I keep finding great comments on the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
kerfuffle triggered by Dubya's recent comment. Latest example is from
Sissy
Willis (via Instapundit):
[I]t's hard to tell the difference between the fundamentalists'
no-prisoners approach and that of the P.C. thought police on the other
side of the cultural divide.
So true. I will, however, take issue with Sissy on this:
But don't confuse some people with the facts. They'd rather get it
wrong from the start and run with it if it furthers their agenda. Take
"Intelligent Design" proselytizer Paula Weston, who concluded, based
upon a willful misreading of Darwin, that his theory of evolution
"provides fuel for racist attitudes."
No doubt Ms. Weston is easily refuted on other matters; her website
is "Answers in Genesis", so I imagine it's pretty
much fish in a barrel over there. But
you don't have to willfully misread Darwin to
get a snootful of his own overt
racism, never mind finding fuel for
racist attitudes. One of
Sissy's commenters helfully
points to The Descent of Man, which contains
among other gems:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no
doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will
then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised
state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a
baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the
gorilla.
Ouch! Of course, very few if any
modern Darwinistas would agree with this, unless you
get them drunk.
Posted
2005-08-07 10:01 AM EDT
Last Modified
2012-10-26 10:11 AM EDT