Glenden BrownCommonality of methods between creationists and global warming deniers?
I thought it was odd that Ken B posted a comment about global warming in response to my post about the systemic dishonesty of creationists. I wonder if maybe there are connections between the dishonest means and methods of creationists and those who deny global warming. I haven’t really looked much at the methods used by Global Warming deniers. I have however looked at the methods used by creationists.
Creationism (and its PR friendly conjoined twin Intelligent Design) are about one thing: defending the religious dogma that says God created the world as described in the Bible.  Some creationists call themselves “young earth creationists” and believe that the earth is only 6000 or 10,000 years old. Some creationists admit the earth might be older than that. Intelligent Design is offered as an “alternative” to Darwinism (by which creationists do not mean the theory of evolution through natural selection but something entirely different which I’ll explore a little later) and doesn’t really identify the “designer” whose supposed intelligence led to the “design.” Pretty much everything else offered by creationists is window dressing. For all intents and purposes, ID is nothing more than creationism with a PR hack. So I won’t refer to it as a separate entity.
Creationists love to pretend there is some valid science behind their objections. In every case I’ve ever heard of, the “evidence” offered by creationists has been examined and long since dismissed by actual scientists. For instance, creationists love to argue about “irreducible complexity” - they say for instance that the human eye is too complex to have “evolved” and therefore must have been “designed.” As scientists are fond of pointing out, this argument misses many points. In evolution, bad sight is better than no sight. Light sensitivity is an advantage. More light sensitivity is an advantage over less light sensitivity. Being color blind is better than having no sight at all. And so on. Designers could also have designed a more effective and more efficient structure for seeing than the human eye - IOW, if there was a designer, he/she/it didn’t do the best job possible. Irreducible complexity, as for example, looks at the end product and says “This is so complex, so amazing, that I can’t imagine how it evolved therefore it didn’t.”
Creationists love to offer a variety of increasingly amusing ideas of their own. For instance, various creationist organizations will publish a document about the Noachian flood, arguing that “hydrodynamic sorting” (I think that’s the term) explains the layers in the fossil record. All the dinosaurs were at a lower level than later species. That’s why we don’t have any say hominid fossils at the same level as dinosaur fossils. Evolutionary biologists treat this theory to the mockery it deserves. Unfortunately, we Americans aren’t terribly scientifically literate. A lot of us hear what sounds like a technical, scientific term and think it’s possible.
A common demand of creationists is for scientists to produce “transitionary fossils” to prove there are no gaps in the record. Every time scientists do, they are simply creating more gaps for creationists to demand they fill. Look at it this way: We have two coffee cups, one blue and one yellow. We want a transitionary coffee cup so we put a green one in between. No we need a transitionary cup between the green on and the blue and the green one and yellow one - we now need two cups. We provide those cups and need two on each side of the new cups and so on and so on.
Creationism is not a scientific theory nor is it a scientific movement. It is a political movement. Creationism has a large number of wealthy people and groups which fund its organizations and PR efforts. A favorite tactic of creationists is to claim that they are the victims of a dogmatic, Darwinist, materialist scientific majority who refuse to honestly examine the evidence for creationism, a majority that silences them and attacks them because creationists have disproven evolution and the scientists just won’t acknowledge it. The premise of the film Expelledis that creationist scientists and teachers are being unfairly targeted and ‘expelled’ from schools for their scientific views. Evolution is a thoroughly tested, scientifically accepted theory that explains the evidence; it has been repeatedly tested. 150 years worth of scientists have put evolution to the test and concluded that it is valid. But it threatens the worldview of conservative Christians and so they have embarked on a public, political campaign against it.
The science of evolution is overwhelmingly persuasive. So creationists dedicate themselves to ginning up controversy and confusion among lay persons.
A common refrain holds that “evolution is just a theory.” This statement deliberately misleads. In common usage, to say something is “just a theory” implies it is an idea with no facts to support it. However, a scientific theory is a coherent explanation of the observable evidence. Scientific theories must be testable. The terminology of science says a theory is an explanation that has not been proven false and which current observable facts do not contradict. IOW, the scientific community has repeatedly tested evolution and has been unable to disprove it; for 150 years, Darwinian theory of evolution through both mutation and descent has held true (FWIW, there have been modifications of Darwin’s original theory so scientists actually refer to Neo-Darwinism.)
When creationists talk about evolution, they usually use the term “Darwinism.” This usage is not accidental. It suggests that evolutionary biologists are, cult-like, blindly following an authority figure. Creationist critiques of evolution go as far as to describe it as a religion - calling it an atheistic, materialistic, Darwinist faith. Part and parcel of this critique is the implication that scientists are opposed to freedom of speech - that their blind obedience to their atheistic religion keeps them from welcoming public discussion. Bear in mind, this is not a scientific critique - it is a political critique. Scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that creationist complaints are not valid but that doesn’t stop creationists from raising them again and again and again.
Creationists specialize in creating a public contoversy then using that controversy to argue that evolution is not broadly accepted in the scientific community. The creationist tactic of “creating a controversy” is fed by well-funded institutes and organizations. The goal is not to persuade the scientific community (which they can’t do) but to sway the general public, to make us believe that the scientific community hasn’t reached an agreement and that teaching only evolution is unfair - that we need to “teach the controversy” or teach “both sides.” The goal of all the stuff we hear from creationists is to make the public believe science is somehow conspiring against the truth of creationism.Â
A final argument against evolution comes in the form of “All the bad things in the world are the fault of evolution.” A famous graphic, it shows a tree with “evolution and materialism” at the roots, leading into a trunk of “unbelief” and branches filled with “fruits” such as racism, homosexuality, drug use, alcohol use, war, crime, violence genocide and . . . well any social ill you can imagine (included laughably is “woman/child lib”). Creationists obviously find this a convincing argument. That the argument itself demonstrates their ignorance of history seems lost on them. The idea that war, violence, crime, and subtance abuse didn’t exist until evolution was theorized is . . . well, so untrue on its face it’s impossible to take it seriously. Since creationists are persuaded by this argument, it’s not difficult to see how they can be taken in by creationism.
From a scientific perspective, the creationist debate has long since been closed. Creationsts, in defense of a nonscientific ideology, do everything in their power to cloud the otherwise clear science. Creationists realized they had a poor public image (as pig-ignorant bible thumpers) so they invented “intelligent design” which has the trappings of science if not the actual processes.
The rhetoric employed by both creationists and deniers of global warming invoke anti-intellectualism - trading on hostility to “effete intellectual” college professors, academics and the “UN”. Creationism in particular does its best to invoke hostility to scientists, academics, and intellectuals in opposition to “Christians” and believers. If for some reason creationists were to succeed in their goal of having creationism taught, America would lose any hope of a competitive advantage in the world; teaching creationism would so undermine any hope of scientific progress in the US.
It seems to me that the tactics employed by both groups is similar though not identical. That both are associated with hard right politics in the US should come as no surprise. I wonder, however, if the commonalities arise from their being associated with right wing politics or if the commonalities drew them to right wing politics?
March 24th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Funny how the right-wing whack jobs gather around “science” when it suits their cause celebre, even when there really is no science per se - e.g., re intelligent design - but wholly reject science when its existence is ubiquitous and the conclusions drawn therefrom are near unanimous - e.g., re global warming.
What’s with that??
March 24th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Lots of smart people have made really elaborate efforts to reconcile evolutionary theory and belief in God. In practice, however, most people can either accept one or the other.
According to a 1993 survey: In the United States, 63 percent of the public believed in God and 35 percent believed in evolution. In Great Britain, by comparison, 24 percent of people believed in God and 77 percent believed in evolution.
It’s easy for me to see that the creationists aren’t just being paranoid or clinging to a too-literal interpretation of the Bible. Science is a threat to religion.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
There is a commonality in those who absolutely believe in evolution and those who absolutely believe in global warming even though both are unproven theories. Science very seldom deals with absolutes and constantly changes when new facts are presented, but sometimes political forces make scientists dogmatic where they are no longer free to adjust to new data. With science, nothing should ever be settled, and it should never be based on consensus. Science is not about conclusions, but rather a never ending path of finding new knowledge that help us understand things that at the present time we know very little. There are so many things we perceive as true that will be set aside later as new facts emerge. Let us not be so dogmatic and absolutists that we hold on to falsehoods, even if they may be dear to our hearts.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Ken - thank you for proving my point! You used every rhetorical technique of creationists in one short comment! You even managed to use the term “theory” in the nonscientific sense, and attribute false absolutism to scientists. Brilliant!
March 24th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Evolution isn’t proven. There is still a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 probability that the Biblical God created the universe as told in Genesis. Got faith?
March 24th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Ken:
Your string of apologies appears continuing now toward the pathetic!
Every sentence in your comment generates a puzzled look on my face (because I know you are technically educated), but one sentence stands out more than the rest, at least following my first read:
Statements such as this must provide enduring comfort to those who travel from point A to point B on an airliner or in a car or even on a bicycle. Indeed, are you suggesting that electrons may not play a role in processing code on computers - e.g., your little snippet of logic-based code a few weeks back re marriage among members of the same sex?
I think it would be good for you to reevaluate your own subscription to various dogmas - you may find yourself becoming more open to new ideas/concepts and find less need to resort to such pathetic apologetic ramblings appearing in your last few comments.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Ironic that the “Creationist” movement would have become extinct unless it had evolved into the “Intelligent Design” movement because of it’s obvious political intentions to wed religion and politics.
Glendon, you’re being a bad boy. You’re not supposed to use the “C” word anymore then you’re supposed to reveal the former name of somebody in the witness protection program.
If the creators of CREATIONISM could dig up and destroy all missing link evidence proving Darwin’s theory, they would. If they could make the sun revolve around the earth to prove their point, they would, because they love to make stuff up about how others should live their lives, ignoring those rules in their own lives and calling for zero tolerance of “the other”, but they always do it in a nice way.
I’m talking about the type of people who tried to force Creationism down our throats. The televangelist types, out for the money, not your average religious person, who really does believe in the golden rule, like myself. I just happen to believe that you don’t need to attend church to understand and strive for tolerance.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Ken, You’re becoming quite the Preacher Man….or maybe you’re just smokin dope.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Another example from Ken’s comment that provides a puzzled look on my face. As stated by Ken, presumably in reference to, at least, global warming:
I am curious, Ken, if you can provide an example or two where proponents of global warming - e.g., the scientists behind the NASA/Goddard report - became dogmatic in the face of new data.
Can you provide me an example or two, other than the agenda-driven ramblings of Marohasy?
March 24th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
God created evolution, human growth hormones, alien space invaders (ever wonder who the easter bunny really is?), darkness, and John McCain! Don’t ask how I know this, just believe.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:50 am
The evidence for creationism has already been examined and found lacking. Biblical creationism was the scientific explanation until Darwin came along. If creationism provided a better explanation, scientists would have discarded Darwin’s theory by 1890 or so.
I thought creationists invented “intelligent design” was because the courts kept throwing Bible studies out of the science classroom. Hence their latest version of creationism avoids any mention of God. (Creationism 1.0: Biblical creationism. Creationism 2.0: Creation science. Creationism 3.0: Intelligent design. Less Bible and more “science” each time. )
March 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Lucidity - You’re absolutely right that the evidence creationism has been examined and found wanting - not just once but time after time. Michael Shermer tells a story of debating a creationist. Shermer went first and in his presentation demonstrated how the key examples provided by creationists had been disproved by scientists. The creationist he was debating ignored everything Shermer said and delivered the exact same speech he gave every time he debated. Creationists just don’t care about the evidence in any meaningful way.
Creationists invented intelligent design for both reasons - the goal of ID is to give a scientific gloss to creationism in the hope it will past constitutional muster.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Makes me want to sit down tonight and watch Inherit the Wind.
My favorite movie of all time - I just love watching Henry Drummond/Clarence Darrow (Spencer Tracy) beat the holy tar out of Matthew Harrison Brady/William Jennings Bryan (Fred March) on the witness stand re the Bible/Creationism/Evolution.
It gives me the warm and fuzzies deep within!
March 25th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I haven’t had time to read all of the comments, so I don’t know if this has already been covered:
1) Creationism in its basest sense is silly. If creationists actually looked at the real science, they would see that biologists have discovered a far more complete fossil record (including tons of transitional species) than archaeologists have discovered a complete physical history of biblical locations.
2) The complexity of the human eye? What about the complexity of a single DNA strand in one of the “lesser” creatures on Earth? Or a protein in that strand (which is more complex in its base structure than the base structure of the DNA it composes)? Complexity is not proof against evolution. It is proof of the complexity OF evolution.
I personally believe that the science that we discover describes God’s methods for creating us. I don’t see why multiple schools of thought can’t converge. After all, science will never discover whether God exists or not until they discover that he does. All science can know for sure is that they haven’t yet proven that he DOES exist (this is a wild variation on Null Hypothesis). It’s really a matter of faith, not science. The creationists suffer the ignominy that the science doesn’t follow THEIR VERSION of creation. And some of them find it hard to believe in a God that doesn’t follow THEIR VERSION of everything. Too bad. God can exist without fitting a particular mold. The trick is that the evidence, not our personal convictions, shows the mold that God fits.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
March 25th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Religious people always like to think of their era as either the most righteous or the most wicked–or some strange meshing of that polemic. In order to explain this way of thinking, they tie the perceived societal trait to some kind of trend. In this case, the perceived wickedness is tied to evolution, which, as Glenden showed, is supposedly the cause of all of our ills. How ridiculous. Humans always want to pin blame on one thing, and we want that one thing to not be us.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Albert O:
If you liked “Inherit The Wind”, you’ll love this episode of Nova that you can watch online about a much more recent “monkey trial.”
March 25th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Larry Bergan (cookie problem)
Albert O:
If you liked “Inherit The Wind”, you’ll love this episode of Nova about a much more recent “monkey trial.”
March 25th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Larry:
I’ve seen bits and pieces of the Nova piece - well done, for sure.
Gotta say, though, it was sure nice to seen this so-called conservative judge, presumably in the mold of Alito & Roberts, smack down the ID proponents for being a bunch of lying liars with a “moral” agenda and zippo scientific evidence to back their agenda!
March 27th, 2008 at 1:43 am
We’re left hoping that Alito and Roberts will act similarly, but then I’m not optimistic.