Last week I wrote about the problems the Discovery Institute had with my article arguing that the evolution/creation controversy was a battle between different religious worldviews rather than a struggle between religion and science.
Now I find myself writing about yet another major creationist organization's criticisms of my work for The Huffington Post. This time the attack is coming from Answers in Genesis, the people behind the $27 million creation museum-cum-theme-park just outside Cincinnati. You know who I mean -- they're the folks who show dinosaurs and humans comfortably cavorting and who declare that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
There are two issues I need to address.
The first, why the criticism leveled by Answers in Genesis is meaningless nonsense, is rather trivial. The second, however, why any of us should care in the least about what creationist organizations have to say, is far from trivial. Indeed, I'd argue that it may well be one of the more important issues of our time.
Let me dispense with the trivial point first. Last month I discussed why social Darwinism was both a misnomer and a terrible idea, both scientifically and socially. Not surprisingly, Answers in Genesis disagreed. They simply repeated their argument that social Darwinism is a "logical ... conclusion of Darwinian scientific theory" and then, grotesquely, pointed to the existence of serial killers to support their absurd contention.
Such behavior is nothing new for Answers in Genesis and their founder, Ken Ham. Two outrageous but all-too-typical examples will make my point. Back in 1987 Ham published an article entitled "Creationism: Cure for AIDS?" in which he concluded that "the spread of AIDS can be stopped -- by simply rejecting false evolution." In an even more extreme move, Ham and Answers in Genesis opted to commemorate the fifth anniversary of 9/11 by running ads in the Cincinnati Inquirer and in Christianity Today laying the attack at the feet of evolution.
Ham and his lot are clearly extremists, so why should we care what they do or say? Wouldn't we be better off simply ignoring them?
I wish it were so, but, as amazing as it might seem, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute have the ability to shape public policy in frightening ways. Unless many of us keep pointing out what they're all about, they may well succeed in reshaping America and redefining science in a manner that will do irreparable damage.
And make no mistake about it, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute are close cousins, even though they present different personas. Yes, the Discovery Institute is slicker -- with many more lawyers, better suits, and a bevy of political operatives -- than the young-earth- and fire-and-brimstone-preaching contingent that makes up the core of Answers in Genesis.
But, most importantly, both groups want the country recast as a Christian fundamentalist nation. And they both abhor the concept of evolution and want science redefined.
Am I being too extreme? You be the judge.
As I pointed out last week, Howard Ahmanson, Jr., one of the Discovery Institute's biggest donors, has expressed radical views about the role religion should play in America. And that's putting it mildly, since he's said, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."
Take a look at the The Wedge, the Discovery Institute's original planning document, and cringe when you read that their goal is "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."
Or listen to Ken Ham's 2010 "State of the Nation" speech (yes, he thinks he's important enough to deliver a speech with that name!) and hear him call for a country based on "God's word" rather than "man's word."
Both organizations, apparently suffering from a bad case of science envy, are desperately calling for science to be redefined to include the supernatural. Yes, you read that correctly. Both think that science is too limited in its present form and that it needs to be expanded beyond its present search for natural explanations. Observation, experimentation, data collection, analysis, indeed, the entire scientific method, be damned; bring in supernatural explanations.
This would all be funny if groups of this sort weren't able to influence politicians, primarily at the local school board level and in state legislatures around the country. However, anti-evolution bills or pro-creationism actions persistently crop up, under various names, in state after state and town after town.
What may be saddest of all about this is that natural allies, people who care about high quality science instruction and respect for others, are being manipulated into attacking one another. Religion and fundamentalism are not synonymous and I've come to realize that deeply religious people are usually respectful of others with different beliefs. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, are typically intolerant of the slightest deviation from their own views. Which brings me back to my original point: the controversy is not between religion and science.
Whatever you may think of religion, the fact is that the majority of religions, including a majority of Christian denominations, view evolution as being fully compatible with their faith. When religion as a social construct is attacked because of the extreme pronouncements of people like Ken Ham, intolerance abounds and ignorance wins.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Answers in Genesis has just demonstrated that atheist Dr Zimmerman is perfectly willing to lie about his opposition and quote mine them to push his evolutionary propoganda:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/04/23/the-rest-of-the-story-exposing-misquotes%c2%a0by%c2%a0an-atheist-professor/
Yet in an email exchange we had recently, Dr Zimmerman stated that he no longer thought of our discussion as productive because he didn't like my tone, he didn't like my criticisms of his probable motives for the Clergy Letter and, get this, he thought I was MISREPRESENTING him. And here he is, caught with his pants down, definitely misrepresenting Answers in Genesis.
Consider the source, guys!
http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/the-hidden-purpose-behind-atheist-michael-zimmermans-pro-evolution-clergy-letter/
Rev Tony Breeden
http://CreationLetter.com
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/04/23/the-rest-of-the-story-exposing-misquotes%c2%a0by%c2%a0an-atheist-professor/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29
Zimmerman: "... why any of us should care in the least about what creationist organizations have to say, is far from trivial."
Yet when Zimmerman provides a reason why AIG are 'extremists' he can come up with nothing better than a made up story? It seems that if he takes this as seriously as the above statement suggests then he would do better than purposely misquote his opponents. Or maybe he does take this issue seriously, but can find no evidence of AIG being extremists so must resort to lying.
If you're going to talk about the importance of what creationist organizations have to say, then shouldn't you talk about what they have to say rather than talking about the lies you have made up about them? You may skilled at taking down strawmen of your own creation, but you're equally unskilled at making those strawmen believable.
So if he must stoop to these tactics, why would anyone take this man seriously?
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/04/23/the-rest-of-the-story-exposing-misquotes%C2%A0by%C2%A0an-atheist-professor/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29
Show me a Christian theologian from before AD 1500, who says that Genesis or the story of Jeusus' resurrection is not to be taken literally, and I'll eat my words. Apart from some Rennaissance Popes usually referred to by modern Catholics as "the bad Popes," and some renegade 18th-century French priests who were not so much Christians as gleeful blashphemers with cushy jobs courtesy of the Church, the first real theological doubt of the literal truth of the Bible of which I know came in the early 19th century with people like Strauss. Strauss' viewpoints may closely resemble those of many mainstream theologists today, I don't know. But to state that non-literal interpretation of the Bible goes all the way back to its authors is, I submit, a whopper.
Philo was doing his stuff around the same time Jesus was walking around.
"Might want to throw Philo in there too (Jewish scholar)."
No, I would not want to throw Philo in with Christian theologians and the authors of the Bible.
I agree that the Discovery Institute is poison, but why would we think that? What property is it about the organization and its people that make it so poisonous?
Quite simply, it's ego. Arrogance and a lack of humility. This is the same arrogance and lack of humility displayed by some who profess to love science and logic. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, used far too often by the "skeptical" whether they are "creationist skeptics" of traditional science, or "secular skeptics" who see no value in all that superstitious stuff.
I love science (particularly astronomy, astrophysics and computer), logic (particularly Boolean), mathematics, and history. Truth is just as elusive to the arrogant scientist as it is to the arrogant believer.
Rod Martin, Jr.
http://rods-ideas.blogspot.com/2010/04/whats-important-to-me-right-now.html
Quite right. It's the ultimate barrier to knowledge, arrogance in ignorance. Doesn't matter where you stand. Once you stop asking questions with genuine curiosity, you're no longer learning.
Instead, I propose we hijack their understanding of Genesis. The universe is far larger, older and richer than is allowed by their small understanding. Take for instance the 6,000 year age of the universe. Remove the need for the 6,000 year timeline, by giving us a new timeline, and we might be a step closer to a solution.
If there is truth in Genesis, and I suspect there is a great deal of uncovered "truth," then it will, of necessity, match reality. Anthropologists tell us that man is at least 200,000 years old. Cosmologists tell us that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
There's a code in Genesis that gives us a timeline compatible with those of science. And what's interesting about this new Genesis timeline is that it may reveal the culprit behind the need for Noah's Flood, not at Ussher's 2348 BC, but 27,970 BC. And it explains the real meaning of the "corruption of flesh" that made the Flood necessary.
And the biblical scholar might be interested to learn that the Kabbalah's "Tree of Life" was discovered embedded in Genesis, right after the words, "Tree of Life."
Rod Martin, Jr.
"The Noah Mystery, God's Reason for the Flood"
http://www.GenesisCode.Net
http://hubpages.com/hub/reincarnation-karma-and-biblical-interpretation
It could be studied in the new sub-set scientific endeavor, titled "The Scientific Feasibility of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood" and it could could be taught within a new scientific discipline titled "The Unintelligent Design of Life and the Universe". 'UD"
Do you really want to see science attempt a reconcilliation with Genesis? I do, because I know what the outcome would be, but I don't believe, for a New York minute, that you really, honestly, want to see science scrutinizing the Bible's mythology.
By the way, if you want this to be studied, you're going to have to find grant money.
They want the Bible to be taken literally. This way they can argue about the Bible using terms like, fact, evidence, proof and such.
Then, if you say you shouldn't understand everything as literal, then they will condemn you for not following the Word of God. Also, they want to push your view to the extreme end of the metaphorical end of the spectrum and say, "well, if you are willing to say one part is metaphor, why not all?"
Just a waste of time.
Lastly, they don't want you to be Catholic. If you are Catholic, you put tradition on the same footing as Scripture. Well, they have not read those books, and even if they have, they probably don't understand them.
Sorry anti-religious elements out there, take your ball and go home...
Look it up yourself. Be horrified.
Stumped, eh?
"Well, they have not read those books, and even if they have, they probably don't understand them."
I guarantee you that I have read and studied the Bible to a far greater depth than you have. I'd also be willing to bet that YOU have not read much in the way of the pertinent "challenging" arguments of brilliant thinkers like Paine, Gould, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.
Your "projection", that it is the religious skeptics that are close minded to studying and understanding the 'opposition argument', and not the religious proponents that are the "close minded" group, is laughable.
"I guarantee you that I have read and studied the Bible to a far greater depth than you have."
Maybe you have, and if you have, it is a shame you are still so ignorant about it. Also, I wanted to outline that the Catholic canon does not stop at the Bible and includes a vast amount of works and an even wider array of thought.
"I'd also be willing to bet that YOU have not read much in the way of the pertinent "challenging" arguments of brilliant thinkers like Paine, Gould, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc."
In fact, I have read the works of/about many of these people and more. (and yes, unfortunately I read Harris to name one outright)
"Your "projection", that it is the religious skeptics that are close minded to studying and understanding the 'opposition argument', and not the religious proponents that are the "close minded" group, is laughable."
I'm glad I could entertain you. Unfortunately, ignorance runs freely amongst the adherents to both our sides.
I know precisely what the differences between "historical fact, allegory, myth, parable and metaphor" are.
That's why I KNOW, just like the Founding Fathers of the United States KNEW, that the Bible was concocted by primitive, corrupt, Christian Mythologists. That's why the Founders gave us "Nature's God" as an alternative.
Here's a little quiz for you, mister Wouldn't-know-a-myth-if-it-bit-him-on-the-@ss.
Historical fact*, allegory, myth, parable or metaphor?
(*If you choose "historical fact", please provide a scintilla, of the evidence that you have used, to make such a detrmination.)
1) Garden of Eden/Talking Serpent
2) Great Food/Noah's Ark
3) Jonah's Fish Belly Vacation
4) Parting the Red Sea
5) Virgin Birth/Star of Bethlehem
6) Stopping the Sun for Joshua
7) Jesus Feeding 5000
8) Jesus Walking on Water
9) Jesus Raising Lazarus from the Dead
10) Jesus' Resurrection
This is just a partial list. As you know, there are hundreds more to choose from. We'll start with these, and move on from there, if you can get past this quiz, intelligently.
Would you want your child's math teacher to teach your children the Pythagorean Theorum, using allegory? Parable? Metaphor? How about your child's history teacher, teaching your child about the Constitution, using allegory? Parable? Metaphor? Why not, pray tell?
Their pride takes the form of arrogance in thinking that their tribe, and only their tribe, (be it human-species tribe or religious tribe) are “chosen.”
Their sloth takes the form or reliance on one interpretation of one book to the exclusion of all other evidence.
It really is hard work to consider all factors and use the rigor of scientific methodology.
The creationists I have met puff themselves up and usually make their pronouncements in an angry way, so they can hurry back to Farmville.
I was a creationist, now I'm not. I was raised in a very conservative home and private school. Let me tell you how it *really* is... People believe what they're told when it's coming from their parents, mentors, and peers.
Creationism, specifically anti-modern-biology creationism has been in the works for many decades now and their arguments and excuses work excellently on the scientifically illiterate (ie: the USA). By now there are mountains of creationist articles against modern science... which makes even honest independent research a difficult task.
So - it's not about pride, or about doing independent research. What it takes is a good understanding of the scientific method AND a good understanding of all the discoveries that have been made.
Here is what I've seen as the most significant response: You are stupid if you believe!
What an intellect it obviously takes to believe evolution and argue reasonably against creation.
Same goes for determining that that Bible (Creationism) is a fictional construct.
On the one hand is modern science (at least a dozen fields are relevant to this topic)... on the other is faith in a literal reading of scripture.
There's really not much to say... hence the vast amount of mere mud slinging.
We aren't teaching english or math well. I don't really see that it is necessary that everyone buy into evolution lest we get held back.
I really hope you're being sarcastic.
If I were to list out the top 5 to 10 problems effecting mankind few if any have anything to do with the theory of our origins. Most of the scientific discoveries that will make improvements in our lives have little or no dependence on evolution as a concept. Most people can grasp evolutionary theory at least to the degree that they can have a working understanding of it even if they were to reject it as incomplete or even incorrect.
Given the closeness between Global Warming denial and Creationism, I think it's reasonable to think just this. Scientific literacy is failing in the US. There are serious consequences to that.
Evolutionary theory is so fundamentally essential to modern biology, how on earth do you justify this claim? "Relatively few can point to any singular scientific discovery that requires the belief in evolution. " It's an unsubstantiated assertion even without your equivocation of the word 'belief'.
There's nothing incompatible between a scientist believing in God and accepting the fact of evolution. If the clergy members who signed Dr. Zimmerman's Clergy Letter can accept it, why can't other people of faith?
We are not required to believe anything in this country. We can believe anything we want to. We are even allowed to reject the preponderance of the evidence and hold onto any old silly irrational belief that we want to, Beliefs are not dangerous until they are shown to cause a danger to self or others. Beliefs are not a problem unless one can no longer successfully navigate his world. There is little evidence to suggest that even the most fundamentalist of believer cannot function in society because of his belief in creationism. A creationist is no threat to anyone. We all hold some beliefs that are irrational.
While the science of climate change may be settled in principle the solutions proposed are far from crystalized by those who embrace creationism and those who don't. Belief in evolution does not guarantee acceptance of climate change science.
If you'll pay attention, you'll notice that those scientists don't invoke magic when practicing their "craft". Creationists who practice good science at work and religion at home are fine. Creationists who try to weaken science education by saying it's ok to invoke magic to explain nature are NOT fine.
And we're back to integrity. The Institute for Creation Research is trying to get accredited to give college degrees in geology, biology and paleontology so they can manufacture their own "experts" and erode the efforts of real scientists.
The "Intelligent Design" and the Discovery Institute claim to be doing science in the absence of religion, but their "private" documents tell a very different story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_document
And the Discovery Institute is funded by radical Christian Dominionists and other Young Earth Creationists. Are they REALLY funding the science, or are they funding the campaign to market "doubt" (just like big tobacco marketed doubt about the science showing cigarettes cause cancer)?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson/
http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2000/07/from-genesis-to.html
If we allow science education to be subverted because of the views of one tiny subset of Christianity, what is next? When you allow science to leave the realm of facts and evidence, where along the slippery slope to you stop?
A NASA Project >>>
Hypothesis:
A) If the Universe was created by God, then it should reflect intelligent design.
B) if the Universe came into existence randomly, then it should reflect random, non-intelligent design.
If only A, or only B, can be true, but not A anb B, then which is it, A or B?
Here's another suggestion . . .
Put Intelligent Design [ID] into the science classroom. But, NOT on the Creationist fundy's "ID" terms. Let's broaden the scope, a lot. Anything goes, no holds barred, so to speak. Let's put this ridiculous Creation/Flood nonsense behind us.
The Little Billy's Dumb @SS Urethra Hypotehesis: If ID were going to design an intelligent path, for the male hominid's urethra, he would . . .
A) Pass the urethra [thru] the prostate gland.
B) Pass the urethra [around] the prostate gland.
America needs to quit avoiding this worldwide delusion. This is the same Naked Emperor BS that's allowing Dittoheads, Tea Baggers, and Climate Change Deniers to peddle their goofball conspiracies.
Given that Noah had to provide all predator pairs with enough [prey] food to survive 40 days and 40 nights, then the Ark's dimensions would have to be large enough to accomodate these enormous numbers of Animals. Is an Ark of that size possible, and could it be piloted by eight hominids?
God miraculously kept all the animals alive in the Ark. See how easy that was; no calculations, no reasoning, and you can't prove it's false.
BTW - if you read the whole story, it was something like 10 or 11 months before Noah and the people and the animals left the Ark. (Maybe a believer will do the actual calculations for us.)
The truth is that it is more than welcome in the science classroom if it shows validity through the scientific process. What they want is to bypass the standards of science and put it in science classrooms.
I am in favor of allowing the discussion to go on about ID and why it isn't a scientific theory and never has been. Then refer people who want to know more about it to a mythology class.