Firstly the problem with this entire debate is it’s entirely built upon not one but a string of faulty logical premises – the main one being the false dichotomy. A long time ago a man named Charles Darwin proposed the idea that organisms change over time. There was sufficient evidence for this idea to take hold 150 years ago. Since this time every single discovery in the field of biology has corroborated this proposal hence why it was elevated from hypothesis to theory. Now as it stands it’s a very strong theory and a good explanation of what we see in the natural world and allows us to make testable predictions in biology. But despite this the creationist assertion is that its plain wrong but they still haven’t managed to disprove it and I genuinely take issue with this. Because if you’re going to assert that something is completely wrong and you’re so sure of that fact then surely it should be a relatively simple task to prove it wrong. Creationists continually assert that evolution can’t be disproved as if it were some kind of religion but this is a lie and here’s why:
Science has to be falsifiable by design – it’s the rules. There are large a number of ways evolution could be falsified, for example you could find one of the following (From rationalwiki):
- Find something that defies classification in Linnaean taxonomy e.g. chlorophyll in an animal cell wall.
- Show that mutations do not occur.
- Show that although mutations do occur, that they’re not passed down through the generations.
- Show that although mutations are passed down through generations, they do not produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
- Show that selection or environmental pressures do not favour the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
- Darwin pointed out in his own work "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
- Or a favourite of rationalists these days – dig up a bunny rabbit from Precambrian rock.
If creationism were true then all of the above challenges should have been met – very easily met which evidently isn’t the case. Instead what we get is the God of the gaps argument whereby creationists find something that science doesn’t yet know and then infer that it must imply some kind of supernaturalism. I don’t personally have a problem with this argument but I would like to point out that so far in everything we’ve learned about science and the way the world works, magic has never turned out to be an explanation for anything whatsoever. And as an added bonus it opens you up to ridicule when science does find that piece of the puzzle.
So let me clear up why this is a false dichotomy. Creationists attack evolution with an almost religious fervour as if discrediting evolution would somehow vindicate creationism by default. The time and resources creationists have now spent on doing this is simply amazing given that even if they could somehow discredit evolution and the big bang theory and they would have to discredit both which in itself is no mean feat, it wouldn’t automatically vindicate creationism by default as they imagine. Why? Because creationism simply doesn’t fit with any observable facts about reality. So the only way creationists can now make a case is through twisting the facts to fit the premise and this involves dishonesty, not only that but it involves a LOT of dishonesty. And this is where my above heroes come in because each one of them can be shown to not only be liars but in some cases (John Mackay and Kent Hovind) just plain fucking nuts. The consequences of it are this - many creationists eventually realise they’re being duped by these people thanks largely to the incessant efforts of complete bastards like myself. But instead of merely rejecting creationism, they end up rejecting Christianity altogether and I think the reason is simple. If Christians are as they claim to be more virtuous and honest because of their faith then what remains of that faith when you realise that someone you respected and believed to be a person of great integrity as a defender of that faith is actually a habitual liar and charlatan? The revelation tends to shake people’s faith often resulting in a complete rejection of religion.
Anyway on to the heroes. One of the favourite arguments these people use is called quotemining. This involves quoting their opposition out of context so as to completely distort the meaning of what that person originally said. This is so pervasive in creationism that there are websites entirely dedicated to putting these quotes back into their original context. All the men mentioned are incessantly guilty of this. But I’m not just talking about misrepresenting people’s positions here; I’m talking about flat out lies where the person has to know they’re lying. Kent Hovind for example has met more fictional evolution professors than anyone else alive. He’s also the authority on not correcting his mistakes; for instance when it’s pointed out that he’s using faulty research or things that have been proven incorrect he knowingly continues to use that material at his seminars. But it’s worse than that, he comes up with hypotheses which are easily flattened but gain a foothold in the creationist community who are ignorant of the science involved and repeated ad nauseum. An example of this would be when he stated that the singularity responsible for cosmic expansion was originally a spinning disc (which it wasn’t) and that it had some bearing on the orbital mechanics of the solar system (which it doesn’t). All this came from the man misreading one science textbook on the solar nebulae hypothesis which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with big bang cosmology. He continued to use this argument in his seminars right up until his unfortunate incarceration on 58 counts of failing to render unto Caesar what was Caesars. He also repeatedly denies that established science works at all e.g. radioactive carbon dating. John Mackay is similarly guilty of this sort of thing; that is when he’s not accusing people of witchcraft or sleeping with the dead any road.
Ray Comfort is also man who is similarly spectacular at brazen breaches of the 9th commandment. For instance he wrote a 50 page libellous introduction to the origin of species and then distributed 50,000 copies (including his foreword) of that book on college and university campuses. We know this introduction at least libellous because he tried to present Darwin as a fanatical racist and as the primary motivation for the Third Reich’s fanatical eugenics programme and subsequent genocide. All of the accusations he presented can of course be easily disproven. Darwin for instance was one of the most egalitarian men in what was at the time one of the most ethnocentric societies in the world. This is borne out in the considerable body of work he left behind – there is nothing in any work ever written by Charles Darwin to suggest he was a racist, exactly the opposite in fact – he was an early proponent of racial equality. Hitler on the other hand would seem to have been a Roman Catholic creationist which is borne out in the considerable number of quotes attributed to him – oh and a casual read of Mein Kampf also adds considerable weight to this idea. But seriously it wouldn’t matter if Hitler had quoted Darwin on every third line of Mein Kampf because it would still invoke the logical fallacy of argument from adverse consequences i.e. this is what evolution caused someone to do therefore it’s wrong. The same line of reasoning could be applied to atomic theory – arguing that that’s wrong because it led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people at Hiroshima – it’s a senseless argument. The whole introduction that comfort wrote has been dissected in detail and it’s pure unadulterated bullshit from start to finish – it’s one of the most dishonest pieces of literature in existence.
In the film Expelled – Ben Stein attempted the same feat – that of invoking evolution as Hitler’s inspiration for the holocaust. It is simply unbelievable the lengths these people will go to defend their ‘sacred truth’. The fact of the matter here is that you would have to seriously misunderstand evolutionary theory in its entirety for it to ever lead to any kind of genocide at all. Why? Because limiting the amount of genetic variety in a gene pool is detrimental to the overall population of that organism – evolution 101.
In the Kitzmiller Vs. Dover trial (2006) which was pretty much the seminal evolution vs creationism court case, Michael Behe repeatedly lied under oath. He had previously stated that there was no evidence that the immune system could have evolved. Upon being presented with 58 peer reviewed papers and several books on exactly that subject he employed another creationist debate tactic known as moving the goal posts. Basically what he did is he began to redefine what he would accept as evidence in the process setting an impossible standard of what he would accept. See the video below on this.
And finally a little bit on Harun Yahya. Creationists love him – I even know of a certain creationist blog not too far away from here that references his work occasionally. And why not – he’s the champion of creationism for the Muslim world. If you’re a creationist you need this guy’s input. Want the kicker? Not only is he a holocaust denier but he’s also a criminal. I mean this guy fights dirty when it comes to creationism and we’re talking censorship of the Internet (in Turkey), extortion, blackmail, libel, embezzlement and drug offences (I don’t personally have a problem with this but it does kind of imply hypocrisy if he believes the Quran is inerrant). But I guess there’s nothing quite like fair and honest dialogue if you are promoting ‘the truth’.
So what do I make of all this? These people KNOW they are lying but they do it anyway. They peddle their propaganda because it’s a good way to make money and their indoctrinated sheep will gladly acquiesce. I think hypocrisy like this is one of the most destructive forces in the entire Christian religion, I would say most destructive but then I’d be ignoring Catholicism and some of its adherents’ rather interesting take on sexual ethics.
Why creationists chose to pick a fight with evolution I don’t know but one thing I do know is it was a mistake - a massive one. The opening salvos were declared by creationists in Darwin’s time and creationists started a war that they’ve been slowly losing ever since. The problem I have with it is and this should be important to Christians is that it has given secularists the perfect platform on which to attack Christianity itself. In the age of the Internet this battle has become even more pronounced especially in light of the so called great YouTube war between Rationalists and Christians which has seen this debate go nuclear. Christians largely lost this war and YouTube now carries scientific videos that address almost every single objection to evolution creationists have ever dreamed up. The same cannot be said of creationism because the posters of creationist videos normally end up either taking their videos down or comment censor them heavily. Censorship does kind of imply that you’ve got something to hide or that some kind of dishonesty is involved.
Quite why they chose to continue this war I don’t know because it is seriously damaging Christianity in a way that no secularist ever could. I personally don’t have a problem with Christians destroying their religion, I mean I would personally prefer it if people were atheists because it’s far easier to reason with non-religious people. That said if I were a Christian, I would be mightily pissed that there were a group of people busy destroying my religion. But what do I care I’ll happily continue this argument forever and a day, debunking creationism has been likened by some observers to an Internet sport, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel most of time.
Random Englishman presented me with this argument – that scientists who are part of the evolution system are afraid to speak out against it and just go with the flow. I’ve had more chance to think about this one and it’s not quite right. This simply isn’t how the system works. You don’t look for facts to support a preconceived conclusion, you first find the facts and then ask what conclusions you can draw from them. If facts come to light that flatly contradict a scientific theorem then you would still have to submit them for peer review. Other people then analyse your work and decide if it has merit and if the conclusions drawn are correct it has ramifications throughout the scientific world and you gain recognition for your work. The objections to any particular piece of work can’t be a gut feeling or because a reviewer disagrees with the conclusions drawn, it must be proven that piece of work is incorrect. It is perhaps the ultimate system of honesty and integrity because the process of peer review by design seeks truth and prevents misinformation. That is why we have a first world technological civilisation with things like computers, cars and space shuttles – because this system for discovering how things work is monumentally successful. Things like evolutionary THEORY, atomic THEORY and the THEORY of relativity have real world implications because the science works!
“Of course science knows it doesn’t know everything. Otherwise it would stop.” – Dara O’Brien.
Finally a video of a Christian scientist I respect – Ken Miller who interestingly enough testified against Intelligent Design in the Kitzmiller Vs Dover case.
No comments:
Post a Comment