Why Anti-Evolution Lies?
Earlier I blogged about Dr. Steve Matheson’s use of the term “folk-science” to deal with some creationist writing about science. in that post I struggled with that term, and how to distinguish lies from differences of opinion, viewpoint, and simple ignorance.
Well, Dr. Matheson is now dealing with some material he outright calls lies. This starts with When it’s not just a disagreement, and continues with Talking trash about “junk DNA”: lies about “function” (part II). I don’t know nearly enough to get involved in this argument, though Matheson’s articles are straightforward and I think I understand the logic.
The thing that I can follow is that the statements of science are being misrepresented. This was one of the things that started me away from young earth creationism. While I could not always understand the reasons that young earthers were wrong about science, it was often quite easy to simply compare what evolutionists wrote about the subject, and what creationists claimed they wrote and to find out that they did not match.
But I wax long-winded as usual, and I only have a simple point. Since the representation of the mainstream science position is false, and is easily demonstrated to be false, why use it? Would it not be logical to exclude easily disconfirmed material from your argument? I would suggest that if they could make their argument whilst correctly representing the mainstream science, they would. The fact that they resort to these types of misrepresentation suggests that they don’t have alternatives.
I have long had respect for Reasons to Believe, even while disagreeing with their position. Reading this series is suggesting that my own ignorance allowed me to give them the benefit of the doubt. Consider the weakness of a theory if you cannot support it without obvious misstatements of the opposing postion.
I would suggest that if they could make their argument whilst correctly representing the mainstream science, they would.
Whilst they would no doubt prefer to be able to use genuine quotes, I seriously doubt that any of the best-known creationists are lying awake at night thinking “oh, I wish I hadn’t had to quote-mine that article – someone might notice and then where will I be?”.
Why? Because, with a few exceptions*, they’re not attempting to construct a solid logical argument. Rather, they’re appealing to their audience’s emotions to arouse religio-political support. After all, the site is called “reasons to believe” not “empirical evidence that happens to support belief” (I admit their version is catchier).
And their primary demographic – Joe Sixpack – tends to believe what he’s told by people with the right associations. If he’s told by good God-fearin’ folk that evilutionists want to kill babies, he ain’t gonna argue, and he ain’t gonna research the claim. Simply by bothering to look up and compare the original quotes with the mangled versions, you’re placing yourself outside the core creationist demographic.
So even if creationists could find “good” quotes, they’d almost certainly carry on using “bad” quotes, because they use a different measure for “goodness”. If a quote is capable of creating strong emotions in an audience – indignation, anger, self-righteousness – why should they care about a little thing like accuracy?
* Such as Kurt Wise, for whom I actually have some respect.
Henry, you write:
This is the tragedy of creationist folk science, I think: the arguments can be made without the lies and misrepresentation, and the neocreationists are a case in point. In general, the neocreationists, as typified by the biologists of the BSG, are working to create a different paradigm within which they can incorporate both knowledge of the natural world and their peculiar biblical interpretations. They eschew the kinds of attacks on evolutionary science that Ross and Rana just can’t resist, and in fact they tend to acknowledge the explanatory power of common descent. One difference, for sure, is that the BSG folks are far better qualified than the RTB “scholars”: Ross is embarrassingly ignorant of very basic biology, and Rana is a biochemist with evidently scant understanding of genetics. The other difference, sadly, seems to involve principles of integrity.
My point is this: one can advance creationist arguments, and even seek to bolster their credibility, without lying about the evidence or about the validity of competing explanations. RTB could do this; so could the ID movement. That they choose otherwise is not just evidence of a weak case; it’s evidence of weak character.