Introduction to "Creationism's Trojan Horse"

Butterflies and Wheels ^ | December 1, 2004 | Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross

[jennyp]

Well jennyp, you're on dangerous ground when you start attributing motive aren't you?

Not in this case. The IDers themselves state it quite clearly in their famous Wedge Document, and they used to say it right upfront on their website. Phillip Johnson has written & spoken about their agenda. Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution) has written openly in Moonie circles about why he decided to study evolution in the first place: He was inspired by the Reverend Moon to "devote [his] life to destroying Darwinism."

Before I respond, let me see if I can repeat your statement in a way that you'd agree with.

You think ignorant believers are sneaking their God into your universe, falsely bolstering their faith by attributing to their God the evidence of design we all find in nature?

I don't think the leaders of the creationist movement are ignorant. They know exactly what they are doing. They are knowing postmodernists: They deny the reality of objective truth. But unlike other postmodernists, the moral chaos that inevitably flows from such moral subjectivism horrifies them. (As well it should, if it were true!) So their solution is to try to keep everybody believing in religious dogma, so that we'll all be following the same moral code, just as if there really was such a thing as a "best" morality.

I don't know why these creationists have such a crisis of confidence in the objective nature of the real world, but they do. And their misplaced fear for society's future leads them to make whatever bad arguments they have to to convince people that ID is intellectually respectable.

[jennyp]

Since many people hadn't been part of the crevo debates back in the late '90s when the ID movement first started their public relations long march, here are the Discovery Institute's FAQ pages from WayBack when they were young & brash and still not afraid to come right out and say in public what they really believed:

#1. What is Materialism?

For these purposes, it has little to do with greed. Or wanting to buy too much at the mall to boost your self-esteem.

Materialism is the modern day philosophy that holds that matter is all there is. It's the philosophy that says "If you can't touch it, smell it, taste it or explain it through the hard sciences, it doesn't exist." Men are merely complex machines and not spiritual beings.

And it's approved by most intellectuals around the world.

One other thing: we're out to topple it.

#2. What is Naturalism?

It's another word for materialism. There are no discernible differences. Kind of like "soda and pop," " shrimp and prawns." Naturalism states that nature is " all there is."

#3. OK, then what is Darwinism?

Darwinism is the belief that we evolved not only from the apes, but that we started from nothing other than purposeless mass. As late Harvard evolutionary biologist George Gaylord Simpson said, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned."

Charles Darwin is to Materialism like Karl Marx is to Communism. Like Adam Smith is to Capitalism. This is not to say that Darwin himself is responsible for the full course of Darwinism since his death. But he opened the door.

#4. Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, all these isms, what do they have to do with me and my life?

Materialism is a powerful philosophy of life today because it sets the boundaries for what is right and wrong in society. It explains the ''rules'' that govern our civilization. It goes to the very intellectual roots of society, the very foundation that our social and cultural institutions are built upon.

Indeed, if materialism is right -- as most intellectuals propose -- then ''God'' is merely a figment of our imagination. Therefore, God didn't create man; man created God. Doestoyevsky once said that ''if God is dead then all things are lawful. '' Might makes right. The State is the ultimate enforcer of rules.

Let's look at how materialism has infected the legal system, welfare and popular culture.

#5. How has materialism infected the legal system?

Materialism teaches us that God is dead. It follows that divine revelation cannot be the basis of human law.

Human law can only be based on upon the current opinion of the people who have the power to make and interpret laws. In our society, that power rests in the hands of an elite class of judges, lawmakers and other experts.

" We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" quickly loses much validity if our "Creator" does not exist. Result: a culture of irresponsibility and victimhood.

The present culture took decades to develop. Look at a 1930s text in criminal law that upholds the materialist foundation:

"Man is no more responsible for becoming willful and committing a crime than a flower for becoming red and fragrant. In both instances, the end products are predetermined by nature."

#6. How has materialism infected our welfare system?

Dating back to the 1960s, those who conceived the war on poverty believed that poverty could be eradicated because they believed its root causes were material: poverty, educational deprivation, crime, etc. Thirty five years later, we realize that throwing material resources at the problem has made it worse, not better.

By ignoring the moral and spiritual dimensions of poverty, we have ignored the real problems of poverty: family breakdown, illegitimacy and government-fostered dependency.

#7. How has materialism infected popular culture?

If morals are relative and nothing is absolute, anything goes. It requires no deep intellectual digging to see how materialism has assaulted popular culture.

Popular culture seldom portrays religion favorably yet often with disdain. Those characters who seem to hold traditional or conservative values will surely be mocked, seen as "square" and even "oppressors" of some sort of unalienable right bestowed upon humankind from Hollywood.

#8. But can't I believe in Darwin and God? After all, couldn't God have used evolution to create life and mankind?

Much depends on how you define "evolution." Some people think evolution describes how things change over a period of time ( i.e. a finch's beak length, a moth's color etc). Others think that slow and
gradual change to one organism can be translated directly into how life itself was created.

At a very basic level, we think evolution might explain the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest and that it can explain some form of development, but not original development.

#9. What is the Center for the Renewal for Science and Culture?

The Center is the intellectual base for the effort to overthrow materialism. Recruiting leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center promotes the latest scientific research that undercuts materialism. Specifically, the Center awards fellowships for original research, hold conferences and briefs policy and opinion makers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

[Fatalis]

You're misreading the word "impersonal", as others have pointed out. Here it means "impartial" and "universal". In other words, the laws don't have preferences.

No, you've missed the earlier context:

It used to be obvious that the world was designed by some sort of intelligence. What else could account for fire and rain and lightning and earthquakes? Above all, the wonderful abilities of living things seemed to point to a creator who had a special interest in life. Today we understand most of these things in terms of physical forces acting under impersonal laws.

"Impersonal laws" are being offered by Weinberg as the necessary alternatives to "designed by some sort of intelligence." That is a statement of theology, not science.

You can't give Weinberg a pass on this.

[Fatalis]

Weinberg couples his theological assertions to the science which is his forte. The people reading this often can't uncouple an opposing theological view from the science when the scientist himself says that one thing leads to the other. Let me tell you this does not play well out here in suburbia.

Why should they be required to uncouple what Weinberg couples?

Scientists need to get over their hubris and quit wearing their slab coats when pontificating. That this isn't clear to one and all who appreciate science only underscores their inconsistency in keeping science agnostic. To make "no God" the default assumption is a theological cheat; the proper assumption is "science doesn't know about God one way or the other."

[Fatalis]

Of course, it comes down to it being Weinberg's opinion. Many theists who accept evolution have said that they believe that the revelations of science have strengthened their faith, so that really just shows that people will derive out of science what they want to see.

Exactly so. When I look at the laws of physics, or the origin of species through evolution, I see the handiwork of God. I can make a lot of arguments to support my belief -- aesthetic, scriptural, metaphisical, philosophical, etc. -- but I can't make a scientific argument for it. That doesn't bother me, I can't drive my car across the ocean either. That's not its function.

That won't stop creationists from dishonestly claiming that evolution was created and is promoted to spread atheism, however.

True, but when Weinberg poses as a scientist while asserting impersonal laws, he puts gas in the tank of those creationists and they head for the coast . There appears to be a real blindness in science in consistently policing their own when it comes to statements like Weinberg's.

[Fatalis]

Remember: Which side is making the positive claim, and which is making the negative claim? And therefore who has the obligation to come up with some kind of positive evidence for their claim and who doesn't?

No, that's not the proper framework or question.

Which side is making a scientific argument? Not the I.D. gang, and not those asserting impersonal laws.

[Dataman]

I don't know the "Evolution is mathematically discredited" stuff you're talking about.

What? You've never heard of Freddy Hoyle? Where ya been? There continues work on the chances of the alignment of acids in the simplest bacteria etc, etc. The more we learn about the "simple" forms of life of which Darwin and Huxley were ignorant, the greater the odds against any evolutionary nonsense. But the odds are already less than statistical zero so smaller odds won't convince the thick-skulled evo thumper.

[Dataman]

Evolution has never been mathematically discredited

You too are ignorant of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe? Figures.

[Dataman]

Unless all of these articles are written by rank ideologues and (calling a spade a spade) liars, your talk of "non-existent evidence and feeble fallacious arguments" is just empty rhetoric.

I like that: Most evolutionists believe in evolution-- ergo trust them. I guess that qualifies as a feeble and fallacious argument.

[Dataman]

Ah, yes, Dataman repeats the old lie that evolution addresses the ultimate origins of life.

Ah, yes, Demensio- a defender of evolution who is unfamiliar with what evolutionists believe. Your particular take is merely a recent flight from one of the greatest problems for evolution. The odds against the simplest DNA forming are about the same as winning the lottery every day for a thousand years.

You can run from the problem but you can't hide, because unless that first life happened naturally, naturalism collapses.

[Dimensio]

You've never heard of Freddy Hoyle? Where ya been?

Note Dataman's brazen dishonesty here. Fred Hoyle never said that evolution was impossible. It's true that he believed abiogenesis impossible, but he did not doubt evolution itself. Dishonest Dataman wants to pretend that abiogenesis is part of evolution, even though he can't cite a single scientific resource that includes abiogenesis as part of the theory.

[general_re]

So far as I know, only one "pro-design" person on FR has ever consented to play "general_re's" "Design Inference Game"...

So many new people that I suppose it's really just a matter of time before someone else wanders into that position. It's a standing offer, if anyone else is feeling cocky about ID theory ;)

[snarks_when_bored]

No, it's an argument from plausibility. How plausible is it to think that thousands and thousands of smart, professional scientists are engaged in an enterprise devoted to pulling the wool over the eyes of the public? I would argue that that's not plausible at all. They're scientists, and they're trying to understand how life has developed, trying to understand what is the case.

To argue that evolutionists are somehow mere ideologues and not truth-seekers seems to me to ignore the facts of human nature.

[snarks_when_bored]

And let me add that this:  do you think that evolutionists 'believe in' evolution in the way that religious believers 'believe in' God? If so, I'd say that you're mistaken. Scientists (those worthy of the name, anyway) entertain theories as 'current best explanations' of the facts in evidence, always subject to review and modification as new facts are discovered or old facts are re-interpreted. This is not the (common) attitude of religious believers with respect to belief in God.

[185JHP]

Gould tried a trojan horse to protect the hoax with his laughable "punc. eq." He knows better now - but I doubt he's at "room temperature."

[snarks_when_bored]

Since you're up and about at this hour, and are apparently of the opinion that the theory of evolution is a 'hoax', could you explain to me your reasons for believing that several generations of investigators, comprising thousands of very smart biologists and paleontologists, have somehow decided that it's not truth that they seek, but rather the advancement of some sort of ideological atheistic agenda?

This view is a priori implausible, and suggests a remarkable degree of insulation from the aims (and personalities) of scientific investigators.

[Dimensio]

Apparently you're not familiar with the mass conspiracy to destroy Christianty and -- with it -- all of Western Civilization. You see, evolution was created specifically to promote atheism, and those who claim that it is supported by evidence actually know better, but they have a hidden agenda to destroy faith in God (who they secretly know exists, and used Creationism to create all life) for ... for ...

Well, the creationist conspiracy theorists (and not every creationist is such a conspiracy theorist, but I've seen enough to know that it's not just a fringe subset) haven't quite discerned the motive, but rest assured that it's a conspiracy to destroy religion!

[snarks_when_bored]

I continue to hope that, by asking questions, I can stimulate some real question-asking in my interlocutors. Of course, if Socrates wasn't very successful in such an endeavor, there's certainly not much reason to think that I'll be.

BTW, my buddy, grey_whiskers, was quoting an amusing twist on Newton's famous quote, not Newton's quote itself.

Best regards...

[Moonman62]

Right now we have excellent physical models that describe the motions of the planets, the formation of stars and galaxies, the origin of species, and even the unfolding of the universe, and none of these models employ "purpose" or "will" in their descriptions. Someday, I expect soon, we may have such a model for the mind. Many religions will take a serious blow, but God will go on as ever before.

The framework already exists. We can already associate parts of consciousness to certain areas of the brain. And consciousness is broken into atomic parts called qualia. I suppose the next step is to discover some type of consciousness field. But even if that does occur, I'm reminded of the what a famous physicist once said: even though we know all these equations that tell us about energy with extreme precision, we still don't know what energy is. I imagine the same will be true for consciousness.

[Dataman]

Fred Hoyle never said that evolution was impossible. It's true that he believed abiogenesis impossible, but he did not doubt evolution itself.

Denial will get you nowhere. Freddy rejected the keystone of your theory. Without it there is no naturalism. Even if, as Freddy speculates, a blue pilot of a cigar-shaped craft started evolution on earth, you have an intelligence interfering which is not natural. In addition, you have the problem of who created the blue pilot and the problem of abiogenesis remains. Creationists don't have that particular problem.

Perhaps you would, at this time, care to invoke Occam's Razor? The burden of proof is on the more elaborate explanation. You most definitely have the more elaborate (non)explanation.