Kevin Wirth Says “Darwinists” are Terrorists

Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers

Modern terrorists. If you see either of these men,
contact the FBI immediately! Do not approach them.
They are armed with uncomfortable ideas!

I thought Kevin Wirth would have to work pretty hard to top his prior whopper that Ben Stein is the modern Rosa Parks, but he did it! He now claims that “Darwinists” are terrorists!

The article is titled “Mr. Obama: The Rule of Law Should Apply to All Forms of Terrorism”. He starts by praising Obama for being against torture. Then he reminds us that Obama is actually evil. Kevin quotes some other writer, who says that Obama has a:

…radical pro-abortion, pro-infanticide agenda….

Kevin doesn’t temper this statement at all, so he’s wimping out and letting some other writer carry the heavy lifting on abortion. Kevin learned this technique from watching cop shows. In this case, it is known as the “bad writer, worse writer” technique. Kevin only wants to be known as the guy who doesn’t understand science, not the guy who wants to oppress women.

He then drops abortion completely and forgets he even mentioned it. I’m guessing the only reason that quote is even in there is because old Kevin was working the mine that day collecting quotes, and that one fell into the wrong ore car. He was planning to use it some other time. Or maybe he just can’t help himself. That entire article only has three quotes in it. Without the abortion quote, it would only have two. Then Kevin would be forced to make up for the missing text by actually constructing his own sentences and forming his own thoughts.

I wish he’d write more of his own stuff, though, and stop relying on others. That’s because Kevin’s stuff is so freakin’ hilarious! Here is where he goes next in his article:

There is a more far-reaching and legitimate question that pops into my mind as I consider Obama’s approach: will he consistently defend the rights of Americans who are currently being subjected to different forms of abuse that I’m beginning to think might qualify as terrorism?

I’m intrigued. What could Kevin’s “Ben Stein = Rosa Parks” imagination come up with now that could possibly be equivalent to flying airliners into the World Trade Center?

Especially at risk are the rights of dissidents within our citizen ranks. How are we protecting these ordinary citizens when their freedoms come under attack?

Oh no! There are dissidents within our ranks who are under attack? Even being slaughtered? In my America? How could that be? Obama must do something!

Well, there currently exists under Obama’s watch perhaps one of the most onerous abuses of our freedoms and Civil Rights that one could imagine.

Oh, no! Obama has already let us down!

I’m speaking about Americans, not Islamic terrorists.

Actually, a lot of the people tortured at Gitmo weren’t terrorists, but Kevin isn’t concerned about that. Americans are being tortured on American soil! I think. Actually I guess he’s implying that they’re being almost tortured! That’s worse! They’re Americans, dammit! Not brown people! White Americans are being almost-tortured! Actually, they don’t all have to be white. Kevin would get upset if they were black, too. He’d send his good friend and civil rights warrior Ben Stein over to rescue them.

Many of the freedoms guaranteed to all Americans are currently and have been under attack, but these actions are usually referred to as discrimination. I’m beginning to wonder if these actions shouldn’t be classified as a form of terrorism.

Yeah! They… What? I thought you were talking about torture, not discrimination. Sure, discrimination is serious business. If it were really occurring, we’d all be quite upset. Things would have to get fixed, and quickly. But having to drink out of the “colored” drinking fountain isn’t terrorism. (And I have a feeling that in Kevin’s case, he’s worried that the drinking fountain he has to use is labeled “creationist”.)

Who is under attack?

Gee. I don’t know. Do they possibly have difficulty comprehending scientific concepts?

The dissidents in our culture.

No, Kevin. That “D” on your biology report card doesn’t stand for “Dissident”.

These are the folks who challenge the conventional views held within our scientific, philosophical, and academic communities.

Because gravity is so controversial!

But they are often made to pay a huge price for speaking their mind.

Actually, they usually end up with a cushy job at the Discovery Institute, or they get deluded millionaires to give them millions of dollars to make bad documentaries.

Many freedoms have been stripped from dissident educators, students, and scientists who disagree with conventional wisdom on issues considered settled by many experts.

Such as the “freedom” to teach Biblical creation stories to public school students. And the “freedom” to be completely clueless about your field of study and expect the department to not fire your incompetent ass.

They are often dismissed as kooks, pseudoscientists, and charlatans who we should either ignore or consider as serious threats to the survival of our society — depending on who you talk to.

That’s the first accurate statement Kevin has made in this entire article! Maybe he’s capable of learning after all!

The problem is, these dissidents often turn out to have their finger on some aspect of reality that conventional wisdom overlooks.

By “often”, Kevin means one time out of a million. Most people who “disagree” with real science are astrologers, dowsers, homeopaths, psychics, faith healers, anti-vaxers, Oprah, etc. Kevin sure is in rigorous intellectual company!

Many dissidents not only lose their jobs, but their careers are often ruined.

I didn’t know “teaching the Bible in public schools” was a viable career option.

The impact of such actions often results in the failure of marriages and families, and financial losses that are at times unrecoverable, and plunge victims into many years or even a lifetime of debt.

Such are the consequences of sucking at your job. Might I suggest a career more in line with your intellectual capacity? I hear Chick-fil-A is hiring. And they close on Sundays, so you can go to church!

Darwin skeptics are but one group of dissidents who have suffered incredible losses for their views.

We’ve been hearing this tired old trope from you for years, Kevin.

Look. Here’s how you know if you have good chocolate. Throw it against the wall. If it sticks, it’s good chocolate!

Your “Darwin skeptic” chant is hitting a Teflon wall. You’re trying to sell that really crappy stuff they make Easter bunnies out of. Give it up. Go find something marketable. No one wants your shit.

The clear practice of religious and viewpoint discrimination against them, which has played out in the background of our culture for decades, has only recently surfaced as a barely noticeable issue in 2008 with the release of the movie “Expelled” and the publication of the book “Slaughter of the Dissidents.

Plug it Kevin! Plug your book like it’s a stool pigeon in a bad gangster movie!

This matter is significant for several reasons, but this one stands out: if one class of people can be denied their constitutionally protected freedoms, then so can any other group.

So, Kevin, where are you on the whole gay marriage issue? That’s a real constitutional question, not your made-up “Darwin doubter” fantasy. Those are real rights being suppressed. Your “dissidents” and “skeptics” have never demonstrated that their rights are being consistently suppressed.

This issue is also important because in the end, the result of this brand of discrimination breeds a form of intellectual terrorism that has stripped the academic and scientific communities of dissenters who might otherwise offer an important and much-needed perspective to their students and colleagues.

There’s his terrorism again. Even if what he claims were really occurring, it isn’t terrorism. He has a few more paragraphs where he continues to beat this horse, but he gets nowhere with it. It died back in paragraph one.

15 Responses to “Kevin Wirth Says “Darwinists” are Terrorists”

  1. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Pro-infanticide? Man, the right wing just gets crazier every day! No wonder only like — what — 25% of kids are registering Republican these days?

    Fiscal Conservatives, please take back your party from your “special needs” cousins, the Social Conservatives. Please! I beg!!!

  2. TheRealistMom Says:

    Is it wrong of me to be feeling almost “pro-advanced-infanticide” when it comes to some of these people? As in, if you haven’t moved beyond the logical capacity of a toddler and still spout bullshit in a public forum, maybe you’d qualify?

  3. Wackadoodle Says:

    I’d bet my car this idiot did finish his rant about the awful discrimination suffered by people fired for preaching *ID/creationism is just so they can teach Christianity as fact* instead of doing their job, then turned around and whined about not being able to fire someone just for being gay. *still can in most states*

  4. Jeff Eyges Says:

    So, if you fire a science teacher for not knowing jack about science – you’re a terrorist. But if you get into peoples’ faces, screaming, “YOU’RE GOING TO HELLLLL!” – you’re not a terrorist.

    Just checking.

  5. J. A. Baker Says:

    Oh, great. Now the Oklahoma legislature is going to cite this piece as evidence in their continued harassment of Richard Dawkins.

  6. Another Steve Says:

    As I read the article, I thought for sure numb nut was talking about gay people who’ve recently had their right to marry scrubbed away from them in CA. As usual, I give the religious right too much credit…sigh.

  7. Helena Says:

    they don;t help themselves. Do you know who else was keenly interested in desecrating hosts? the Marquis de Sade. I only hope Myers didn’t do the same things to his that de Sade writes about. What did he think that was going to do except make reasonable people hate him and dispose them against reason? As for Dawkins–if only he could distinguish between fundamentalism and religion and could get even the most basic idea of what religion is: then he might be able to talk about it without embarrassing himself.

  8. José Says:

    In this case, it is known as the “bad writer, worse writer” technique.

    Oh, how I wish I’d come up with that one.

  9. Brian Says:


    WTF? I suppose kind and polite criticism of “moderate” religious beliefs will encourage such people to abandon their faith? Please, when have such people ever demonstrated a willingness to side with reason over their more extreme fundie brethren?

    Myers so-called desecration was, let’s not forget, a response to a Florida institute of higher learning persecuting a student for committing the same “offense”. No one seems to pay any attention to the draconian measures taken on behalf of the Catholic church to punish a student for the trivial charge of cracker molestation. And if religious moderates are horrified by an act that doesn’t respect their weird cannibalism rite, how in the name of Zeus do you expect them to listen to a reasonable criticism of faith?

    As for Dawkins, well, you have a curious definition of embarrassment. I’d like to know, specifically, what he has said that leads you to think he doesn’t understand religion in general. Based on his books, it seems clear to me that he fully understands the religion phenomenon and is perfectly able to field unscreened questions about his opinions from anyone in any forum. Far from embarrassing himself, with every inane questioner he demolishes he just proves his point even more.

  10. Thomas Says:

    Strangely, I only ever want a Chick-fil-A on Sunday.

    I think it’s a conspiracy.

  11. Eric Says:

    Dawkin’s does know the difference between Fundementalism and religion, but his argument is not with Fundematalist’s per se. It is with irrational dogmatics. Certainly, Fundamentalists will always qualify and irrational and unreasonable dogmatics, but so too does ALL religions. You cannot separate Dogma from religion, thus ALL religion is dangerous and represents a negative aspect of our society. that said, Dawkin’s doesn’t up and attack all religious people. He attacks all religion and, more specifically, Fundamentalists who can be see to both willing embrace AND force their unreasoned, irrational, and oppressive dogma on the common culture.

  12. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Please, when have such people ever demonstrated a willingness to side with reason over their more extreme fundie brethren?

    Brian – I agree with your ultimate point in that post, and it’s a good point. But this statement is patently not true. The reason religious moderates are, indeed, moderate, is that they do sometimes come down on the side of reason. Just not frequently enough…

  13. Brian Says:


    I get what you’re saying, and perhaps I overgeneralized my opinion of religious moderates, so a restatement of my point is in order.

    Helena’s criticism was that people like PZ are too confrontational to ever convince moderate believers to reexamine their positions on various issues, let alone their core beliefs. Their strident approach, she claimed, turned more people off than they reached. As we all know here, reason NEVER works on a fundie, so, usually out of frustration, we unload on them without any realistic expectation of ever getting through to them, so I can easily sympathize with PZ’s approach.

    But what about those so-called moderates? Well, I’ve never read or heard a rant by Myers, Hitchens or Dawkins that wasn’t firmly and fundamentally rooted in a logical basis – that is, for all of their occasional ferocity, their underlying reasoning is sound, and is furthermore not hard to grasp, at least if you aren’t completely poisoned by religious fundamentalism.

    So why is it that most (not all, I admit) moderate believers still seem to have a problem with evolution? Myers and Dawkins are experts on this subject, so a reasonable person, unschooled in the field, ought to at least listen to what they have to say and grasp the underlying logic of their arguments. Of course, we humans don’t always do the rational thing, which is where religion rears its ugly head. More often than not, the average person is a lazy thinker when it comes to big issues. Evolution is a simple concept, but really learning about it takes a lot of time and effort. For a moderate believer, the choice is usually simple: trust these obnoxious scientists who are trying to tell me God plays no role in the history of life, or listen to my pastor who assures me I’m made in the very image of God, I’m special, I’ll go to Heaven, etc, etc… Even if you think Fred Phelps is a total dickhole, if you believe in a god that cares for you and intervenes from time to time on your behalf (not an exclusively fundamentalist position, I’d argue) you’re probably inclined to doubt evolution, no matter how sound the arguments in its favor might be.

    I know that many religious people go out of their way to accommodate both ideas, claiming that science and religion can happily coexist. I don’t agree in principle with this view, but they’re not the people we get exasperated with. I know more people than I can count who I would classify as moderate believers that, for all of their occasional open-mindedness on other matters, refuse to allow the endeavor of science to enlighten them about evolution. They’re not unable to comprehend it, just unwilling. In this regard, I don’t think they’re much different from a fundie.

    So, back to your point. No, not all moderates are beyond the reach of reason. I concede that. But most are, and no matter how the message is conveyed, it will usually fall on deaf ears.

  14. Jeff Eyges Says:

    Brian, I think you and PL are using the term “moderate” differently. It seems to me that you’re defining it as an evangelical who isn’t as strident as a typical fundie. I think PL is defining it as someone who’s within the camp of what used to be called the mainline denominations.

    If someone refuses to accept evolution (and thinks everyone else is going to hell), I’d say s/he is a fundie by definition.

  15. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Jeff – I think you may have found the misunderstanding. Our current president is what I would call a moderate, and he believes in evolution. He also very strongly believes in the power of prayer. And I mean real down-to-earth answer your prayer literally “power of prayer.” The fundies are so loud (and the lesser evangelicals who are sub-fundie in some ways, but not evolution, for example) it makes those moderates harder to hear.

    Of course, polls show that the USA lags way behind the rest of the developed world in matters like “belief in evolution.” That’s a damn shame. Part of it is the apathy of the broadly moderately religious, but I find the greater fault to be (1) the intrusion of fundies on the school boards (see Kansas, Texas, and Louisiana), and (2) the lack of funding of the school system.

    It might seem odd at first glance that a simple lack of funding would suppress something fundamental like that. Afterall, maybe you can’t do the great labs you could otherwise, but facts are still facts, right? Well, with lack of funding you also get things like gym teachers teaching science class. What happens then? Even a gym teacher with a passing interest in biology who actually believes evolution to be the fact it is will simply be unprepared to properly teach it to the youth and provide the answers to the myriad of “what ifs” running through their heads as they compare it to what they’ve been indoctrinated with for their whole lives.