Why do creationist lie?

In the public domain, the question of the validity of evolutionary science has become a hot topic. It is one topic that I've been involved in for quite some time now because it revolves around one of my favorite subjects, science. It is also a topic that has often been addressed in media outlets but also in political debates on both sides of party lines. In some eyes, it is the perception of a crux that all debates seem to wind down towards. Especially, amongst creationist and evangelical christians who are the ONLY individuals pushing creationism.

So, as a person educated in science and with a good minds eye to debate I've placed myself in the role of reading/debating in many of the discussions that come my way. First before I begin, you need to know who I am. I am an atheist, that is I am a non-believer in whatever religion you claim is 'absolute truth'. It is not my intention to make you an atheist, I find such activity to be harmful and more importantly it has NOTHING to do with the topic of science of evolution. This is an important issue I see brought up time and time again. Entire arguments seem to be devoted around not 'science vs valid scientific criticism' but rather 'science vs imagined or percieved unscientific dogma'. Those arguments tend to intimately drift back to the topic of religion and entirely ignore the actual scientific validity of evolution itself.

For those that equate evolution to some kind of anti-religious atheist propaganda, there is little else we can do other then to offer to correct them. If they continue to pose statements in that regard, then what are we supposed to do in return?

Religion in science debates:
It should be noted that there are biologist that are theist. There are life sciences scientist, who believe in a god of some respective religion and also have no issue with evolution. Infact, many of them actually engage with creationist over the topic of scientific validity of evolution. Kevin Miller is often a vocal advocate of science and has produced many videos on evolution. He has also engaged in many debates with creationist, that usually leave creationist hanging since they are incapable of bringing up the 'religious card'. Still, that leaves another problem unexplained. When is it acceptable in a debate to cite information that has nothing to do with the debate itself? Why do creationist cite or bring up the religious card in often emotionally charged discussions? Why does there seem to be this percieved 'imaginary' conflict with evolution? Why do they avoid admitting that they are really attacking evolution because of an imagined conflict with their specific religious beliefs? Although, institutes like the discovery institute have been attempting to seperate themselves from the religious 'card' since they lost magnificently in the dover trial, their most vocal supporters are still overtly religious and pose arguments from religious grounds. Even the individuals in the discovery institute still demonstrate that it is their religious convictions that motivate them and not their actual criticisms of science.

The same applies when we talk to individuals like Ian*, he is motivated because of an emotionally charged and percieved conflict with evolutionary science. It should be noted that Ian isn't attacking other fields of science, he is only attackin the one he imagines is in conflict with his religious dogma. He exhibits no ability to actually provide a credible criticism of science and even attempts to pose the religious card without logical explanation or demonstrating that it has any merit to the discussion.

*Ian is an individual from ( http://evolution.meet... ) he has been participating in a series of discussions with other individuals over the topic of evolution. I'm using him as a direct example of what virtually ALL creationist do.

For example:

http://evolution.meet...

Evolutionists need to be very clear about this so that they do not feel so frustrated at Christians - the evolutionary theory is in conflict with the Bible.

Why is he comparing science to religion? Why just evolutionary science? Why not geology? Astrophysics?

http://evolution.meet...

Then, everything scientific about "evolution" that is useful (what Creation scientists call micro-evolution) can simply be called "genetics" and the word "evolution" can be eliminated from our vocabulary.

Why does he exhibit such a hateful emotional reaction to a word? It would be as if someone vented such hateful rhetoric and vitriol NOT to the theory of relativity, but to the word 'relativity'. In any analogy this would be ridiculously insane, you would never find someone saying,"Then everything specific about "relativity" that is useful ( what physics scientists call the theory of relativity ) can simpyl be called "physics" and the word "relativity" can be eliminated from our vocabulary!"

http://evolution.meet...

The matter not only involves eternal salvation after death but the kind of influence and impact one can have on your family members and the community at large. When one acknowledges and worships God, his/her life will be changed... character will be molded... and one would take care to uplift another... and survive any of life's heartaches and trials with confidence and trust in God.

The benefits of believing in God far outweigh the belief in Evolution.

I think its clear that Ian for whatever reasons believes evolution disproves christianity. But, why does he believe this? What does he pose irrational arguments based around a circular presumption and implication he leaves unexplained? Why not geology? Astrophysics?

http://evolution.meet...

Evolution says only the fittest will survive. God says the fittest will help and serve the weak.
Will you vote for Evolution or God?

Why is it an 'either or' question for Ian? Why does Ian seem to think evolutionary science equates atheism or some kind of different morality? Why not geology? Astrophysics?


I think its clear that emotionally there is something far deeper going on here then just offering to 'examine the critical evidence for evolution'. All arguments are posed along lines that evolution represents some percieved evil. Statements place evolution as if it were some replacement for moral philosophy, despite that it really has nothing to do with morality as it is simply a field of scientific research. The implications and presumptions that are made throughout our discussions with all creationist usually go unexplained. Not because we do not challenge them to explain it, but because they ignore that it demands explanation. In the case of discussion with Ian and with other creationist in the past, I have gone out of my way to ask them to explain why they carry such presumptions. I have pointed out that the majority of atheist are not atheist because of evolutionary science, I have pointed out that no one uses scientific evolution as a moral philosophy on life, and I have pointed out that there are theist who are also evolutionists. Without any input from the other side, the discussion becomes more of a soap box propaganda stand where the creationist makes claims that go unchallenged.


More to follow....

More on creationist lying & now anti-semitism:

I think there is a crucial issue missing from much of the debate surrounding the creationist movie,"Expelled." We've discussed the anti-scientific material presented on the websites blog and misinformation that a few previews to private audiences have revealed. We've discussed the rhetorical demonizing hate speech that has been said to fill the entire video that attempts to equate the biological sciences to any form of societal ill possible. We have also discussed the attempts to re-write history as far as the holocaust is concerned and their attempts to blame it upon darwinian evolution.

The irony is that this is a video meant to illustrate an imaginary bias in science, with all of the 'above'.

What has gone unmentioned has been the possible anti-semitic connotations of white washing history that has a deeply impacting role on potential survivors of that incident and their descendants. The video has gone out of its way to associate the evolutionary sciences to being a cause of the holocaust. This has been pointed out not only by individuals that have previewed the movie, but also by the very blog on the website for the movie:

http://expelledthemov...

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

A preview that has surfaced for the movie has pointed out that the holocaust and individuals like stalin are associated to any mention of evolutionary science by flashing brief images of nazi-germany/stalin/hitler.

http://blogs.orlandos...

I lost track of the number of times Stalin's image hit the screen, and in the ways the movie equated science with Darwinism with atheism with Hitler or Stalin. Subtle, it's not.

and

Most despicably, Stein, a Jew, invokes the Holocaust, making the Hitler-was-a-Darwinist argument, this AFTER he's used the Holocaust denier's favorite trick, probabilities, "math," to show how remote the chances are that life was created by natural, not supernatural processes. There were plenty of reasons eugenics caught on as an idea among certain nationalist-conservative and even scientific circles in the early 20th century, and most of them have nothing to do with Darwin. It reminded me of the phony slump Michael Moore showed walking away from ambushing crusty old Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine.

I think its rather clear that the negative imagery and false rhetoric is an attempt to make up for their inability to actually engage in debating science. However, they've done all of this in complete disregard of actual history and have gone so far as to use an entire genocidal event as part of a fallacious presentation. I think it builds up to a possibly massive mistake on their part, that could have severe negative ramifications with various jewish organizations that will have something to say.

And infact they do have something to say.

Abraham H Foxman from the ADL

http://www.adl.org/Pr...

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.

There is alittle shit storm brewing in the science blog world about evolution, creationism, and an intelligent design movie called "Expelled".

You can start here: http://scienceblogs.c...

But I will attempt to summarize, you see:

Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and several other family member of Myers RSVP'd to go see a premiere of the expelled movie thats coming out. As they were waiting in line, someone pulled Myers aside and asked if his name was PZ Myers. He said yes and was promptly asked to leave as he wasn't invited to something you could publically ( freely ) rsvp for. He returned to his family to discuss with them when the theatre manager returned with the guard/cop ( unknown details ) and told him to leave immediately or be arrested.

He promptly complied.

Richard Dawkins and Myers family went on to watch the movie. Myers immediately went and blogged about the incident. Since that night a certain amount of 'spin' has come out of the expelled blogs/producers etc. It began with:

1. Myers was causing a disruption. Largely unfounded claim that contradicts with several other witnesses that were actually there.

it became

2. Myers didn't have a ticket. To an event you could freely and publically RSVP for. That both Myers family and Dawkins attended.

it moved on to

3. Myers wasn't invited. To an event you could freely and publically RSVP for. That both Myers family and Dawkins attended.

All of these claims were submitted in part by the very producer of the movie itself ( Kevin Miller ), his blog can be read here to confirm:

http://kevinwrites.ty...

Which he ignores/omits that you can publically and freely RSVP at the websited for expelled itself. The confirmation email says no tickets are required and you only need to present a photo ID.

Other bloggers that attended the same event verified PZ Myers tale:

http://amused-muse.bl...

Not to mention that you can RSVP to see movie premieres on the damn expelled website itself ( that they wree claiming you had to be privately invited to, who privately invited Dawkins and PZ Myers family if thats so? )


---------------------------------

Why would they lie?

Sometimes creationists will even lie under oath. Judge Jones noted on page 115 of his decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, that creationists "... Bonsell and Buckingham lied ...":

http://www.pamd.uscou...

"As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to the Plaintiff's election not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board President and the Chair of the Curriculum Committee to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution."

On the topic of creationist dishonesty, one must also demonstrate that it is not solely limited to accusations against 'atheistic evolutionists' as the strawman label is often applied. It can also be targeting in their own religious arrogance, their fellow believers who do not believe as they do.

Here is another example:

http://www.uncommonde...

In a furthering attempt to demonstrate that intelligent design is not creationism, a writer over at uncommondescent attempts to explain how theist who believe in 'theistic evolution' are at best incoherent and in his apt bit of respectful charity,"But we can help you!".

The writer begins describing the critical opposition between theistic evolutionists and theist ( one I assume the writer automatically judges to be non-evolution believing christian based on the biblical interpretation that follows ). It is a sort of short summary, that attempts to define the theistic-evolutionist as being criticized as being unable to draw a definitive compatibility between their personal beliefs and evolutionary science. The writer then attempts to set up the theistic evolutionist position as the defense made to that accusation in the form of:

Yet a person very well versed in TE literature has informed me that many TEs do not appear to feel any such intellectual discomfort. They reconcile Christianity and Darwin, he suggests, by holding to an "old earth creationist" position, by interpreting Genesis non-literally, and by treating evolution as God's "creation tool."

The writer immediately admits the point that interpretative drawings upon the christian bible are wide enough to allow various differently held positions in the form of:

The first two points are non-controversial. There is plenty of room within orthodox Christianity for the belief that the earth is very old, and for less-than-completely-literal interpretations of Genesis.

Cudworth begins by redefining a tool as something being in control of the user in the 'strict' sense. Then immediately categorizes evolution in the typical creationist canard of being 'chance', therefore concluding it is out of gods control. Now, the error should be readily apparent in two ways. Cudworth immediately removes several possibilities by defining the mutations that occur as chance rather then themselves being the result of a causational existence as much as evolution as a process is itself. It seems that Cudworth's god is so limited in power it can never percieve a future outcome, nor plan for a future outcome like something as simple as a mathematical algorithm, a plastic coin sorting box, financial adviser, or any example of self organization both in physics/biology. It makes me wonder if Cudworth even has a concept of how any experimental outcome in the sciences can be even predicted based on the variables induced at the beginning of the experiment. It is as if the entire process of predicting an outcome based on the initial data, never and cannot occur.

Redefining tools, limiting a god of a mythology's ability upon nothing more then ones own authority, and entirely ignoring the same causational exercise one embraces as the proof of gods existence - is not the end of this dishonest diatribe of one christian to another. Cudworth immediately falls back on his own biblical interpretation to which he compares theistic evolutionist with no more rejection of their reason, then they do not believe as he does. The usage involves the limited definitions stated above to ultimately conclude in a strawman, where one presumes something one does not explain. He immediately cites the notion of 'divine providence', that is the idea that god provides for the needs of humans and the needs of earth for the indeterminate future. Then for no other reason then his own incredulity, dismisses gods providence for providing the very process he claims god has no control over because god cannot control a process that is only as controlled as the variables it recieves? Even if we set aside that 'providence' itself is just another analog like the literal interpretation of genesis, it is pretty inconsistent to presume one cannot control what is itself limited by what one solely introduces. That is, natural selection as a process is as dependent upon the variables in its environemnt as the outcome of an experiment in a lab or even a mathematical algorithm.

Cudworth seems to recognize that his only factor is solely dependent on the personal/individual interpretation of belief in both how and what is believed. He admits as much with:

"A non-providential God is clearly not an orthodox Christian God, and it therefore appears that theistic evolutionism generates heretical Christianity."

But unfortunately, Cudworth then goes on a diabtribe against theistic evolutionist entirely outside the topic of what he claimed previously. Where Cudworth said theistic evolutionist are incoherent based on definitions of his own creation, limitations of his own defined god, and presumptions about how and what to believe about whatever religious mythology he might conclude himself to be. He draws up a response perhaps trying to play devil's advocate to his own claims based and dishonestly uses his own limited framework for which to reply ie falling back on his original strawman. The exception is that this time, he concludes that science defines natural selection as working through 'chance' ( with little more mention of actual selection in natural selection ). Including where he presumes for us that,"operationally, science must proceed as if chance alone is at work."

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that we must operate as it if were nothing more then the inclusion of another variable that allowed the non-random selective criteria to occur. No 'chance' or 'design', required. It is simply, the result of a series of combining events that are quantifiable and can be analyzed. Does that make it chance? Well, if you look up the definition of chance in one aspect you'll get that very thing the product or result of a combination of events. Yet another will tell you that chance is luck, unpredicitable and unknown. If we use Cudworths usage of chance, he of course considers 'chance' to be outside of not only mans control but outside of gods control. So clearly, cudworth goes with chance being unknown to describe a field of science that fully well knows the non-random/non-chance selective cause behind a process.

Beyond this Cudworth simply repeats himself several times using the same various strawmen, limited definitions, and false dichotomy of 'chance' vs 'design'. He never returns to demonstrate a means to quantify design in a situation where we cannot tell the difference in outcomes and seems to criticize theistic evolutionists for believing in the same faith that he himself claims to believe in the christian god/mythology. He concludes on demonizing both atheists and christians who do not believe like he does, re-affirms a strawman, and never provides any information to support intelligent design. He presumes that anyone that accepts scientific methodology and the biological sciences, immediately removes the possibility of 'design'. Then uses that as an element to criticize others, when as a movement ID has never produced anythin