So this past Sunday, August 26, 2007, I sat down after my wife and children headed off to their church and decided to watch what had been on television on some random cable channel that morning when the family was watching. It looked like a nature program, talking about life in the oceans. I was watching half-heartedly, computer in my lap while I was typing up another entry, when I heard a word that made my ears perk up and my heart sink:
“Darwinism.”
Now, for those not in the know, this is a special word. It’s special because only one group of people tend to use it: Creationist Christians*, and generally only in one sense. It is a pejorative, carrying with it implications of ignorance, idolatry, and cultism. In this case, they placed the blame for the massacres of the modern age — including the Holocaust — squarely at the feet of these “Darwinists”.
So I paid a bit closer attention. I mean, apparently I’m part of an elite league of mass-murderers. I should probably take notes for the day when I finally grow up and carry out my own personal genocide.
Hot on the heels of the D-word, a few moments later I heard another interviewee use the “E-word”: “Evolutionists”. Yep, like “Darwinists”, this word carries negative connotations, and implies blind devotion to an ideal without regard for consequences. It is also a word almost exclusively used as a pejorative by Creationists. These evil evolutionists are defined by what they believe rather than the color of their skin, I guess.
The film did a good job of making people think those Evolutionists and Darwinists are really, really bad people. I mean, I couldn’t be one of those awful people. I hadn’t shot down a child’s hopes for an education that day. Nor had I shoved a Molotov cocktail down the windpipe of a resident Creationist and lit it on fire. In fact, I didn’t even get my ritual textbook-censoring finished that morning. I hadn’t forced Jesus out of my child’s elementary school with my own Cat-o-nine-tails, or beaten mention of the word “God” out of the vocabulary of a public school teacher.
I guess that makes me remiss in fulfilling my duties as a faithful member of the “Darwinism” church. I didn’t park a twenty-ton rock inscribed with Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit in the main hall of my local courthouse. I haven’t fulfilled my quota of burned Bibles today, nor have I paid my bribes to my local police officers to pull people over for having fish with IXOYE on their bumpers.
There is another word used for people who think Darwin’s ground-breaking work was good science, but, of course, flawed. These people may have their own personal beliefs about God, but they think that these beliefs have no place in a public school science class. They acknowledge when they are proven wrong, but generally aren’t swayed on their opinion about facts by PR campaigns and evangelical television specials.
The word for these people?
“Scientists.”
What does it take for someone to be a scientist? Rigorous dedication to thorough research and supportable conclusions in published papers comes to mind. Every child learns the Scientific Method in school. According to Wikipedia, the “Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge.” This is key: it’s a method of investigation and acquiring new knowledge.
If it can’t be used as a method of investigation for acquiring new empirical knowledge, it’s not science. End of line. If you aren’t willing to — or can’t — be proven wrong, what you are promoting isn’t science.
But not to the people I saw on television. They seemed convinced there was a radical conspiracy to outlaw Intelligent Design (ID) from public schools. They pushed the view that the “secularists,” “Darwinists,” and “Evolutionists” are in positions of power, forcing evolution on unsuspecting children and denying ID proponents their rights.
The video tried to cast Creationism as the victim of a massive government ploy to rob children of their Christian heritage. They kept insisting that schools need to teach “both sides” of the issue. This phrase was repeated over and over again, like a mantra of righteous indignation. “Both sides,” with the word “sides” emphasized sometimes, and the word “both” emphasized in others.
Big clue for the makers of this video: there is no “both sides”. There is good science. There is disputed science. And there is bad science. There is a range of gray across the whole spectrum. “Both sides” sounds as if these Creationsts want fact taught together with fiction, melded into a whimsical whole fraught with pseudo-science, superstition, and a small dose of truth to keep the naysayers in line.
If you wanted to cover all sides of the issue — since there are far more creation myths than just the Christian one — then do so. Somewhere other than Science class, because at that point it’s not science anymore. If Intelligent Design is “science”, it is very bad science. The hypotheses are untestable and unprovable from the evidence. It’s not a method of investigation or acquiring new knowledge. It is an intellectual dead-end, a giving-up on hope for answers in favor of farcical well-wishing.
Now, I’m absolutely in favor of educating children on the issues. Let’s hear about the intelligent design vs. evolution “debate” — decidedly one-sided, since there is little debate in the scientific community about whether evolution happened, just how it happened — in classrooms. Let’s teach that there are two opposing positions in the US political arena, and a far different situation abroad. Let’s get children involved in debating one another about some of these questions, with a focus on having them learn to support their arguments regardless of whether they personally agree with the position or not.
Let’s talk about that in debate class. Or politics class. Or perhaps American History. Science class is for instruction in facts, not an unsupportable hypothesis like “my god did it.”
Evolution is no mere hypothesis. It’s a theory, tested and repeatedly proven for over a hundred years. What form exact changes take is hotly contested, and there are worlds of research available in the field to understand how these changes happen. Debate about specifics in the scientific community is a sign of a healthy community. You’ll see these in abundance. It does not indicate that there is any dispute about the basic fact of evolution underlying so many useful, life-saving science advances.
The Luddites who produced this video are no better than flat-earthers, trying to carry humanity back to a more primitive, violent age by blaming the Holocaust on evolution. They are doing a disservice to their country, their God, and their fellow citizens by advocating hate for science, and I will oppose this type of anti-facts disinformation campaign whenever I see it.
(Side note: I’d like to buy a copy of their video so that I can write a fuller critique, since I only saw part of it. However, on their page they say to make a donation of “any amount” to get the video. While I’m not opposed to exchanging money for goods, I am opposed to making a “donation” to a cause which I vehemently oppose. Should I just donate a dollar and cost them money to send me the video?)
( *Creationists don’t like to be called Dominionists or Christianists for similar reasons.)
Vehemence
Wow. Rarely do I hear such heated hyperbole from you in a post. I’d love to know what program set you off.
That being said, your comments are hyperbolic and extreme.. and you paint an entire group with an unflattering brush – and in doing so you are as guilty as those you are so pointedly criticizing.
You say “Darwinist” is used almost exclusively by ” “Creationist Christians, and generally only in one sense. It is a pejorative, carrying with it implications of ignorance, idolatry, and cultism.”
This is not true. In this video, maybe. In debates, sometimes but rarely. To be honest, I have heard “Darwinism” a number of times – including at a Bible college.. and never were idolatry, ignorance, or cultism mentioned. It was a term used to describe the non-creationist point of view, and really only that.
You say creationists use “Evolutionists” in the same way, saying “this word carries negative connotations, and implies blind devotion to an ideal without regard for consequences. It is also a word almost exclusively used as a pejorative by Creationists.”
Umm. what?
Again, never, in my experience have I heard this words used about regard to consequences, and certainly, not pejoratively. You use the word “Evil” – and I find the idea of hearing, even among pastors the phrase “Evil evolutionists” laughable.
(On a side note, we have had the creationist vs evolutionist debate on this blog and personally a number of times.. and NEVER have you heard me use these words in the ways you describe.)
In your next section you rail pointedly about what you feel the accusations against you are.. and throw out a few criticisms of your own, I guess.. pointed at me. I’m not really offended.. we’ve been friends too long.. but in you sideways assertion that “Creationists” are parking 10 commandment rocks and bribing police, you are committing the same fault as the film. You are fallacious for effect. Judging a group of people based on a very very small subset of that group is wrong when a film says “Bad people were Darwinists, therefore Darwinists are bad people” – and its wrong when “Scientists” imply that because a small subset of Creationists have acted extremely that all Creationists must be lumped in.
Your science class debate is an old one.. and one that deserve visitation. The prevailing argument against you is:
“A majority of people.. a vast majority.. believe that the world was created by a designer – whether that uses evolution or not. There is ONE class that discusses the beginning of the world, and it not only teaches something that contradicts that vast majority’s beliefs, it is indignant about the idea of even giving a five minute discussion: “What we are going to teach today is part of a very well accepted theory in the scientific community. There is a prevailing theory that the world began differently than this, and that there is a designer involved. There are a number of books on the subject, and we encourage you to read them, for knowledge of both sides is important. We are here to teach you what the scientific community holds as its most current theory, and in that pursuit we cannot discuss the opposing viewpoint.”
Some might find your language judgmental and mean. You refer to a belief held as sacred and true by man – and call it “myth”, “fiction”, “superstition”, “farcical well-wishing”. I have never called your take on the beginning of the world “farcical”. I have only ever debated it with logic, and have accepted certain axioms as true, incorporating them into my take on how it began. “Farcial” is “pejorative, carrying with it implications of ignorance, idolatry, and cultism.”
You have phrased a sharp attack against a whole group of people who hold a belief.. not just the people who created this video. Based on the actions of a small group of inflammatory people, you seem to think “These evil” Creationists “are defined by what they believe rather than the color of their skin, I guess.”
We’re not so bad.
Distortions, half-truths, and outright lies
The video was full of distortions, half-truths, and outright lies, and is offensive to anyone with a passing acquaintance with evolution and public education. You really don’t want to be in the place of defending the makers of this video.
I intend to pick up a copy of the video, however I need to do it, in order to point out all the glaring inaccuracies, straw men, obfuscatory baloney, and other techniques used to delude the average person into thinking that there’s some Evolutionist/Darwinist plot out to destroy entire races of people.
It absolutely pissed me off, and this kind of delusional anti-science rhetoric needs to be called to account.
I stand by my definition of how the video uses “Darwinist” and “Evolutionist”. You don’t find these terms in common usage outside communities trained to use the term to identify the “them”, the community of people who aren’t “us”. Sort of like hearing a left-wing radio talk-show host use the word “Fascist”. Nobody else uses the term in that kind of context, and it’s insulting to the targets of the word. The show portrayed “Darwinists” — people who support the science of evolution — as regarding the Origin of Species as holy writ, Darwin as a demigod, and natural selection as unassailable dogmatic religion enforced with the will of government.
An altogether distasteful show.
That said, your points are taken that I painted with too broad a brush, and for that I apologize. I still reserve a heaping helping of vitriol for Kennedy and his ilk who produced this show, however.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
As Wholes.
No doubt, these guys are loony-tunes, and you are right that they do a disservice to those of us who are not producing s**tty videos.
That being said, the quotes: “only one group of people tend to use it: Creationist Christians, and generally only in one sense.” and “used as a pejorative by Creationists. (as opposed to these cinematic half-wits)” and “Intelligent Design is…very bad science..farcical well-wishing.” – these comments seem not directed at the videomakers – but at general believers in these things.
I bring it up more to keep you honest (and don’t go back and edit.. even coffeehouse discussions say things we don’t mean sometimes – let it stand). I’m not personally offended – I know you care for and respect believers and their beliefs.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Hitler the creationist
Hitler, of course, was a creationist, at least as far as human beings were concerned.
Hitler explicity rejected Darwinism and the evolution of man.
From Hitler’s Tischgespraeche for 1942 ‘Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.’
I shall translate :-
‘From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.
A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nthing shows inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is now
And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says ‘Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.’
(Very rough Translation by matthew since my German is so rusty: “When Man looks upon the animal kingdom and beholds his superiority over it, he realizes that there must be a Creator.)
Hitler also wrote ‘Die zehn Gebote sind Ordnungsgesetze, die absolut lobenswert sind.’
‘The 10 commandments are laws, which are absolutely praiseworthy’
TV For Learning
As a society, if we rely simply on TV for what we learn, for our views on the world, and for the majority of our knowledge, we’ll be doomed as a society.
Matt, you have to remember the intended audience and the intended intentions of this show. The intended audience were people who were of a like mind to the creators of the show. The intended intentions of this show were to cater to those people, and to fill a time slot and make a little money on advertising. The intention was never, ever to give a fair shake to both sides of the story.
Justin makes a good point that the vast majority of people in the US still believe in a deity who created the world as laid down in the Bible. And as stated before. science and faith are oil and water, because of their very natures: science relies on observed facts while faith requires belief in the absence of observable facts. Cognitive dissonance is never displayed as well as when someone who believes in the Creationism goes to Luray Caverns in Virginia. The world is only 7000 years old, but they ooh and ahh over the millions of years it took to create the caverns.
It is the sad state of this age that almost anything that gets on TV is biased without presenting all the facts. Religion. politics, even science itself is falling prey to the God of Results. We don’t do anything now for any reason other than what the results will bring us.
And the biggest reason people leave religion is because of free time. 100 years ago, most people didn’t have time to sit down and ponder the illogical nature of religion when presented against the facts of science. They got up, worked 12 hours, ate, then went to bed. Wasn’t much time for learnin’ or thinkin’, just surviving and waiting for Sunday when they got a break.
Now Justin, as a believer, do you believe in the Bible’s version of Creationism? Given the mounds and mounds of evidence that seem to indicate the world is billions of years old and that we humans arrived only 100,000 years ago, do you still think God created the world in 7 days 7000 years ago? Or do you think he was involved, but the actual creation part might fall in line more with what science has discovered?
The only thing I think the Bible is good for is the New Testament’s teachings on how people should get along. Everything else is mostly dated material which doesn’t apply to the world today. Many, many things have changed since the Bible was written and now, but sadly most of human nature has not.
My $.02 Weed
Justinism
What do I believe regarding the beginning of the world?
Do I think the world is 7000 years old?
No. There’s no real reason to think that. It is very possible that the generations spoken of in the bible skip from notable person to notable person – and that Begat can mean the progenitor of, not necessarily the father of.
Do I believe in a “Garden of Eden”. Yes, but my faith would not really be shaken if I did not. I happen to believe that Man was created as described in Genesis.. but here’s my “Pseudo-science”.
God makes the universe.. and it goes pretty much as described in the bible.. maybe with a big bang of light.. that then gave way to oceans, land, fish, birds, animals.. and maybe even a pre-human species of ape that was the most intelligent of all the animals. And this happens, sure over trillions of years (What is a day to God?)
God USES evolution to bring single celled organisms to where they need to be. He nudges here and there, uses natural law.. which, being the creator of natural law, he kind of digs. God molds life on earth like clay, changing its form to set up the world for Man. He puts mitochondria in cells, he brings the earth to where it needs to be.
God, then, creates a garden in the harshness, and models this other primate species.. modeled after the most intelligent of His animals.. Man.. and woman. He creates them, knowing they’ll turn. he gives them the chance not to.. like we do with our kids.. but they do rebel.. and just like a baby leaves its comfortable nursery, they leave the Garden, with a world that has evolved to the point where it can sustain them.
This “man” has the uncanny ability to plan, discover, love, be inspired, be creative, even be aware of his own existence, know that he will die, and plan for the world after he does. Sure.. there are smart species.. but this is a quantum leap ahead.
Man, being what man is, destroys the pre-human man. (There IS fossil evidence that two stages of primate evolution may have coexisted.) It is in our nature – we tend to kill those who occupy the land we want.
I am willing to modify my beliefs to incorporate science. I believe that God created the rules of the world.. and that science works.. and thus, I don’t think there is any conflict. The more I learn (and I am probably more educated in human science than most on this board) the more I am amazed by the complexity and simplicity.. the music of biology. It is wondrous. Science affirms my belief in God.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Answers and Truth
Matt, there was one phrase in your essay that jumped out at me for some reason:
—>If Intelligent Design is “science”, it is very bad science. The hypotheses are untestable and unprovable from the evidence. It’s not a method of investigation or acquiring new knowledge. It is an intellectual dead-end, a giving-up on hope for answers in favor of farcical well-wishing.
Specifically the final sentence. It raises an interesting question: do you believe that the scientific process is the only viable method for finding definitive ‘answers’? (and by extension, truth – although ‘truth’ is a word just as loaded, vague and amorphous as ‘God’ nowadays) How about non-definitive answers (ie we can’t prove it 100% but we’re still pretty sure). If so, and this question I extend to everyone else, what other methods for finding answers exist? Religion? The arts? And is there one process that should take superiority over the others when they come into conflict?
Oh… and hello again, all. Sorry I’ve been absent for a while. I’ve been busy swordfighting for Queen Elizabeth, and the village of Mt. Hope doesn’t have easily accessible internet.
The scientific method
The point of that statement is that science doesn’t provide definite answers. It raises more questions in a smaller domain. We keep pushing back the boundaries of the unknown and expanding the knowledge of the known. And the curious thing is that the more is known about physical processes, the more complex and difficult the unknown questions are to investigate.
Creationism is an intellectual dead-end because one reaches the point where he says, “God did it in mysterious ways”. Sure, it’s an answer, but it’s not an answer which invites further study into the mechanisms involved. If you don’t believe it can be fully understood, what reason do you have to gain further explainable understanding?
Besides, science competes in that realm. If one researcher, like Michael Behe, says “I don’t understand how this organic mechanism could become any simpler or have any intermediate forms which don’t impair its function,” does that mean God made it that way, or that an intermediate, functional form exists if only it can be found? The day that an intermediate form is found — like the flagellum on bacteria, the topic of part of Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” novel — suddenly Behe’s God is reduced to a God of the Gaps in knowledge, His domain growing ever smaller as Man understands His processes.
I think that approach belittles God for those who believe, and causes undue consternation for religious scientists.
—
Matthew P. Barnson