First they came for the Jews. Then they came for the IDers. Or they will if commenter Steve B. at the anti-ID blog Panda's Thumb has his way. Read his clarification of a previous suggestion that Darwin's survival of the fittest idea be pursued to its logical conclusion:
Dayan,
NO it wasn't a parody - here let me try again.
Roughly:
1) Evolution is objectively real.
2) IDists deny the reality of evolution which makes them unfit.
3) It follows that since IDists are unfit they should not survive because they hinder evolutionary progress. (I think that We Need To Own This.)
Implementation:
A) How far is one willing to go to act on #3?
a) For the most part PT exists is to act on #3.
Example:
Participants on PT routinely use justifiably hateful and dehumanizing language to describe IDists or anyone who even suggests that TOE may not be correct.
Question:
With this much intensity why not advocate carrying our efforts to their fullest extent since doing so is consistent with the reality of evolution?
Now I know that anyone can write a comment to a blog, and this guy sounds like one of the Boys From Brazil, but...his argument is illustrative of a serious problem that naturalism cannot escape. If naturalism is true there's no reason why someone should not accept the implications of his argument, i.e. start killing off the IDers. If the people at Panda's Thumb, who are mostly atheistic naturalists, are correct then although they may be repelled by the Steve B.'s among them, they really have no answer to them. In a world without God surely might makes right, and in a world wherein the supreme law is the survival of the fittest, killing those who are deemed in whatever way unfit makes perfect sense. Steve B. just sees this more clearly than do his pals at PT.
HT: Uncommon Descent
This isn't the first echo of a Darwinian night of the long knives that we've had occasion to post about. See here for another.
