| E-Mail Correspondence |
In your last e-mail you said,
| I did not mean to imply that all creationists are necessarily liars as individuals (any more than anybody else), only that scientific creationism forces them into that position. The basic premise of SciCre (to use a common abreviation) is to put forward an argument that its proponents know to be false, namely that their opposition to evolution is based on scientific grounds. The real reason they adhere to creationism is as a consequence of their religious beliefs, and by their own admission any supporting evidence in the natural world is secondary to their faith in the Bible. SciCre is an after-the-fact attempt to show that the natural evidence (if one tries hard enough) could be made to conform to their faith if one so desires. The objective of SciCre (as one finds in the small print at the bottom of any ICR publication) is clearly evangelism, to whip up the faith of the hesitant and as a point of attack towards new converts. The emphasis on "scientific" arguments, such as intelligent design, is an artifact of the political battle which is taking place in the U.S. over control of the public school system. Most SciCre-ists, if given the choice, would much prefer to openly teach the bible as fact. "Balanced treatment" is simply a debating position they are forced to adopt as a result of the 1st amendment. One could call this a political tactic, rhetorical device, spin doctoring, or a number of other terms, but the slide into outright dishonesty has been too difficult for many to resist. |
We believe your argument is more true of evolutionists than creationists. One could more easily argue that evolution is the creation myth of secular humanism. Could one not say that evolutionists falsely claim that their opposition to creation is based on scientific grounds? If we presumed to know the mind of evolutionists as your presume to know the mind of creationists, we could say the real reason they adhere to evolution is their desire to disprove the existence of a creator and the consequent necessity of obedience to that creator. The object of evolutionists is to destroy Christianity and break free from its moral shackles. Darwin's theory of Evolution was an after-the-fact attempt to show that the natural evidence (if one tries hard enough) could be made to conform to his belief that a good God could not have created such a sinful world, and therefore everything must have been created without a creator. We don't say that because we don't presume to know the subconscious thoughts of evolutionists.
Most creationist organizations are religious organizations who freely admit that their goal is evangelism. Some creationists organizations even require an affirmation of basic Christian beliefs as a condition of membership. Call this "fine print" if you like, but what evolutionist organizations admit that their goal is to rid the world of Christianity? (Do you really think that the National Center for Science Education is only interested in advancing science? Do you consider them "honest"?)
Evolutionists' emphasis on the "scientific" nature of the theory of evolution and the "religious" nature of creationism is an artifact of the political battle which is taking place in the U.S. over control of the public school system. Evolutionists try to cloak their creation myth in the guise of a proven scientific theory so that they can indoctrinate children in the public school system without admitting that they are using the public school system to establish the secular humanist religion. One could call this a political tactic, rhetorical device, spin doctoring, or a number of other terms, but the slide into outright dishonesty has been too difficult for many evolutionists to resist.
You said,
| It is also important to point out that "dishonesty" means different things to different people. SciCre-ists have a fundamentally different concept of reality from that of scientists. A scientist attaches a high value to factual data, and considers any misrepresentation of it to be an unpardonable sin. To a SciCre-ist, however, reality is simply a matter of biblical interpretation. Any argument they have to make in order to justify that interpretation is acceptable because the bible is, by definition, always right. The integrity of the data needs to be respected only to the extent that it serves their purpose in evangelism. It is this difference in perception that causes scientists to label as dishonest arguments which SciCre-ists do not consider to be so. |
We disagree that creation scientists have a less honest concept of reality than any other scientist. As we pointed out in our April essay on Scientific Honesty, evolutionists on several well-known occasions have pardoned the misrepresentation of data when that misrepresentation advances the theory of evolution. We believe these are unusual cases. Generally speaking, evolutionists are just honestly mistaken because they believe that the theory of evolution is always right, and that belief leads them to honestly misinterpret the facts. On page 90 of the May 99 issue of Natural History, evolutionist Stephan Jay Gould quotes Lyell as saying that, "A false theory it is well known may render us blind to facts, which are opposed to our prepossessions, or may conceal from us their true import when we behold them." We believe that the theory of evolution is one such false theory.
You could just as correctly have said that, to an evolutionist, "reality" makes no allowance for any supernatural aspect. Any argument they have to make in order to justify that interpretation is acceptable because, by definition, there is no such thing as the "supernatural." The integrity of the data needs to be respected only to the extent that it serves their purpose in advancing naturalism. It is this difference in perception that causes scientists to label as dishonest arguments which evolutionists do not consider to be so.
You said,
| The definition if science is not the test which both are being held to. As is clearly explained in the Court's decision, it is the three-pronged test of separation of church and state established by legal precedent. SciCre is excluded because it fails all three prongs of the test, one of which is the lack of sufficient scientific value to offset its trasparently religious effect. |
You are right that the court ruled on more than just the scientific issues involved. Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education wrote about another case similar to the Arkansas case we are discussing. According to her,
The Supreme Court decision says only that Louisiana law violates the constitutional separation of church and state: it does not say that no one can teach scientific creationism--and unfortunately many individual teachers do. [Nature 328 (1987): 282]
We don't engage in political activity because we believe it is not fruitful. (And also because California law prevents our California non-profit corporation from doing so.) It is not fruitful because battles won in court today can be overturned tomorrow. Officials we vote for might not keep their campaign promises. Since these temporary victories depend upon fickle judges, juries, and voters, it isn't worth the trouble to fight for them. We believe it is far more productive to encourage the general public to study the scientific issues for themselves. Once they discover the truth for themselves, they will not regress to a belief in evolution again, regardless of the current political climate. But if we did want to fight the battle in court, we would argue that the dogmatic teaching of the unproven, scientifically unsound, theory of evolution in a transparent attempt to use the public school system to advance the secular humanist religion is unconstitutional.
You said,
| Although, as you noticed, I am not American, I spent over ten years living in 4 different states (including CA) and have done time in the U.S. public school system. I am reasonably aware of the issues involved. That the definition you quoted may actually be taught in some schools is certainly more horrifying to scientists than anybody else, and one of the reasons they are so opposed to creationist material entering the school system. |
We believe the definition we quoted is an excellent summary of evolution as it appears in most textbooks. In our essays we quote the textbooks used in our local high school and community college when we make claims about what is being taught to our students. We do that to make it easy for our (local) readers to verify that what we are saying is true. They can go to the college bookstore and look it up without buying the book, or they can ask to borrow a high school student's text. There is absolutely no creationist influence in the biology texts we quote, but they clearly state as fact that chemicals naturally combined to form life; that complex creatures evolved from simple creatures through mutation and natural selection; and that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. We, too, find that horrifying; but it didn't come from creationist materials entering the school system. Those things would be taught to an even greater degree if not for opposition from creationists.
What other (less horrible) form of evolution do you think is being taught in U.S. schools? What should students be taught about the origin of the various kinds of life on Earth?
You continued,
| While the bible may be on your side (although that is debatable), the facts of science most certainly are not. The issue boils down to which one chooses to use to define "true". And I disagree; lying is an effective way to win an argument. That is what makes Duane Gish such a convincing performer in front of uneducated audiences. |
As you know, we don't debate the Bible. We do try to debate the facts of science, but we have a really hard time of it. We challenge people to tell us specifically what scientific fact they disagree with, and get no response. It is hard to have a scientific debate when the other side won't respond.
For example, in our last letter to you we asked what scientific facts we had misstated or misinterpreted. You didn't tell us any. Instead, you disagreed with what you perceived our understanding of the legal basis for the decision in the Arkansas case to be. We hope you understand now that we both agree that the court decision was based on constitutional issues rather than scientific ones. That, however, was peripheral to the point in our original essay, which was that the theory of evolution would also have failed to meet the criteria the court used to determine if creation is "scientific" or not. You have not offered any "facts of science" that prove that life originated naturally and evolved into complex creatures over a long period of time. What specifically are the facts of science that are not on our side?
You have said that the definition of the theory of evolution we quoted has is origin in the Institute for Creation Research. We don't care where the definition came from, as long as it is accurate. We feel it does capture, in a few sentences, the gist of what is being taught in U.S. public schools. If you believe something different is (or should be) taught, then please accept our invitation to tell us what it is.
Lying may win battles, but it won't win a war. A lie will fool some people for a while. But when they discover it is a lie, then you lose the battle you had won, and forfeit any chance of winning any more battles because you have no credibility. That is the practical reason for not lying. (Of course there is a moral reason, as well.)
Your concluding thought was,
| Most people (whom I've talked to at least) consider SciCre to be a symptom of a widespread scientific illiteracy, and propose more and better education as the solution. I believe that the problem is much deeper than that. There is a famous quote about giving people the benefit of the doubt (let me know if you know the source), "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." The question therefore is whether or not SciCre can in fact be adequately explained by stupidity. That is why I am interested in understanding where creationist arguments come from and how creationists think. The answer is important both in educational philosophy and in shaping the political and cultural debates over the place of religion in society and in government. That is also why I personally find it so fascinating even though it is (thankfully) much less of an issue where I live. |
In essence, you are asking us to prove that creation scientists are stupid to exonerate them from dishonesty. We won't do that because we believe creation scientists are neither stupid nor dishonest. They merely have a better understanding of reality than evolutionists do.
We are familiar with the quote about giving people the benefit of the doubt. We could not find it in Bartlett's Quotations, or in Microsoft Bookshelf 98. Several web pages listed the author as "anonymous". One attributed it to Napoleon, but we doubt that. Several web pages called it Hanlon's Law or Hanlon's Razor.
|
Hanlon's Razor /prov./ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, that reads "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." The derivation of the Hanlon eponym is not definitely known, but a very similar remark ("You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.") appears in "Logic of Empire", a 1941 story by Robert A. Heinlein, who calls it the `devil theory' of sociology. Heinlein's popularity in the hacker culture makes plausible the supposition that `Hanlon' is derived from `Heinlein' by phonetic corruption. A similar epigram has been attributed to William James, but Heinlein more probably got the idea from Alfred Korzybski and other practitioners of General Semantics. Quoted here because it seems to be a particular favorite of hackers, often showing up in sig blocks, fortune cookie files and the login banners of BBS systems and commercial networks. This probably reflects the hacker's daily experience of environments created by well-intentioned but short-sighted people. Compare Sturgeon's Law. [http://www.elsewhere.org/jargon_search/TAG856.html] |
We believe, for the most part, that evolutionists are neither malicious nor stupid. We believe instead that they have been poorly educated. Most adults in the U.S. have been told by science teacher after science teacher that evolution is true. They have accepted evolution as true because teachers are generally a reliable source. We believe that when people are presented with the data, and told the evolutionist interpretation of the data, and told the creationist interpretation of the data, they will see that the creationist interpretation is the more reasonable explanation of the data.
We appreciate your desire to understand why people think what they think. We live in a "high tech" town built around an important weapons development laboratory. The average educational level here in Ridgecrest must be much higher than practically everywhere else in America. We have wondered why it is that our neighbors (engineers and scientists who work in the defense industry) tend to be politically conservative and believe in creation, while university professors tend to be politically liberal and believe in evolution. Neither group can be accurately described as stupid or "scientifically illiterate". Yet, they tend to hold remarkably different political and religious beliefs.
Perhaps the difference is that engineers are be brought back to reality more often than professors. One can argue all day long about the theoretical potential energy of a chemical reaction, but all those arguments are impartially settled by one good warhead test. The bomb doesn't care if the designer has a Ph.D. or not. The bomb only cares if the designer built it correctly. So, engineers are more convinced by verifiable facts than by stories artfully told by respected people.
I personally have built infrared seekers for three different guided missiles. I believe that gives me more than average insight into the process of gathering light, focusing it, detecting it, converting it to a signal, and applying appropriate image processing techniques to extract information from that signal. When I compare the eyes in living creatures with the "eyes" I have built for guided missiles, I realize how much more complicated the biological eyes are. I have a very hard time believing Richard Dawkin's fanciful story about how biological eyes could have developed independently (more than 40 different times) by chance mutations and natural selection. Nearly every manufacturing mistake (mutation) we made in our prototype seekers caused them not to work at all. In very rare cases the mistake merely made them work very badly. Eyes could not have evolved over billions of years by mutation and natural selection because every part has to work before the whole can work. That is my belief, based on practical experience.
We must come back to your basic point about honesty. You say that creationists aren't honest about their faith, despite the fact that it is in the "fine print". We counter that evolutionists are the ones who won't even admit in fine print that the theory of evolution is the creation myth of their secular humanist religious faith. Consider this comparison of the faith of creationists compared to the faith of evolutionists.
Creationists believe, by faith, that Jesus, Lazarus, Dorcus, and a few other people were raised from the dead supernaturally. Evolutionists tend not to believe that. As we understand the evolutionists' position, it is as follows: There are no "supernatural" processes. Everything that happens must be explainable by natural processes. There is no natural process by which a dead body can come back to life. Therefore, dead people could not have been resurrected.
But evolutionists believe, by faith (not experimental proof), that chemicals came together by an unknown natural process and formed a dead cell. Then that dead cell came to life by an unknown natural process. Then this dead cell evolved into every living thing on this planet through the natural processes of mutation and natural selection over a long period of time One must accept these articles of faith to be an evolutionist. One must accept these articles of faith in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence that chemicals don't form cells, things don't come to life naturally, and that birds don't hatch from lizard eggs because creatures always reproduce "after their kind". Yet the evolutionary articles of faith are taught in school as "science". Don't you consider that dishonest?
Sincerely,
R. David Pogge
Click here to see the rest of the correspondence on this subject.
| Quick links to | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Science Against Evolution Home page |
Back issues of Disclosure (our newsletter) |
Web Site of the Month |
Topical Index |