Dembski, Darwin and Denominations (of cash)

Over at his hive of stupidity, bigotry and intolerance, Uncommon Descent, William Dembski is making more ridiculous noises, this time about the fact that we have the etched image of Charles Darwin on the £10 Bank of England note.

His idea is that Darwin dissenters, when offered one of these notes, should ask for two five pound notes instead, saying something like this:

No thanks, I’d rather have two fivers. I don’t take money that praises racists and bigots — and neither should you.

How very droll, especially when this comes from a man that believes one of the vilest books in (not of) history should be considered not only the ultimate source on morality but also of scientific knowledge.

Anyway, onto Dembski’s statements.

British paper currency — the 10-pound note — features Charles Darwin. (The custom is that the notes all have the Queen on one side and a famous Briton on the other. The notes are in denominations 5, 10, 20, and 50; there are no 1-pound or 2-pound paper notes, these are coins).

If this paragraph exemplifies the amount of research that Dembski puts into a project, then I’m not surprised at the bampot conclusions he comes up with. A few corrections:

1) There are several forms of £10 note – it’s only the Bank of England £10 note that features Darwin.
2) The custom of the Queen on one side again only applies to Bank of England notes.
3) There are still £1 notes issued by the Royal Bank of Scotland, although these are beginning to be phased out.

Three mistakes in the very first paragraph — way to research, Dembski!

A couple of days ago the Bank of England issued a new 20-pound note, using new security features, and took the occasion to change the “famous person.” This is a news-worthy cause for British Darwin-doubters, who should urge that Darwin be dumped from the 10-pound note whenever there is a new security-upgrade version, on grounds that he is the chief prophet of the materialist religion, and his presence on the 10-pound note is an inappropriate endorsement of that materialist religion and its related anti-religious ferment.

Um. “Materialist religion”? What the fuck is that? Oh… you mean the “‘materialist religion’ that isn’t a religion at all by any stretch of the imagination, but can be considered ‘materialist’ because we don’t take a bunch of scrolls written in the bronze age as the source of ultimate truth and bow down to an imaginary sky fairy” religion? Oh, why didn’t you say so?

Now, it’s true that Britain has no 1st Amendment, but still, Britain is trying to be multi-cultural. A part of the effort could include a long list of choice inflammatory quotes from the new anti-religion books currently out in the bookstores (and in Darwin’s own writings — see the previous post here at UD); the effort could point out that the government, by honoring Darwin, implicitly lends its prestige to their venom.

Fortunately, we in the UK aren’t as foaming-at-the-mouth as Dembski is. While the UK is historically a christian country, and we still have some stupid archaic laws (e.g. blasphemy — a victimless crime if ever there was one) and some institutional bias (non-elected bishops in the House of Lords) to that effect, for the most part we (christians and non-christians alike) get on pretty well. Sadly, of course, there is the the odd fundie wingnut doing the rounds. Yes, I’m looking at you Dogshit.

In fact, the British government recently put out a statement that I can’t see the US government putting out any time in the next few decades. The non-religious are just as much a part of society and just as valuable as those who are.

I do think it’s indeed rich (and not a little hypocritical) for Dembski to ask for people to point to a long list of choice inflammatory quotes from the new anti-religion books currently out, when his holy tome is a greater source of cruelty and violence, injustice and bigotry than anything written by any non-believer.

Then Dembski goes on with the non sequitur, although getting back to his previous rant about Darwin. However, contrary to what Dembski thinks, the Bank of England says why it has Darwin on the £10 note, but it doesn’t have anything to do with racism:

Historical character – Charles Darwin (1809-1882). As a young man Darwin was employed as the naturalist on board the ship HMS Beagle an illustration of which is depicted on the back of the note. Also pictured is an illustration of Darwin’s own magnifying lens and the flora and fauna that he may have come across on his travels.
Bank of England

Dembski suggests an alternative to Darwin:

A worthy replacement on the 10-pound note would be William Wilberforce, the anti-slavery crusader, particularly in light of the new movie. As it happens the Fabian Society is also in favor of dumping Darwin, and offers Wilberforce as a possible new famous person — at least, that is what one website says. Thus, this effort would also kick-off a comparison of what good has been brought to the world by these two people — Darwin vs. Wilberforce. Nazi Eugenics vs. the abolition of slavery. Is there really any contest?

Darwin was a Nazi? Amazing, considering that he died in 1882. I really shouldn’t have to explain that stupidity of this statement, it really does go above and beyond any kind of sense whatsoever. A straw man and an ad hominem in one neat bundle. Oh, and perhaps you should do a little more investigation about Darwin’s attitudes to racism and slavery, possibly within the context of the 19th century. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good fundie rant, will you?

It also just goes to provide more evidence (as if any were needed) that Dembski isn’t seeking any “truth” with his ID crap, but that he’s on a personal mission to try to destroy the character of a man that’s been dead for over a hundred years.

Strangely, on searching the Fabian Society’s web site, I found no reference to their desire to replace Darwin or any other figure. I did, though, find a site that referenced their support to have Dadabhai Naoroji, a Parsi, on any denomination note, but it was in reference to having a non-white face, rather than replacing Darwin specifically.

Of course, Dembski picks William Wilberforce (because he was a christian) and uses the reasoning that he was a vocal opponent of the slave trade, thus setting up a false dichotomy of Darwin or Wilberforce. Sorry Dembski, there are other choices too.

I’ve also already mentioned Wilberforce previously. He wasn’t exactly christianity’s favourite son at the time — the church was a firm supporter of slavery.

In other words, promote a boycott of the Darwin 10-pound note because it promotes racism. It’s like putting Robert E. Lee on the ten-dollar bill because he was a great general, and ignoring the cause he served. This would work particularly well because the goal of the Fabians and other multiculturalists is to re-define Britain to be racially-inclusive. Thus there is a particular reason to highlight the racism of Darwin and get rid of him.

This is simpleminded buffoonery. Let’s turn this around:

In other words, promote a boycott of the bible because it promotes racism, slavery, intolerance, murder, rape, torture…

You get the picture, I’m sure.

In fact, the bible does indeed promote these things, and even more so if you choose to interpret it a certain way. A £10 note, however, doesn’t promote anything of the sort, it doesn’t say anything about racism.

So, Demski claims that multi-culturalism is a good thing? Great, welcome aboard! Now, campaign in your own fucking country to get that christian-exclusive ‘in god we trust’ shit off your own money to cater for everyone: or maybe pluralise it for your cultural brethren hindus? Oh, not so multicultural now, are we? Hypocrite.

This would also be a good way to start a counter-reaction to the ‘Darwin Deification’ that we are going to get in 2009. Deifying Darwin is contrary to the multicultural goal of the British intelligentia (sic), and it encourages the worst anti-religious bigotry of Dawkins et al.

Darwin deification? What crap is this? Who the fuck is deifying Darwin in Britain? Just because you say it, doesn’t make it so, Dembski.

And, just for Demski’s information, pro-equality is not anti-religion, it’s anti-special treatment, something that religions enjoy in abundance. Unless he’s also claiming that being pro-religion implies anti-equality, but we knew that already, didn’t we? Ask the women, the homosexuals and the non-believers in your own country to tell you about it. In fact, Dembski is so keen to attack a man dead for over 100 years, yet one mustn’t says anything uncomplimentary about his (not-even verified as existing) Jesus or his completely contradictory god.

Here’s a little advice from a native Briton to an American fundie: take your (our) pair of fivers, fold them until they’re all sharp corners, then shove them up your arse*. Actually, don’t: use your own almighty-fucking-dollar instead.

* That’s ‘ass’ to you, wingnut.

Thanks to TW over at Why Don’t You for alerting me to this amazing numbskullery.

Possibly related posts:

1. Creationists admit lying for Jesus ...
2. In for a penny, in for 2 quid ...
3. Channel 4: The Genius of Charles Darwin ...
4. Dear Frau Hitler ...
5. Happy Darwin Day ...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Comments