Darwinists Hate Pandas, Again Touchstone Magazine has pounced on the “Darwinists Hate Pandas” meme. There feature article, by Roberto Rivera, is entitled “Of Pandas and Men” with the subhead “Roberto Rivera on Darwinism and Why We Let the Pandas Live”. I already dealt with this article when the original version of it was published at Charles Colson's website, but let me remind you of the crucial line:
For those who take their Darwinism, as Thelonious Monk might have put it, straight, no chaser, the logical response to the plight of the giant panda is “tough.” Evolution is, if nothing else, unsentimental. It rewards adaptability and punishes, in the medium-to-long term, overspecialization. If your diet and habitat disappear—and that has happened countless times in Earth’s history—then you do, too.
My Christian friends sometimes take me to task for being over-concerned with the antics of the more extreme elements of American Christianity. They're crazy, sure, but they're in the minority of religious believers, they assure me.
Well, as far as I know Touchstone is considered pretty mainstream in Christian circles (if any of my readers know better I would be happy to hear that I am wrong). They describe themselves as a “Journal of Mere Christianity”.
And here they are promoting an argument so stupid, so utterly disrespectful of people who do not see the world as they do, that I see no reason ever to take them seriously about anything. If they are representative of contemporary Christian thought, then there is no reason to take Christian thought seriously either.
“Is” and “ought” are two different things. Okay? That simple point, obvious to any child, has apparently eluded both Rivera and his editors at Touchstone. Once that is realized there is absolutely nothing left of Rivera's argument. Arguing that Darwinists should not be unhappy if natural selection leads to the extiniction of pandas is like arguing that physicists should not be unhappy if gravity leads to a plane crash.
Rivera is an idiot.