Condescension on Creationism
A recent comment by seeker accuses me of condescension:
It would be hard for us to have a conversation on this, because your condescension is so thick it would be like climbing uphill through dirty axle grease.
What interests me is that if a moderate or liberal remains quiet or speaks tolerantly of another position, he or she is regarded as wishy-washy, a typical liberal who won’t take a stand. On the other hand, if a liberal is so gauche as to take a stand on something, he is condescending. This sort of accusation often comes from people who have made a habit of being condescending, usually in a moral of spiritual sense. This is no exception.
Seeker refers me, amongst other posts, to this one, in which he accuses the vast majority of the scientific community of being deluded. He even titles the post Mass Delusion. There must be some special gift of chutzpah given to someone who can write such a piece, and then accuse someone else of being condescending.
In fact, Seeker invited me to critique a post he had written, and in that post there were a number of accusations raised against those of us who are Christians and also evolutionists. Apparently the only option he wishes to leave us is to acknowledge the great wisdom of his post and become convinced creationists. But unfortunately he fails to provide any reason to do that.
If it’s condescension to point out where one disagrees with another, then I’m guilty. If it’s condescension to require that someone provide some sort of evidence, then I’m quite guilty. My liberal tolerance allows me to say that I’m fine with having a variety of views on origins in the Christian community. At the same time, simple honesty calls me to point out that I believe that creationists, whether of the young earth, old earth, or intelligent design varieties are wrong. The extent to which they are wrong differs. At the same time, I have no problem with them telling me that they believe that I’m wrong. We can both take those comments for what they’re worth.
Now for just a couple of points of non-response in seeker’s comment:
1. One of seeker’s original accusations was that I was using “evolutionary thinking” rather than “scientific thinking.” I called him on it, and how does he respond?
Perhaps you can do a little self-examination, and, using your impressive intellect, postulate on what ideas might be evolutionary thinking rather than scientific? Are the two synonymous in your opinion? Then what do you think a creatoinist would say?
So I am supposed to provide my own accusation and then defend myself against it. That’s not how it works. You tell me how my thinking is not scientific, using examples from things I have actually written, and then I’ll be glad to defend myself. Otherwise your accusation is simply yet another unsubstantiated claim.
2. Seeker states: “Creationists HAVE proposed full orbed models for origins.” Great! Point out where these models are, what they predict, and how this is being scientifically tested.
3. And then,
– you appear to assume evolution to be fact, which to me is intellectual suicide
– you fail to recognize or separate the philosophy of Darwinism from the scientific model
On what possible basis would you suggest that I assume evolution to be fact? At what point did I say that, imply that, or give any reasonable person a reason to suppose it? No, it’s just a standard creationist attack line to see if an opponent will fold to a bluff. I believe that the theory of evolution is the best theory we currently have to explain the data. None of the potential explanations by creationists have anything like the explanatory power and the confirmation by numerous lines of evidence from various branches of science. This “philosophy of Darwinism” is a figment of some people’s imagination. There are those who draw unjustified philosophical conclusions from the theory of evolution, but calling them “Darwinists” is a slur on Charles Darwin and his tremendous scientific accomplishments.
4. Finally, in an attempt to appear prophetic, seeker announces that I will not accept any of his arguments.
Im sure youll find none of this satisfactory, and find all kinds of supposed faults with my answer. Why am I sure? Because Ive argued with evolutionary believers before, and you sound like one of the faithful.
I presume this is because he knows they are so weak. Or, NO! It couldn’t possibly be! Is he being condescending?
if a liberal is so gauche as to take a stand on something, he is condescending.
Come on henry, you know damned well there is a difference between taking a stand and being derisive. I guess we are all somewhat guilty here, but I thought your tone was derisive and dismissive throughout.
There must be some special gift of chutzpah given to someone who can write such a piece, and then accuse someone else of being condescending.
I actually do not mean this as condescending, but as a literal truth. As a former scientist, I remember my own dismay and disgust when I discovered that evolution was not some incontrovertible fact, and was in fact, a theory with serious challenges. I felt duped by my profs and the scientific community. The problem, as it turns out, is they are duped also! They lack the objectivity and dispassion they so admire.
Look, we have all been brainwashed and deluded at least once in our lives. In fact, scripture talks quite a bit about renewing our minds, and how we are blinded by the world’s thinking. That is what I am saying about evolutionary believers.
They ignore the power that such a worldview has over people, and how compelling such a belief system would be, be it truth or fiction. In fact, our innate need for a world view makes us vulnerable to believing such an idea with much more vigor than the facts deserve. Same goes for any world view, even Christianity.
So I am supposed to provide my own accusation and then defend myself against it. That?s not how it works. You tell me how my thinking is not scientific, using examples from things I have actually written, and then I?ll be glad to defend myself. Otherwise your accusation is simply yet another unsubstantiated claim.
Yes, Henry, I wanted to challenge you to think self-critically. Are you willing or able? You seem smart, so I’d guess you are able. You see, part of healthy disucssion is being self-critical. And if I get time, I will provide you with examples of how you think evolutionarily rather than scientifically, but for now, I’m sorry to not substantiate my claims, except to say that your assumptions are often uncritically evolutionary rather than scientific. If I get time, I will try to back up my accusations.
Great! Point out where these models are, what they predict, and how this is being scientifically tested.
Sigh. Aren’t you smart enough to know such things are out there? I would suspect that you have seen them, and perhaps even read the debunking articles.
Summary of Reasons To Believe’s Testable Creation Model
Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars (sample chapter comparing models, from an OEC standpoint>
Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man
Raising the Bar on Creation Research – a specific case of creation-model based research
ORIGIN VIEWS COMPARISON CHART (OEC perspective)
The point is, the models can be compared, can make predictions, and can be falsified. The argument that creationism does not make falsifiable predictions or does not even exist is just self-deceptive blindness. Now, you may argue that the model is not very good, but that’s a separate argument. So there they are.
In my mind, both creation and evolution models have the same problem – they can not explain the initial creation event very well (though the big bang could be argued as a naturalistic event), but beyond the initial creation assumption, perfectly good science can be done based on either theory.
I believe that the theory of evolution is the best theory we currently have to explain the data. None of the potential explanations by creationists have anything like the explanatory power and the confirmation by numerous lines of evidence from various branches of science.
Fair enough. But I’d say that the creation model better incorporates existing data, predicts better, AND has almost no explanatory power, nor does it contribute much to scientific research at all, and may actually impede science. I am prepared to argue these claims, as have many creationists already. I’m sorry, but your confidence in evolution outstrips the facts, imo.
No, it’s the fact that you present so many of the typical evolutionary canards like “there is no testable creationist model” and “evolution is science and not philosophy” that I assumed (wrongly?) that you are just another duped person who revels in straw men and self-decption regarding evolution, rather than a real thinker.
It sounds to me like you got turned off to sloppy creationists, and were subsequently taken in by the evolutionary believers, whose facts are poorer than they admit. I think you’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater. So prove me wrong – recant of your error regarding the existence of creationist models and I might believe you that you are actually thinking reasonably rather than fanatically and religiously.
Too bad, too bad. I think I’ll check out seeker, just to see what’s up there.
why did my response not show up?
The only response I know of is this one to which I linked at the beginning of the post.
Oops! Akismet got it for some unknown reason. It’s now restored.
Here is an example of your condescension. Why do you think I should dance to your tune? Is there some basis on which I should regard you as a master and I your student? Thus far, you are just another commenter on my blog. That’s neither bad nor good until you show who you are one way or another.
. . . which simply confirms my point. You want me to make the accusations and then defend myself. After reading every article on your blog that you’ve linked to from these various comments, I am in no way concerned with having you critique my thinking. Go ahead and do so at any time. But I’m not going to help you, and I will respond to anything I feel deserves a response, whether or not you regard the response as condescending.
In this case, you have failed to provide anything to respond to.
Again, what made you think I wanted to prove myself to be a “real thinker” to you? I still stand by the no testable creation model. I’m wondering if you actually believed I would accept a model provably false. No, I would want one that has some potential to be a) comprehensive and b) correct.
Prove you wrong? I have no desire to do that. So far our discussion has been entirely about condescending or not. I believe I have now fulfilled your criterion for refusing to talk to me further. I’ve failed to be a “real thinker” according to you. Of course I note that you appear to define “real thinker” as “person who agrees with seeker.”
I leave the door open to the possibility that I will critique some other article of yours. I never promise to shut up completely.
I am sorry my tone caused you to retreat, but it is obvious that you would rather sit in your self-superiority rather than answer. Fine with me, but it goes to show others reading that you are smug, but don’t necessarily have answers. I’d say that the creationist models which I linked to, which you smugly ignored, are as full orbed as evolution (unless, like some evolutionists, you believe that evolution answers everything).
But here’s my real beef – you have joined the unbelieving anti-Christians in affirming that creationism is poor science, if science at all, which I think is polemic, but not truth.
Soon, I suspect you will join the higher critics and the likes of the Jesus Seminar folks who deny the inspiration of scripture. You might as well declare your unbelief in the gospel now! Seriously, though you may be orthodox in other areas, your derision of creationism is as shameful as you claim creationism to be. And I don’t say such out of religious sentiment, but out of scientific and hermeneutical sentiment.
Retreat? I have several more posts in the category “Creation and Evolution” since this one. Do you believe that my entire involvement with this subject is defined by you?
On inspiration I’m guessing you mean “disagreeing with seeker’s view of inspiration.” As for higher criticism, I’ve been using higher critical methodologies for decades. They have quite a number of weaknesses, but also many benefits.
I have yet to see you employ any arguments that could be regarded as scientific, at least if accuracy is required as part of the definition of “scientific.” The only hermeneutical argument I’ve seen is the disastrously flawed suggestion that one has to take the early chapters of Genesis as some type of history. I quite cheerfully will tell you that I reject the view that one must first and foremost take the Bible literally as vigorously as I am able.