Another D-Word Sighting

This is Mark Lawson interviewing Sir David Attenborough on BBC Four.

Remember, Sir David is the most trusted man in Britain.

LAWSON: Have you at any time had any religious faith?

ATTENBOROUGH: No.

Clearly, he’s not going to be trusted in the United States any longer.

One verbal item caught my attention. Lawson, a journalist of English birth and education, employs the word Darwinist.

LAWSON: Your programs clearly are Darwinist, but it’s not something. . . You never seem to actually take on the creationism. For example —

ATTENBOROUGH [overlapping]: Oh, I certainly do, privately, and, and would be happy to do — it’s not the place to do it in the sort of programs I make.

From this single instance, it’s hard to tell whether Lawson equates “Darwinist” with “atheist,” as our American creationists are wont to do, or if he’s closer to the usage observed among certain academics, roughly equating “Darwinism” with “evolutionary biology.”

4 thoughts on “Another D-Word Sighting”

  1. Interesting. Can you recommend a primer on the status of this whole thing? I feel terribly confused by the Darwinist / Scientism / Atheism phenomenon… while I would count myself all three, I’m not sure I want others accusing me of taking any of them on as a creed rather than a worldview that is open to revision.

Comments are closed.