Now I’m a “radical evolutionary atheist”

July 6, 2013 • 8:38 am

The religious and conservative media are parroting the Discovery Institute in the case of Eric Hedin, the Ball State University professor who taught intelligent design and proselytized for Christianity in a science class.  Even the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) simply reproduced a press release from the Discovery Institute about the 7,000 signatures they collected supporting Hedin’s “academic freedom.”

One reader thought the WSJ article was a news piece, but didn’t notice this small disclaimer at the bottom:

Picture 1What the hell?

Anyway, the Christian News Network, which has now shown itself to be The Anti-Evolution Christian News Network, continues to report on and defend Hedin and intelligent design.  In their own post on the Hedin petition, they simply recycle reporting from the Muncie Star-Times, the Discovery Institute, and the Ball State student news paper. (Don’t journalists do their own investigation any more?)

There’s not much new there, but I do love the new way that they characterize me:

Discovery Institute’s David Klinghoffer agrees with West, saying that the committee formation was directly influenced by Jerry Coyne, a radical evolutionary atheist who called Hedin “the nutty professor,” and first alerted the Freedom from Religion Foundation about his questionable teaching.

As far as I know, Klinghoffer never called me a “radical evolutionary atheist,” so I suspect this is the Christian paper’s own characterization. I’m not quite sure what a “radical evolutionary atheist is” (is it an atheist who evolves?), but it definitely an attempt to dismiss me (and Hedin’s other opponents) with a slur.

I will thus characterize Klinghoffer, the Christian News Network, and the Discovery Institute as “radical creationist superstitionists.”

h/t: Diane

91 thoughts on “Now I’m a “radical evolutionary atheist””

  1. “I will thus characterize Klinghoffer, the Christian Post, and the Discovery Institute as “radical creationist superstitionists.”

    You are being far too kind.

  2. “Don’t journalists do their own investigation any more?”

    Most journalists are more interested in sales of their stories, than in the truth. Given that creationists are a substantial part of US population, it’s tempting to write or publish stories that might appeal to them. And never forget that many journalists are actually quite lazy.

    1. I don’t see any point in slandering all journalists, THAT seems to me a quite lazy characterization, and a bit arrogant too. There are good, dedicated journalists and bad ones, just as among scientists. The Wall St. Journal, unfortunately since its purchase by Murdoch, has more of the bad kind.

        1. The best I can say of most journalists is that they aren’t. They’re just copypaste editors.

      2. I did not refer to ALL journalists, and yes there are definitely good journalists. No doubt about that. However, since news paper has to be sold, there is a strong pressure to publish “sensational” articles to satisfy the public. Further I have seen a lot of examples of bad journalism (also of good examples), and for some reason there seems to be more examples of bad than good journalism.

        The economic pressure on newspapers has a negative effect, that many newspaper publishers are replacing the good, integer journalists with the bad ones.

      3. I think we saw the quality of American “journalism” demonstrated during the run-up to the Iraq war.

        1. That may have been more the powers of the publishers that foot the bills. The real information was out there; but no major outlet chose to run with it.

    2. Don’t journalists do their own investigation any more?

      The words “Christian News Network” and “journalist” should NEVER, EVER combined in ANY way. I think we can say the same thing about anything that Murdock is involved.

      Let’s get real: all references to “journalists” in this context are most appropriately replaced with the words “obfuscating, half-truthing, misinforming, lying assholes” (or jackasses if you prefer).

        1. The AP bought the story, so any of their subscribers is free to run it.

          If you’ve wondered why so many news “sources” seem to have the exact same story, it’s because they do, and they mostly get them from the AP and Reuters. There’s damned little independent reporting these days.

          b&

          1. Yeah that’s what I figured – grab it from the AP and just edit it a bit and put it up there. Don’t bother actually reporting that way they don’t need a real reporter to do anything and can just get a copy editor to do the work.

          2. Yeah that’s what I figured – grab it from the AP and just edit it a bit and put it up there. Don’t bother actually reporting that way they don’t need a real reporter to do anything and can just get a copy editor to do the work.

          3. Newspapers are fighting for their lives these days. Most journalists and editors (those that still have jobs) would love to return to the days of full staffing levels and story column space. But papers are an endangered species.

      1. You mean I overshot? Shit. It’s kinda hard for a BAAWA Knight — especially of Blasphemy — to gauge that whole civility thing…feels like I’m trying to whittle toothpicks with a battle axe….

        b&

        1. I’d say so.

          How’s a person to know you’re a legitimate, (quasi) acceptable atheist when you observe polite social conventions like that?

          You know, a nihilistic, fatalistic, self-loathing, nearly suicidal atheist.

          Now go home and work on “unimproving” your attitude!

          1. SIR! FUCK YOU, SIR!

            (And please don’t tell me we’re on the obstacle course today. God, I hate the obstacle course….)

            b&

      1. Was it not the consensus of the comments here that such debates are not particularly useful?

        I’m more curious about whether Hedin has anything to say for himself. It might be the case that he prefers playing ventriloquist for the DI, but I don’t recall Jerry saying he contacted the man directly to listen to any defense he might have.

        1. Seems to me Hedin’s had plenty of opportunity to chime in if he wants to.

          Your question, though, makes me wonder if he’s ever spoken out on the matter himself, or if he just turned immediately to the gawd lobby.

          1. If I were him, I’d lay low and also cringe every time the DI said anything.

          2. Yeah, i’m not sure. With the recent ball state hire of that DI fellow, there must be some sort of mutual masturbation between BSU and the DI; Hedin must have felt these journalists and the DI would protect him better than doing it himself. Personally, I would want to say something…

  6. “Don’t journalists do their own investigation any more?”

    No.

    The WSJ has never been an objective newspaper. They interviewed me for an article 30? years ago and published the opposite of what I told them.

    1. Yes, I recall in the 1980s that they published the phone number for the Michigan State Board of Education, along with the fuzzy directive to readers to call the number, because, one might wish to do that.

      The sin of the Michigan State Board of Education was to drop “God” from their mission statement/charter. And the WSJ went after them, full bore. And then judged, and absolved themselves of all responsibility, when the Mich State BoE phone system was rendered inoperable due to the incessant calling.

      What? No business news to pursue???!!

      1. You’d think after Daniel Pearl they’d be more cautious about siding up to religious fundamentalists of any stripe.

        They did once publish a pro-stem-cell-research letter I sent them, too, so they’re capable of moments of sanity.

    1. I thought you were only a radical evolutionary if you were conducting evolution research while simultaneously catching a wave off Malibu.

  8. “…radical creationist superstitionists.”

    Creationists and other superstitious types are historically the norm, not the exception, so I’m not sure about radical; rabid, maybe. Not that I don’t like the phrase as is. In any case, any descriptions accurately denigrating the erroneous & completely unnecessary contradiction with reality that is creationism and/or superstition needs to achieve status as meme pronto.

  9. This seems to be a good case to fight.

    Hopefully some media will eventually start to examine their sources.
    Of course, any christian biased journalist (it seems to be hordes of them) will indeed call any atheist criticizing their faith a “radical evolutionary atheist”.

    It’s a sign you’re doing something right.
    You are threatening their gullible faith, to boot.

    1. It’s a sign you’re doing something right.

      Where there’s light, there’s bugs.

  10. shouldn’t that be “radical creationary theists”?

    makes as much sense.

  11. ““radical creationist superstitionists.”

    Good, but Jerry…you misspelled “cretinist.”

  13. Dr. Jerry Coyne mused:
    I’m not quite sure what a “radical evolutionary atheist is”

    I’m pretty sure it means “someone who doesn’t accept any unsupported claims about the supposed existence and activities of any supernatural beings or happenings,” as opposed to someone who only accepts a few of these claims.

    In other words, someone who puts all deities, from Yahweh to Hindu Monkey, into the same evidential category.

  14. I also like “Coyne and the atheists”, which I’ve seen in some articles, because it seems like a god name for a band.

  15. Since you reacted to this so quickly and energetically, does this make you a free radical evolutionary atheist?

  18. Seems like “radical evolutionary atheist” is a title to be proud of.

    I take it to mean “advocate of free access to truth, passionate about understanding natural reality, undeterred by fear of superstition or social convention”.

    To not be a radical evolutionary atheist is to be very confused or else uncritically submissive to inherited beliefs because of either ignorance or fear of reprisals.

    That WSJ piece is an example of “paid content”, a cancerous epidemic of dishonest commercialism that is threatening to ruin the integrity of online news sites that engage in it. It is basically an advertisement posing as a news article. Sleazy, dishonest, and repulsive. I would suggest readers boycott any on-line journal that uses paid content.

  19. They are just making Jerry more famous!

    That can only be a good thing for him and the Radical Evolutionary Atheist Movement.

    1. Acronym “REAM”. I leave it to the reader to supply the obvious connection to the creationist movement…

  20. I assumed since “radical” is associated with “evolutionary” that the biochemical use of the word was implied. Therefore, Jerry must have some unpaired electrons.

        1. I suspect you’re a mole in the radical evolutionary atheist conspiracy.

        3. I cation you against the overuse of chemistry puns.

          I agree. Such a solution could precipitate all manner of basic problems.

          b&

          1. Quite frankly, the Christian News Network’s tone strikes me as acidic.

  21. A religious radical bombs abortion clinics, flies planes into skyscrapers, or wears a suicide backpack. A radical atheist writes books. So yeah, Jerry is a radical atheist.

    1. Someone might want to e-mail your comment to the newspapers that ran the “Dr. Coyne is a radical…” article, just to provide a little proportion.

      1. Hear, hear. Rile up the whiners, sit back, and enjoy the inevitable gush of indignant ignorance that erupts.

    2. Radicals are well known for swimming against the tide , so I guess Jerry and atheists in general are indeed radicals.

  22. Um … did everyone miss the fact that the Christian News Network described the Discovery [sic] Institute as “an influential creation organization”? That’s something the DI always denies (“ID is only about the science”).

    Of course, we on the side of science have been saying that for years.

    But so have been the faithful.

    The only people who keep denying the obvious are the DI.

    2. Well, considering that the DI’s “cover” has been limited to “we’re not the creationists you’re looking for, go about your business…”

  23. And all this time I thought you were an anti-dog egghead ivory tower commie pinko Marxist leftist.

    How could I be so wrong?

  24. I think the term “radical evolutionary atheist” is so far undefined in any reasonable sense.

    In any case, if *they* are the alternative, then I’d be happy to be labelled a radical evolutionary atheist.

  25. I wish i were important enough to have someone call me that, your so lucky Jerry, green with envy.

  26. Its sad that the religion that preaches “turn the other cheek” and “do not bare false witness” must constantly perform slander and character assassination… since they have no other defense/evidence.

    1. bare false witness

      Best. Misspelling. Ever.

      But, it would certainly liven up court hearings!

      (And, your point is excellent)

Comments are closed.