Johnson writes off Limbaugh as a “creationist … pathetic” for not jumping on the Ida train
Alex K., under the subject line, “Ida’s comic dividends,” sends Charles Johnson’s
comments about Rush Limbaugh.
As you read the Johnson entry, notice the similarity in tone and approach to his many items in which, on careful investigation, he discovers that his suspicions were correct after all and that person X or person Y is really a fascist.
Rush Limbaugh, Creationist
Science | Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:27:41 pm PDT
The question has come up several times, in our threads related to evolution, whether Rush Limbaugh is a creationist. I searched for definitive statements because I was curious where he stood, but was never able to really pin it down.
Well, today he pretty much settled the matter, with a rant about the “missing link” fossil announced by an international team of scientists; yep, he’s a creationist.
RUSH: Drudge had as a lead item up there this morning on his page a story from the UK, Sky News: “Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution.” It’s all about how Darwin would be thrilled to be alive today. “Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.” It’s a one-foot, nine-inch-tall monkey, and it’s a lemur monkey described as the eighth wonder of the world. “The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years—but it was presented to the world today—” So I guess this is settled science. We now officially came from a monkey, 47 million years ago. Well, that’s how it’s being presented here. It’s settled science. You know, this is all BS, as far as I’m concerned. Cross species evolution, I don’t think anybody’s ever proven that. They’re going out of their way now to establish evolution as a mechanism for creation, which, of course, you can’t do, but I’m more interested in some other missing link. And that is the missing link between our failing economy and prosperity.
UPDATE at 5/19/09 10:38:48 pm:
It’s just pathetic that on a day when such an amazing scientific discovery is announced, possibly one of the greatest finds of all time, Rush Limbaugh gets on the radio and tells his millions of admirers that it’s meaningless b_s_.
It does mean something. This should be a day when all Americans—all human beings—are proud of what we can accomplish through science and research, and human intelligence. Discoveries like “Ida” happen once in a lifetime.
But instead we have high profile “conservatives” bitching about it as if it’s a personal affront to them.
Just pathetically sad.
[end of Johnson entry]
LA replies to Alex K.:
Johnson is a seriously stupid individual. Limbaugh didn’t assert any particular view of evolution and didn’t argue for creationism, which is Johnson’s particular bete noir (along with “fascism,” by which he means any more-than-nominal opposition to the Islamization of the West). Limbaugh simply doubted the hype about this fossil being the “missing link” between animals and humans, and said, quite correctly, that evolution (by which he means Darwinian evolution) from one species to another has never been proved. In Johnson’s head, if you dismiss obvious Darwinian hype, you’re a creationist. Just as, in Johnson’s head, if you dismiss Johnson’s views that Vlaams Belang or Paul Belien is fascist, you’re a fascist.
Alex K. replies:
And his blubbering about “all Americans—all human beings—[being] proud of what we can accomplish through science and research, and human intelligence” is like a low-IQ parody of the emotional-religious reaction to science that you’ve been talking about.
He also calls it possibly one of the greatest finds of all time and a once-in-a-lifetime discovery, in which case greatest finds of all time are actually fairly common.
LA replies:
In other words, he uncritically accepts the notion that this fossil is the “missing link” and that it changes everything we know about evolution. Even many scientists have been criticizing these exaggerated claims and say that the fossil, while remarkable for its age and completeness, changes nothing fundamental in our knowledge of evolution. But Johnson—and this really shows his mentality—makes acceptance of that transparent hype his litmus test of a good and intelligent person.
John B. writes:
Charles Johnson, with whose writings I’m not familiar, might well be as stupid as Rush Limbaugh; but the remark he apparently quotes from Limbaugh is pretty stupid:
You know, this is all BS, as far as I’m concerned. Cross species evolution, I don’t think anybody’s ever proven that.
What Limbaugh means is that he personally has not been bothered to examine even the basics of evolutionary theory. He’s not interested to know anything about the fundamentals of phyla—or countless other things. In his plebeian manner, he personalizes his ignorance—“ignorance” in what I will guess is the literal, etymological sense: “ignoring.” It’s all BS “as far as I’m concerned”; “I don’t think anybody’s ever proven that.”
I’m reminded of Nietzsche’s remark—which I won’t be able to find on short notice—that a hallmark of the plebeian is his insistence that he is always right. As was once said to another oaf: “I don’t mind that you’re ignorant—and I don’t mind that you’re proud. What I mind is that you’re proud that you’re ignorant.”
LA replies:
This reminds me something I thought of saying once, after it was too late to say it:
“There’s nothing wrong with being an airhead. But to be an airhead and hold captive an entire roomful of people while you pontificate to them, that’s insufferable.”
However, while I agree that Limbaugh’s discussion about evolution could have been more informed, I think he was expressing the commonsense view of the matter, which also happens to be the scientifically correct view of the matter: No one has ever demonstrated evolution from one species to another. Yes, we see on the earth a progression of living forms, but we don’t know how these species came into existence, let alone whether and how they came from other species.
And the Darwinian scientists don’t know the answer to that question either. Eminent evolutionist Ernst Mayr said of Darwin that he “failed to solve the problem indicated by the title to his work. Although he demonstrated the modification of species in the time dimension [meaning changes within a species], he never seriously attempted a rigorous analysis of the problem of the multiplication of species [meaning the appearance of new species out of existing ones].” George Simpson, another leading evolutionist, wrote in 1964 that “the book called The Origin of Species is not really on that subject.”
Given that America’s most respected evolutionists of the 20th century stated that Darwin never proved the origin of species, and given that many evolutionists today still admit that the evolution of new species has not yet been solved (see my February 2009 article, “The Darwinians admit that Darwinism is not proved”), I think it’s ok for Rush Limbaugh to say it.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 21, 2009 07:58 AM | Send