The Hypocrisy of Anti-Creationists
Mocking creationists and their theory of origins has become commonplace, indeed a pastime of, contemporary evolutionists and non-theists of varied stripes. Even theistic evolutionists often level even poke fun at such scholars.
In reading some the exchanges between the creationist camp and their foes, I've always been struck at the unexpected cleverness and breadth of scientific argument on the part of YEC advocates. They are generally unafraid to confront and be confronted when it comes to talk of origins. And, far more often than not, they seem to win the exchanges. See, for instance, the great success of Duane Gish and Henry Morrison in their famed exchange with evolutionist scientists on college campuses.
But what is truly interesting about many of the critics of YEC is their seeming hypocrisy when it comes to scientific theory. I've seen often many of these scholars advocate scientific explanations that are so odd and radical that they are the only ones who believe it. But isn't that supposed to be what YEC believers are famous for?
An example of such a skeptic is atheist physicist Victor Stenger. In his books, papers, and debates, Stenger defends theories of time and cosmological origins that, Bill Craig observes, no other scientist in the world accepts. Stenger believes in some form of "backwards" time prior to the universe and other strange musings. But if he is willing to endorse such an obviously false view, how can he slight YEC proponents for allegedly doing so. Similarly, Richard Carrier, an Internet skeptic popular among Internet atheists, has written several papers where he rejected Big Bang cosmology despite the fact that the theory is almost unanimously accepted by cosmologists. This didn't faze Carrier who said the evidence doesn't point that way even though he's almost the only one knowledgeable in science who thinks so. Apparently, YECers can't go against a widely-held scientific theory, but atheists like Carrier can, as long as they avoid theism in doing so. Indeed this disdain for the widely held Big Bang theory (which requires a beginning of the space-time universe and thus the need for a cause of the universe) has been shown by myriad scholarly nontheists like Antony Flew, Michael Tooley, and Douglas Jesseph among many others, even though the theory is so well substantiated by science today.
Such skeptics should take a lesson from themselves. They ought not denigrate a movement (YEC) which cuts against mainstream theory. Indeed, they often denigrate the movement and note that that movement denies the mainstream only for its "religious purposes." But they, of course, have done precisely the same, attempting to challenge the Big Bang and its implications purely out of an aversion for the supernatural.
In reading some the exchanges between the creationist camp and their foes, I've always been struck at the unexpected cleverness and breadth of scientific argument on the part of YEC advocates. They are generally unafraid to confront and be confronted when it comes to talk of origins. And, far more often than not, they seem to win the exchanges. See, for instance, the great success of Duane Gish and Henry Morrison in their famed exchange with evolutionist scientists on college campuses.
But what is truly interesting about many of the critics of YEC is their seeming hypocrisy when it comes to scientific theory. I've seen often many of these scholars advocate scientific explanations that are so odd and radical that they are the only ones who believe it. But isn't that supposed to be what YEC believers are famous for?
An example of such a skeptic is atheist physicist Victor Stenger. In his books, papers, and debates, Stenger defends theories of time and cosmological origins that, Bill Craig observes, no other scientist in the world accepts. Stenger believes in some form of "backwards" time prior to the universe and other strange musings. But if he is willing to endorse such an obviously false view, how can he slight YEC proponents for allegedly doing so. Similarly, Richard Carrier, an Internet skeptic popular among Internet atheists, has written several papers where he rejected Big Bang cosmology despite the fact that the theory is almost unanimously accepted by cosmologists. This didn't faze Carrier who said the evidence doesn't point that way even though he's almost the only one knowledgeable in science who thinks so. Apparently, YECers can't go against a widely-held scientific theory, but atheists like Carrier can, as long as they avoid theism in doing so. Indeed this disdain for the widely held Big Bang theory (which requires a beginning of the space-time universe and thus the need for a cause of the universe) has been shown by myriad scholarly nontheists like Antony Flew, Michael Tooley, and Douglas Jesseph among many others, even though the theory is so well substantiated by science today.
Such skeptics should take a lesson from themselves. They ought not denigrate a movement (YEC) which cuts against mainstream theory. Indeed, they often denigrate the movement and note that that movement denies the mainstream only for its "religious purposes." But they, of course, have done precisely the same, attempting to challenge the Big Bang and its implications purely out of an aversion for the supernatural.
posted by Tom Wanchick at 10:53 AM
11 Comments:
I think you might have mixed up Victor Reppert's name with someone else's in your blog entry. I have never seen articles from Reppert on theories of time and cosmology. I also don't think he's an atheist, although he could be. And I'm even more sure that he's not a physicist, although again he could be. But maybe you want to check to see if you didn't confuse his name with someone else's.
Don Jr.,
Thanks a lot for the comment!! I did badly mess up the name. I meant to refer to Victor Stenger instead. Stenger is an atheist physicist and author.
Reppert is a Christian philosopher whom I actually read and admire.
Sorry for the mix up!! Thanks for the correction.
It's obvious no theory is absolutely certain. Not about the origin of species and no scientific theory in general.
If you don't want to make things complicated, you accept the theory that makes the most sence. The theory that comes closest to the world as we see it.
There's no discussion at all between real scientists about the evolution theory and creationism. That's not because creationism is false, is because creationism is very unlikely . About as unlikely as the world being flat. The evolution theory is the most likely theory at the moment.
It's practical impossible to teach kids all the theories ever made. We can only give the best image of the world, but we'll never be sure about it.
Creationism arguments: life is too complex to be an evolution is a poor scientific argument. I don't think creationism deny the threat of a flu pandemia. A flu pandemia that may occur when the virus, indead, evolves to an immune version.
freddy,
Thanks for the comments, but they appear confused.
You say we should teach kids the theory that is most likely true. I'd probably agree with that, but why should we think that evolutionism is most probably true? You say creationism is as likely as the world being flat. But where's your evidence that that is true?
Also, creationists don't generally argue "life is too complex, therefore it was created" in some simplistic manner. Rather, they typically point to scientific evidences that are more likely true on creationism than evolutionism (e.g., the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record). Also, even when creationists say life is too complex to have evolved, there argument is more sophisticated than you say. It's based on principles something like those of William Dembski who has shown through mathematics and probability that certain specifically complex things must be designed and can't be the products of chance or necessity.
Thus, you caricature creationists and their arguments much like the evolutionists I mention in my post. And I as I noted there, we must avoid that in order to have a genuine debate on the issues.
I realize this is way off topic but I didn't know how to contact you. I was wondering if you were still going to have that debate with Carrier at IIDB, and if so do you know when? Thanks.
Don Jr.
Thanks for inquiring about the debate with Carrier.
The webpage for it is up (go to www.infidels.org and go to the "What's New?" section to find it). You can read the rules and participants, etc.
We submit our opening statements on 1/16/06.
If Stenger and Carrier advocate minority positions that most scientists disagree with, then the burden of proof lies with them. Atheists who advocate crackpot science are deserving of the same kind of criticism as YECs.
I don't know what specifically Stenger is advocating about backwards time, but there are models in physics which involve backwards causation which are not "obviously false"--e.g., the theoretical particles tachyons, Richard Feynman's proposed explanation of positrons as electrons going backwards in time. (See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/)
William Lane Craig has written of the possibility of divine foreknowledge involving backwards causation.
While I agree with you that YEC debaters often win their debates, that doesn't mean that they have the better scientific evidence, it means that they are better in an audience debate. Anyone who believes in a young earth does so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
"William Dembski ... has shown through mathematics and probability that certain specifically complex things must be designed and can't be the products of chance or necessity."
He's shown no such thing. He has proposed an "explanatory filter" for distinguishing design from chance, but to the extent his methodology has been put to the test (only by critics, he hasn't applied it himself), it fails. (See, e.g., the critiques from Shallit and Elsberry, from Richard Wein, from Elliott Sober, Branden Fitelson, and Christopher Stephens.)
I really wish he hadn't withdrawn as an expert witness from the Dover trial--that would have been a very entertaining cross-examination.
Jim,
You admit that atheists who advocate junk science should get the same treatment as advocates of YEC. Does this include the ridicule and persecution (rather than sustained couterargument) that YEC believers often receive? If so, then its strange that many naturalists and atheists nonetheless advocate the work of Carrier, Stenger, and the like, all the while bashing the YEC crowd.
Your citation of Feynman to back up Stenger doesn't help, since Stenger holds his "backwards time" theory to be novel, and thus not that of Feynman or anyone else. But, of course, Stenger's model (just like any model that speaks going backwards in time) is impossible, since the past doesn't exist, thus it's impossible to go "back in time."
You clearly misrepresent Craig, also. He never once has supported a view of divine foreknowledge whereby God can go "backwards" in time. Indeed, he notes such a thing to be logically impossible (see his, *The Only Wise God*).
I'm glad you admit that YEC scientists typically defeat their opponents in debates. Apparently, they're not as stupid or foolish as the liberals, the media, and the intelligentsia make them out to be. Or, perhaps the evolutionist scientists are simply at their same low intellectual level.
At any rate, your claim that YEC people win debates because they are "better at audience debates" is comical. What exactly does it take to be so good at debates? Are we to believe that these audiences are so dumb (every one of them) that they just can't recognize good and bad scientific arguments when they see them? Behold, the quintessential evolutionist mantra: "You're not up to our intellectual stock, so, don't bother reviewing the arguments, just believe us: it's true." If evolutionists have the overwhelming mountain of irrefutable evidence for evolution (that schoolchildren and the rest of us are always assured they have), shouldn't it be easy to win debates?
The only conclusion is that the alleged grandiose evidence for evolution doesn't really exist, or else the evidence for creationism is simply better. An unexpected outcome, to say the least.
You say that those believing YEC do so in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary. As usual, you, as an evolutionist, claim a lot, but don't bother substantiating. But let that pass.
Evolutionists shouldn't be bothered if YECers believe in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. For they themselves do the same, as revealed by the fact that their arguments repeatedly fail when compared to their YEC counterparts.
As for your claims about Dembski, they're spurious. He does apply his theorems to biological and cosmological constructs in books like *Intelligent Design* and *No Free Lunch*. See also the various works on his website (www.designinference.com). And he's already responded to most of the critics you cite.
I apperciate that you see that those who mock YECs do the same as YECs do.
Another claim you seem to be making here is that things are "obviously true" because so many people believe them.
Yet numbers of people never makes a fact true or untrue. The truth is the truth even if NO ONE believes it.
The YECs often receive ridicule because they often advocate absurd claims, misrepresent evolution, and repeat the same falsehoods over and over. Duane Gish is particularly bad at this, see Joyce Arthur's enumeration at http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html (she's also posted Gish's reply and a response to that).
Your comment on the nonexistence of the past presupposes A-series time and not B-series time, but most scientists advocate B-series time. Do you reject relativity?
I was mistaken about Craig's position; on p. 82 he specifically disclaims the possibility of divine foreknowledge involving backward causation, though he does insist that God has foreknowledge of contingent events before they happen, and this knowledge is "logical, not causal." I don't think his position on God and time is coherent.
You are mistaken if you think winning debates is a sheer matter of intellectual power--a great deal of it has to do with communicating one's position to a lay audience, which many scientists are not very good at. They use jargon, they talk over people's heads, they aren't polished. If an audience can't understand what you're arguing or becomes bored and doesn't pay attention, you lose the debate.
Are you actually a YEC? It sounds like you are endorsing the position.
I don't believe Dembski has published responses to the critiques I cited, though he did begin to write a response (along with an IOU that has yet to be cashed out) on one point of Sober's. If I am mistaken, please provide me with references. Ad hominem attacks on Shallit don't count as responses to the Elsberry and Shallit paper.
Post a Comment
<< Home