Buckley's Sorry Apologetic

I've always enjoyed William F. Buckley, Jr. While I disagree with him on many an occasion, his patrician manners and bold use of words not in our vernacular has always been a pleasure to hear & watch. I recall watching Firing Line as a boy and getting immense pleasure from the banter even if I didn't understand much of it.

Buckley wrote a recent opinion column called "So Help Us Darwin" in which he uses his typical erudition to defend John McCain as the presidential hopeful prepares to deliver the keynote address at a function of the Discovery Institute, the shameless group of religious fanatics who would poison our school's biology classrooms with their religious bullshit. It is unfortunate that someone as intelligent and reasonable should stoop to the level of the DI in defending McCain. Or, at the very least, wallow in ignorance, something he has decried for many decades.

Buckley's near-apologetic lets loose the BS near the beginning.

Fifteen minutes after Charles Darwin explained his theory of evolution, his disciples -- apostles -- ruled out any heresy on the subject of the naturalist explanation for human life.

His use of "disciples" was ambiguous enough but Buckley just has to reinforce his own notion of materialism as a religion by including "apostles". In addition to positing his own ridiculous notion, Buckley fails to mention that within fifteen minutes after Charles Darwin explained his theory of evolution, disciples of another stripe were declaring heresy on the subject of the naturalist explanation of human life, some even declaring that his theory was equivalent to (gasp!) atheism, that dreaded affliction which renders people resistant to claims that some deity is out there smiling with approval as disciples kill in His name.

Buckley's view further descends into myopia when he relates how he hosted an episode on the evolution vs. creationism debate. The scientists on the panel left him feeling "that not only is naturalism established as verified science, but any interposition into the picture -- of inquisitiveness, let alone conviction that there might have been design in the evolution of our world -- is excluded." The author of God and Man at Yale here laments that science will not harbor all points of view. What he really means is that scientists are big bullies (not unlike Buckley himself) who will not allow their pursuit to become infested with the supernatural, specifically Buckley's Yahweh. Buckley would no doubt defend astronomers who create bulwarks against the intrusion of astrology into their field but biologists are evil because they would defend their own field similarly. It's just that Buckley has his own bullshit that he wishes to interject.

The penultimate paragraph reads:

But the intelligent liberal community should not impose on anyone a requirement of believing that there is only the single, materialist word on the subject, and that only contempt is merited by those who consent to appear at think tanks composed of men and women prepared to explore ultimate questions, which certainly include the question, Did God have a hand in creating all of this? Including the great messes we live with?

Either Buckley eagerly waves his flag of ignorance or his description of the Discovery Institute is highly disingenuous. While the men and women of the DI may very well be prepared to explore ultimate questions, their manifesto is decidedly unapologetic about their desire to see scientific exploration subjugated to religion. Buckley's description of the DI as merely being folks who want to pursue pure inquiry is foolish and I take it, quite frankly, as pure unadulterated bullshit. The DI and its adherents are not about an honest pursuit of knowledge; they are about imposing their version of Christianity upon everyone.

When John McCain delivers his speech tomorrow, he will not be advocating on behalf of multiple points of view, but rather for theocracy. He will be declaring that he favors the intrusion of religion into public education and that non-believers and non-Christians alike should be beholden to Christians. Regardless of what McCain says in his address, his mere appearance there is tacit approval of the notion that people who have a belief in tridentine transubstantiation are somehow morally superior to those who do not. How many altar boys have to be sexually assaulted by priests? How many daughters have to be molested by their fathers, like Robert Hale, a "self-styled preacher", who pled no contest to, not only molesting his daughter, but 14 other children? How many pastors have to sell a church to buy a BMW? How about Rev. Athanase Seromba who willingly had his church turned into an abattoir during the Rwandan genocide in 1994? Exactly what kind of moral superiority does it take to help commit genocide? It doesn't even have to be about rape or murder. How about that good Christian, Kenneth Lay? On and on it goes. How many Christians have to murder, rape, steal, etc. before the folks at the DI and the William F. Buckleys of the world can understand that being a Christian gives no moral authority?