Stranger Fruit

The peanut gallery over at Uncommon Descent seems to be uncommonly interested in beating the Darwinism/Racism meme to death (see here, for example, for my comment on one such post and here and here for Barry Arrington‘s latest ejaculations on the matter; the latter features this historically inaccurate gem: “Darwin was a firmly committed Racist.”).

Dave Springer saw fit to post a piece on “Racism Sans Darwin” which quickly disappeared down the memory hole and got him banned by Arrington for not toeing the party line regarding Darwin being the Uber Racist. Hilariously, Arrington writes:

The moderation policy does not apply to [UD contributers]; you are held to a higher standard. I expect your posts to have at least some tangential relationship to Darwinism, ID, or the metaphysical or moral implications of each. The purpose of this site is not to provide a place for you to jump up and rant on one of your pet peeves. DaveScot will no longer be posting at UD.

So what did DaveScot write?

Since we now seem to be focused on racism instead of design detection and my motto is ?When in Rome do as the Romans do? in order to balance the picture of the theory of evolution?s role in racist movements let?s look at some of the other modern history where evolution isn?t the banner around which racists rally.

[SNIP: Extracts on the Christian Identity Movement]

There?s a lot more at the link along with references linked to the numbers. I?d like to ask the audience to consider where we can find more people in positions of socio-political leadership: Christian church members or people who hold a PhD in evolutionary biology? Darwin, I contend, was a piker when it comes to fomenting racism.

Yup, he went there. He dared suggest that Christians could be or have been racists in the past. And for that he got kicked to the curb. Arrington’s reply? They’re not really Christians … and the Darwinists are worse.

Update: Afarensis beat me to the punch on this one by a few hours.


  1. #1 Tyler DiPietro
    March 16, 2009

    “The moderation policy does not apply to [UD contributers]; you are held to a higher standard.”

    That being that you are never to contradict the cult’s official dogma. And these people are the ones wailing about “academic freedom”?

  2. #2 Sam C
    March 16, 2009


    And these people are the ones wailing about “academic freedom”?

    Ah, but theirs is the “perfect freedom” to do exactly as you are told …or you will face the consequences!

    Who could ever want the freedom to lie? And if you are saying anything that collides with their prejudices, you are clearly lying! So “academic freedom” means debating just how perfect their worldview is, deciding between (a) very perfect, (b) extremely perfect, and (c) wonderfully perfect. Of course, they’ll accept dissent if you want to argue that it’s miraculously perfect!

    This sort of cognitive failure in extreme christians is nothing new – over at Conservacrappopedia, the Trussworthy Encyclopedia, they have a debate about whether there was humor before Christianity. They think there was not – this from a bunch of the most humorless bastards that you would hate to share a dinner table with. Great Fundamentalist Christian Comics would be a sliiiim volume.

  3. #3 Reynold
    March 16, 2009

    Please, tell me you saved a screenshot or this can be found on google cache or something.

  4. #4 Michael
    March 18, 2009

    DaveScott (who is not a Christian) was a problem before his racist post came out, he had a reputation if he had totally his way, he would banned people who disagreed with him even William Dembski himself. The man has an ego the size of three football fields if not more…

    The comparison of the qualifications of being a contributor for Uncommon Descent and academic freedom is a bit unfair. I certainly could not be a contributor for Uncommon Descent because I’m a YEC. So I wouldn’t be able to (even if I was in that position)as a contributor express fully my points since there are differences between ID and YEC. Do I believe this is hypocritical of them because they believe in “academic freedom?” Not really, they have their own bias on science. It’s like saying an ID proponent ought to be posting in the website of NCSE but there is nothing in the academic freedom bill (or in Uncommon Descent) which advocates or requires that very thing to happen. Although having an ID proponent post in NCSE would be interesting to say the least…lol

New comments have been disabled.