Many critics of Intelligent Design supporters who ask that we "teach both sides" in science classes have analogized this to the Holocaust: should we also teach the "side" of Holocaust Denial in history classes? I never imagined that this analogy might be used in the opposite direction, but that must be the fault of my limited imagination.

Marilyn LaCourt sent the following letter to Larry Darby three times with no response — but another message she sent which was on an unrelated subject received an immediate answer. I think that it’s a good letter and deserves an answer. Marilyn asks some insightful questions which I hinted at yesterday and which strike at the heart the errors which Larry Darby is making:

I’m sure you’ve read the transcript of the suit Irving brought against Lipstadt. In an effort to understand why you are so enthusiastically promoting Irving I read much of it. It raised some questions for me.

What if Michael Behe sued Massimo Pigliucci for calling him an Evolution Denier? What if Behe lost the suit because the court ruled there was no liable involved. Pigliucci’s statements about Behe were true. The court found that Behe’s data was skewed to conclude that god must have done it. (A conclusion reached before evidence to prove the claim was collected.) In other words, the evidence of the claim was constructed to prove the claim.

What if Behe asked for and received an appeal. What if on appeal, Pigliucci enlisted the aid of other scientists, spent hours collecting data that clearly proved Behe’s claims were distortions and misrepresentations, just as Pigliucci said they were. What if Behe’s key witness was proven to have lied on the stand. What if when Behe got wind of the evidence against his claims, he dropped his suit, before Pigliucci and his scientists even got the chance to submit their proofs? What if Behe claimed the scientists Pigliucci had chosen to help him (people with stellar reputations and impeccable credentials in the appropriate fields) were not qualified?

Would you go out of your way to provide Behe with an audience of atheists because he has the right of public speech?

Would you encourage all of us to go to the source, that is, read Behe’s books before judging that he is an evolution denier? Or would you say Behe’s not really an evolution denier, but he is a Creationist who is using his knowledge of science to promote his preconceived notions about intelligent design?

Larry, I simply do not understand why you are going out on such a limb to protect Irving’s right to free speech. To my understanding, nobody is suing him. Nobody is saying he isn’t allowed to write and sell his books. Nobody is banning his books. Nobody is saying the general public is not allowed to read his books. In fact, sometimes a little notoriety helps to sell books.

I know Behe is selling Christianity. What is Irving selling? For that matter, what are you selling? Maybe I’m missing an important point here.

Larry Darby makes a lot of noise about the importance of free speech, but he denied Marilyn’s request to join an email list which he administers. I am told that he has kicked people out of this list who challenge Holocaust Denial. I doubt that he would invite Michale Behe to speak on Evolution Denial. Why? Well, the common factor here is the fact that these people all espouse ideas which Darby disagrees with. I don’t think that Darby gives a platform for people to promote things he thinks are wrong.

There’s nothing wrong with this — it’s just what one would expect from a private group. The fact that Behe has a right to speak in public and to pursue his “research” doesn’t mean that Darby has an obligation to give him a platform, especially given the fact that Behe has plenty of opportunities to promote his ideas from those who agree with him.

Thus, Darby’s “defense” for giving David Irving a platform to spread his ideas fails on several counts. Darby doesn’t do this with people who disagree with Irving. Darby surely wouldn’t do this with others who promote ideas that he himself disagrees with. Darby is defending himself with a principle that he doesn’t apply consistently. So why did he really give Irving a platform? I can only conclude that it’s because Larry Darby agrees with David Irving’s ideology of Holocaust Denial.

And thus we get to the heart of the matter, at least in my mind. Just as creationists twist and misrepresent science in order to promote a religious ideology, just as David Irving has been shown in court to have twisted and misrepresented history in order to promote a political ideology, Larry Darby is engaged in an effort to twist and misrepresent the principles of free thought, free inquiry, and free speech in order to promote his ideology. Allowing such violence to these principles to go unchallenged ultimately undermines them, just as creationists would undermine science and people like David Irving would undermine historiography if their efforts were allowed to go unchallenged.

What are creationists selling? A religious ideology designed to eliminate scientific naturalism and secularism. What is David Irving selling? A political ideology which appears to involve white supremacism, fascist sympathizing, anti-Semitism, and Holocaust Denial. What is Larry Darby selling? I don’t know, but it likely has a lot of similarities to David Irving’s ideology and nothing whatsoever to do with atheism.

Larry Darby is very, very wrong, and atheists shouldn’t hesitate to say so — but at the same time, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that this isn’t just about him. Back when I first wrote about this issue, I quoted something from Two Percent Company which should be repeated:

[This is] a perfect example of what happens when you trade in religiously inspired faith-based beliefs for faith-based beliefs of a different flavor. Folks, it’s not about which form of stupidity you subscribe to, it’s about subscribing to stupidity at all. [emphasis added]

Atheists spend a lot of time criticizing the irrationality and extremism in religion and, sometimes, they seem to get the idea that religion is somehow uniquely irrational — that if religion could be eliminated everything would be fine and/or that atheists are inherently more rational and sensible than theists. All that is mistaken. If we think any of that, then we can become blind to irrational beliefs that we might acquire. We can’t assume that just because we have rejected theism and religion, then we are OK. Upholding principles of free inquiry, skepticism, and critical thinking is a constant process which can go horribly awry in any of us.

Read More: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

 

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...