebuttal before he’s even seen the program. Well, you can imagine his response must have been even more dazzling after he saw Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, right?
Yup, you guess it. He went right to the ad hominem and then tossed out a laundry list of quotes by Hitler that supposedly link his actions to Christianity. I wonder if this brilliant scientist, a loving (unscientifically speaking of course because there is no prove of that) father, a genius logician and defender of science against the mentally ill Creationists, can demonstrate if anyone before Hitler or after Hitler, or Hitler himself, how his genocidal homicides can be found in the pages of the Bible? Did the Jewish writers of the Bible or Charles Darwin the founder of evolutionary theology gave justification to the views that Hitler espoused?