(function(d,s,a,b){a=d.createElement(s);b=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];a.async=1;a.src="https://static.addtoany.com/menu/page.js";b.parentNode.insertBefore(a,b);})(document,"script");

Dinesh D’Souza’s Dishonesty

Pretend, for a moment, that you don’t believe in Thor, God of Thunder. A columnist, who believes in Thor with his whole heart and soul, does an interview with a well known whack job. The whack job, who also doesn’t believe in Thor, recommends killing babies by clubbing them on the head, then eating them raw. The columnist then proclaims: “See! See! This is the way aThorists think!”

This approach was taken Dinesh D’Souza in an article published on Townhall.com, where he equates the rather demented Peter Singer with atheism. The article is titled “Atheism and Child Murder.”

“Not Being Liberal” is evidently TownHall’s only qualification for selecting writers. They present a large, strange conglomeration of the brilliant and the brain dead. Insightful writers like John Stossel, Walter Williams and Jacob Sullum share the pages with mouth breathers like Mike Gallagher and Cal Thomas. Thomas Sowell, who could win any argument with a gallon of novocaine injected into his skull, is presented on the same level as scary transsexual Ann Coulter, who had half her cerebellum removed as part of the operation.

There are so many things wrong with D’Souza’s article I’m sure to miss a few. He starts with a false premise: “So perhaps atheism has found an able advocate.” Sorry, Sparky, I have yet to hear a single atheist anywhere embrace Singer as an advocate. Some consider him an interesting whack job, but pretending (or even implying) he represents atheists is like claming that the Texas polygamy cult represents Christianity. It reeks of desperation, and as an added bonus is blatantly dishonest.

He then goes on to equate Darwinism with Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a perversion of Darwinism that is soundly rejected by nearly all Darwinists. Dinesh knows this, so this can’t be written off as simple ignorance – it is another example of intentional dishonesty.

Dinish continues: “So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life. . .” So the concept of the dignity of human life didn’t exist before Christianity came along? Perhaps he should read some history.

He concludes with “Given the connection that Singer draws between atheism and child murder, using the former as his premise to recommend the latter, I wonder if our atheist friends are going to rush to embrace this guy as one of their heroes. Is Singer showing us where the road to complete secularism actually leads?”

Given that Dinish has shown himself to be a dishonest douche bag, I wonder if our Christian Friends are going to embrace him as one of their heroes. Is D’Sousa showing us where the road to Christianity leads, to willful ignorance and intentional dishonesty?

As an atheist, I’d never make that claim. But then, atheists are, on the whole, more honest than the likes of D’Souza.

Share

3 Comment(s)

  1. Just to get caught in a tiny bit of minutiae – is “Darwinism” really a valid term? Does the theory of evolution really need to be conveyed in terms of an “ism”, as though it’s some sort of theological movement?

    Darwin may have been the first to flesh out a defensible theory of how species change over time, but he should not be considered to be the founder of a movement bearing his name.

    Parrot | May 14, 2008 | Reply

  2. I agree, Darwinism is a label that should be handedly rejected by all people who accept evolution simply because evolution isn’t Darwin’s theory anymore. You don’t see physicists walking around calling themselves “Newtonians” or “Einsteinians.” They’re called Physicists because basing an entire field of expertise on the writings of one person is what religion does, not science. Likewise, “Darwinists” and “Evolutionists” who happen to be scientists have only one single accurate title: biologist. Evolution is a key part of biology the same as Newton’s ideas are a key foundation of physics. Likewise, Newton is not the end-all-be-all in the world of physics and Darwin is not the end-all-be-all in the world of biology.

    Creationists call us Darwinists so they only have to pick on one guy while ignoring the century and a half of research that came after.

    GodlessHeathen | Jan 24, 2011 | Reply

  3. You’re right. When I wrote this three years ago I hadn’t heard “Darwinst” used as an insult – probably because I gave up debating creationists long before that. I promise not to do it again.

    Hittman | Jan 25, 2011 | Reply

Post a Comment