As the Worm Turns

There are good guys and there are bad guys. The good guys are — to my mind — those who think and reason about questions, trying to find true answers. The bad guys are those who think and reason in order to jury-rig and ad hoc justifications for their previously-held prejudices.

Mike S. Adams is a bad guy. He’s a sloppy thinker, although (like Ann Coulter) an occasionally entertaining writer. Today’s column contains an extra-funny howler with an added bonus of unnoticed and unintentional irony!

As we know, in krazy-konservative land, Darwinism is false and the holes in the fossil record are proof. In the real world, we can make several assumptions about anyone who asks a biologist about the failures of Darwinism in light of the fossil record. We can assume that a) this person has already decided Darwinism is false b) this person doesn’t really care what the response is, since they’ve already decided, and c) this person is only asking to get a rise out the the Darwinian biologist.

Sometimes the best response a biologist can do is to make a joke.

Here’s how Adams tells the story:

[A] biologist … made a very candid remark about the foundation of his support of Darwinism. When asked about the lack of evidence supporting Darwinism – the fossil record, etc. – he confessed there was a very human reason for his faith in evolutionary theory despite the lack of scientific evidence. He confessed that if Darwinism were not true, he wouldn’t be able to sleep around.

I think that’s hilarious. Evolutionary psychology jokes about sex are always in good taste. Mocking simplistic creationists is always funny. What’s even funnier, though, is that Adams took him at his word.

At the heart of his support for Darwinism was a desire to get God out of the picture by any means whatsoever. And his desire to get God out of the picture was in turn motivated by his desire to copulate with as many people as possible without feeling guilty.

Priceless! Adams is so convinced that Darwinism is simply a post-hoc justification for atheism he’ll interpret any off-hand remark as proof — proof! I tell you! — that he’s right.

But here’s the best part. The column started off by excoriating those (liberals primarily) who are offended by his harsh tone for being humorless:

By stating that I reinforced her liberalism by using offensive language … she simply reinforces my true definition of a liberal:

One who suffers from an emotional disorder that renders him, her, or it unable to appreciate humor.

Liberalism is a disorder that renders people unable to appreciate humor. Does that mean conservatism is the disorder that renders people unable to even notice humor?

Mike S. Adams, ladies and gentlemen. He’s my new favorite wingnut.