Why I Quit Trusting Creationist Writers
I’ve mentioned several times before how I migrated from young earth creationist all the way to theistic evolution, and even to the point of objecting to the term “theistic” in front of evolutionist. I am a theist, but the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and should remain the same whether one is a theist or not.
Now the question people often have is just why I made all these changes, and how I decided which authors to trust, considering I am not myself a scientist. Well, there’s a good illustration today on The Panda’s Thumb, which shows how it worked for me. In this case, Casey Luskin builds a quote out of a late page, and combines it with a piece of one from much earlier, in order to make the author say something he didn’t say.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re a scientist or not, that should make you wonder whether the writer in question can be trusted. For me, the experience took more time. I had read creationist books all my life, and then suddenly I read books by the actual scientists, and I found that evolution was something different than I had been told in case after case. I can now pick up a creationist book and look up certain items in the index, and I know I’ll find misinformation. For example, “punctuated equilibrium/a” will almost guarantee that I find an error.
One of the reasons creationism maintains such a high popularity in this country is that it is supported by Christian writers and speakers. For many Christian lay people, the fact that something is espoused by a trusted Christian leader is regarded as sufficient reason to consider it valid. Unfortunately, many of these Christian leaders are, in fact, embracing carelessness, or perhaps even negligence in fact-checking. For those who are trained in the appropriate scientific fields, I can even say embracing and proclaiming falsehood.
As I say with everything, each person needs to check and recheck and not simply accept the word of an authority figure. This applies to all areas of life, but right now I think it particularly applies to science because there is so much misinformation out there. I wish I could say that all of this was sincere error, but recently I’m reading of more and more cases where it is hard to make that case.
Whatever the motivation, however, careful checking for yourself, and careful checking of your authorities is critical.
Before I opted out of the debate entirely, the discovery that the pepper moth photos and several skeletons had been faked had the same effect on me, just in the other direction. What’s really ironic about this is that the abortion debate seems like the exact opposite – many Christians are quick to embrace every scrap of science and new technology that shows it’s a “real baby” and others cling miserably to the premise that it’s just “tissue” and want to discourage women from having sonograms that might change their minds. Ditto for embryonic vs. adult stem cells.
It’s obviously critically important to be a Berean when you’re engaging in this kind of debate. But more than that – at this point you really have to invest a fair chunk of time in it to get even the basics. I clicked through to that post, and although I’m a reasonably intelligent person, I just don’t have the scientific or the evolution-politics (neo-Darwinism?) background to understand what all the vitriol is about without an investment of quite a lot of time studying. And honestly, given the tone of the debate, I don’t *want* to engage.
I choose to believe a hybrid evolutionary-creationist theory: God created the world some way or other and he probably used some kind of evolution in the process. I admit it’s a completely fact-free attempt to reconcile two adversarial positions but I don’t really care, and as I’m not a leader and don’t get into debates about it, I can get away with that. But these leaders to whom you refer – to whom much is given, much is expected. They really do need to either stop offering an opinion or to do the research needed. Did you have anyone specific in mind?
“and others cling”
to be clear – I meant secular abortion supporters by “others” here, not other Christians. Sorry to be unclear.
I think you need to re-read the original blog post, as these are a couple of classic examples of just the sort of dishonest creationist propaganda that Henry’s talking about.
For example, regarding the peppered moth photo “controversy”: the photos in question were provided as illustrations. They were not presented as evidence for the argument (which would be dishonest), but to help the reader understand how the moths’ camouflage would (or wouldn’t) blend against light vs. dark colored backgrounds.
To prove that Kettlewell’s paper is wrong (never mind all the subsequent research on this topic), creationists would have to show the actual data presented in the paper and/or the conclusions drawn from it are in error. Unable to do that, the more dishonest amongst them resort to smear attack instead: implying that there’s something dishonest or underhand about using visual explanations to clarify some of the issues the paper discusses.
To use an analogy: it’s like pointing to Leonardo’s The Last Supper and saying that since that’s obviously not a *real* portrait of the Jesus in the middle, it just goes to show that the story of the last supper is itself untrue.
I’m sure you’ll agree that such an “argument” is a complete non-sequitur, and that Leonardo’s wonderful visual representation of the events described in that story does nothing to confirm nor deny their veracity; nor was it ever intended to.
I hope you’ll also agree that anyone who intentionally and repeatedly advances such an argument, whether through wilful stupidity or malice, fully deserves to be taken to task for it.
Regards
I think Laura has a point, even though I now disagree with her on the peppered moths. First, of course, I’m not questioning her report of how she was taught it. I’ve seen enough mis-education in science that I would be totally unsurprised if concepts are improperly taught.
Up to about 3 years ago I would have held the peppered moths as a bad example of evolutionary science in action. It was only considerable reading of material that made my head ache that finally convinced me of what I now believe to be the truth–the peppered moth study was valid, and the results have largely been confirmed. But it was hard to get to that point.
Since I grew up young earth creationist, with all my education in Christian schools where YEC was the default, I naturally have more stories about deception by YEC folks. I don’t, however, think most of them were intentionally deceptive. There is simply so much misinformation out there that a non-expert has a great deal of difficulty sorting it all out.
But that makes me all the more angry when I read material like what Dr. Steve Matheson is writing (example), that shows that there are people who should know better who are spreading these falsehoods.
One of the great things about science is that scientists are willing to expose frauds in their own profession. I think this has gone quite well. But the public education aspect of this is done very poorly so that it is not easy for non-scientists to get the story straight.
One additional point–the tendency to push evolution out of the curriculum requirements has hindered, rather than helped, from either point of view, I think. At least with chapters on evolution children know when they are being taught evolutionary theory. My son’s science books presented evolutionary concepts very poorly and without using the word. That, in my view, is educational malpractice.
It’s not dishonest creationist propaganda to say that I personally was taught that the photos were one of many _proofs_ of evolution and that I was NOT told that the photos were staged, illustrations or anything other than completely accurate scientific proof.
I don’t even know who to blame for that – I don’t remember the details of how my H.S. freshman biology textbook phrased it this many years later, or if my teacher just taught it poorly. If the latter, it might be because he was just generally a bad teacher, because he believed it himself, or because he didn’t want to risk anyone NOT believing in evolution (because one Mormon girl argued with him continually about it) and it was easier to categorically assert it than to get into a long debate which would throw his course off schedule. And our textbook evidently phrased the info about the moths in such a way that _no one_ contradicted the teacher on that point.
In other words, those photos WERE presented as evidence for the argument; maybe not by Kettlewell but probably a textbook writer and at minimum a HS science teacher. When I learned more about it later it really ticked me off and made me question the whole thing. This dishonest creationist propaganda you complain of is being given a foothold by active or passive dishonesty on the part of evolutionists. If I had been originally told, “these photos are staged; we’re just trying to make a point,” then when I encountered creationist arguments I would have been a good deal less susceptible to them. That’s where that sense of betrayal comes from, and just like a new Truther who heard the quote about the building being pulled – without explanation or context – it causes people more doubt and leads them down a wrong road. Does that excuse creationists, particularly leadership? Of course not – and more so because they are usually Christians and should be held to a higher standard. But it’s also not happening in a vacuum.
This is why creationism has traction – because regardless of the truth of evolution, the _teaching_ on it is frequently deplorable. Maybe the problem here is the fact that this complex and controversial concept gets put in the hands of beleaguered public school teachers on extremely tight schedules with a bunch of obnoxious kids who would rather be anywhere but in science class.
Rather than beat them down for being idiots, evolutionists might ask the next creationist they encounter when they first heard of evolution, and how and why they became convinced it was a fraud. If you really want to convert people, that conversation is the way to do it.
Obviously I can’t speak on your particular case, but one thing I’ve seen before is creationists exploiting a “false memory effect”. If you’re listening to a talk by Hovind and he starts talking about Haeckel’s embryo pictures then, even if you never saw them at school, you’re going to start remembering the embryo photos you did see.
Then, when Hovind tells you that Haeckel’s embryos were faked, you infer that your textbook writers were lying to you, even though in fact the photos that you personally saw were completely legit.
I’ve been in the same situation myself. I saw the discussion of Haeckel’s embryos, and I had real trouble believing the evolutionist side because I was sure I’d seen that picture in my secondary school textbook. Then I actually got hold of a copy of that textbook, and discovered that the pictures in it were photos of real embryos – not fraudulent at all. Dammit.
Hi Henry, all.
This false witness by IDers and creationists is something Steve Matheson (a Christian and a scientist) talks about a lot:
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/
I’d recommend you read Steve to see just how bad the rot is, and how, basically, the C/ID movements can not be trusted.
Those of us, like Steve, who ‘believe’ in evolution the same way that we ‘believe’ in gravity (i.e. it’s not belief at all: It’s acceptance of a theory that explains the observed phenomena and which makes predictions that can be and have been tested) realize that we can not convince lay Christians of the truth of evolution from a scientific point of view (and Dawkins and other evangelical atheists would do themselves a great service if they realized this). Instead, we must work shoulder-to-shoulder with our sisters and brothers, take them by the hand and show that actually, evolution is as theologically sound as gravity, and mere C/ID actually diminishes the concept of God.
I believe in a God so wonderful and mind-blowing that he could have created the universe in 7 days flat; but I am more astounded that I can have this conversation as a result of millions of years of evolution, in which the hand of God is there, is necessary and sufficient, but at a level we can not comprehend.