Feb 14 2008
Creationists Play the Martyr Card
Yesterday I interviewed PZ Myers, author of the popular science blog Pharyngula, for this week’s SGU podcast, which will be posted up this Saturday. We talked (amongst other things) about his recent debate with ID proponent Dr. Geoffrey Simmons. The debate, I think, highlights some of the current strategies favored by creationists/ID proponents in spreading their anti-evolution propaganda.
First, listening to this debate (as well as others with Duane Gish and Kent Hovind) it is clear, at least to me, that these guys do not care one iota about the science. Scientific facts, to them, are an obstacle to overcome, or perhaps something to be manipulated to achieve their end. Simmons, for example, regularly spouted gross and demonstrable falsehoods – and stuck by them. He claimed that there were no fossils showing transitions from terrestrial mammals to whales. He was completely ignorant of the many exquisite transitional fossils showing growing body size, migration of the blow hole to the top of the head, an the slow disappearance of the hind limbs. He simply pretended they didn’t exist. PZ nicely pointed out that such ignorance of the current fossil evidence is unacceptable given that Simmons wrote an entire book on the absence of transitional fossils.
But telling bold-faced lies about the relevant scientific facts is nothing new to creationists. What struck me is that it seemed Simmons was trying to provoke PZ. By making outrageously false statements about the evidence creationists like Simmons hope to strategically place scientists whom they are debating into a no-win scenario. If they do not show proper outrage at the extreme falsehoods, then that creates the impression that we have two scientists who honestly disagree about the evidence. This further creates the impression that evolution is genuinely controversial, and there must be something lacking in the evidence for this “theory.”
If, however, the scientist expresses their sincere shock and awe at the bold lies with which they are confronted, then the creationist will follow up with accusations that the scientist is being mean, is resorting to name calling, and is trying to oppress the poor creationist who is only trying to advocate for open and honest scientific discussion. The upcoming movie, Expelled, with Ben Stein is essentially all about this strategic martyrdom.
This may even explain, in part, why creationists say such ridiculous lies – they are trying to be outrageous as part of their strategy. For them it’s a win-win. They get to spread extreme anti-evolution propaganda, and they may even make the scientists look bad to boot. It’s deceptive, intellectually dishonest, scientifically scandalous behavior. It is made even worse by the fact that creationists do not change their claims even when they are directly corrected on the facts. Simmons is still claiming there are no whale transitional fossils showing the key features of whale evolution.
Which brings up an important question for scientists – why debate creationists at all? Unfortunately, this is a strategic win-win for the creationists as well. If we don’t debate them then they will tell their lies unopposed, and will even taunt scientists for not debating them, accusing them of running scared. If we do debate them, they won’t fight fair and will usually accomplish their goal of smearing evolution and generating public confusion. There is no perfect solution, but I think that perhaps the best counter-strategy for now is twofold. First – we need to expose the strategies of the creationists frequently and publicly. This means using forums where we can dig deep enough into the evidence to show that their claims are hopelessly false.
Second, I think we need to debate them, but we have to be careful to control the venue as much as possible. We need a forum for debate where there will be the ability to control or limit the topics so that enough time can be spent discussing each issue in detail, and to confront the creationist on specific points. Otherwise we will run into the “Gish Gallop” – a reference to the tendency of Duane Gish to throw out more lies in 5 minutes than it would be possible to correct in an hour. Further, scientists need to go into any such debate with their eyes open – fully aware of the strategies of creationists and prepared to deal with them. One tactic is to confront the creationists during the debate on their own deceptive debating tactics. Turn their deceptions back onto them and show the audience that the creationists are not sincere scientists debating in good faith but are simply trying to deceive them.
Scientists should not naively think, however, that simply because they are right that they will win any debate with a creationist and it will be a cake-walk. Many a scientist has fallen into this trap. The best debaters among us need to confront the creationists in venues that allow for a fair and detailed treatment of the facts. The rest should defend science, and attack pseudoscience, on their own – in letters, articles, public appearances, books, blogs and podcasts.
PZ Myers did the best he could under the circumstances, and clearly won the debate. But Dr. Simmons still accomplished his own goals – creating cover for creationism/ID by smearing evolution (which he insisted on calling Darwinism) with as much crap as he could make up. He was successful at this because apparently he is full of it.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Print This Post
17 Responses to “Creationists Play the Martyr Card”
Next tuesday a young earth creationist is coming to give a talk to the skeptics in the pub meeting in London. Quite impressed that they would actually come to a skeptical meeting and try and convince us. I think this creationist must be a very genuine believer to do this. The format is they normally give a short talk 30 to 40 mins and then face questions from the audience, usually questioning is pretty polite (we are english after all). I have a few questions lined up as you can imagine
Sneaky conniving deceptive bastards…
I think Steven makes a very good point here. Even though scientists have the overwhelming preponderance of evidence behind them, even though reasonable-minded people greatly outnumber these self-deluding yahoos (or at least I like to hope so), even though there is no doubt of which way the debate should fall in an honest forum, we have to be extremely careful when openly debating these people. They have no qualms about using unfair debate tactics, and their own intellectual dishonesty doesn’t bother them a bit. They are utterly shameless zealots for their cause, and they’re really, really good at it. They throw the best of what they have (master debaters?) at us, so whoever expects to face them must be absolutely prepared.
Jim: Wow, a skeptical meet up in London? Where? When? Can I come? Email sgs31(at)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk . Thanks!
I understand and am equally frustratred by the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” aspect of whether or not scientists ought to debate creationists. Every such debate I’ve attended turned into a circus. When my personal plan for world domination comes to fruition (by 2012 according to my Work Plan), I’ll order it up this way:
1. Scientists will not deign to debate creationists except under certain conditions, due to the fact that creationists *don’t* debate and never have -they lie, cheat, obfuscate, and propagandize, exploiting every minute in the media sunlight afforded them *only* because of the notable scientists on stage who’ve agreed to debate them. Only the scientists actually debate.
2. Scientists will debate creationists only in a strictly moderated format, with rules, procedures, etc., agreed upon in advance by all parties. The moderator(s) will stop any argument that ventures into logical fallacy, ad hominem, etc., explain the reason for the stoppage, and allow the speaker to start again. No more debates where the ‘moderator’ is just a local TV or radio host, mid-level university mugwump, or other personage unfamiliar with proper debate discipline. Debate only under a moderator with professional debating credentials given total control over the debate.
The accomplishments of science and the evidentiary record in support of evolution require no defense and stand on their own merits. What is laughably called ‘creation science’ simply does not belong on the same stage. Science ought not give creationists unearned limelight unless debates are strictly -and fairly -governed by professional moderation. In other words, science needs to conduct debates exactly as it conducts experimentation – by controlling for extraneous elements and anything irrelevant to the debate (such as logical fallacies, appeals to pity and victimization, out-and-out lying, etc., etc.)
As I have posted, so shall it be.
Amen.
I disagree with Steve here. I think it is inappropriate for a legitimate scientists to engage in a public debate with a creationism proponent. It only legitimizes creationism.
Imagine if Steve’s argument were applied to Holocaust denial and a hypothetical podcast were made with a debate between Holocaust survivor and scholar Elie Wiesel and Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian David Irving. The damage done would be intolerable and Wiesel would receive world-wide criticism for making the reality of the Holocaust a “debatable issue.” In his book The Vanishing American Jew, Alan Dershowitz gives 10 helpful tips on how to deal with Holocaust deniers (pgs. 115-118 available on Google Books). I think the 10 tips can help in dealing with creationists as well. I’ll paraphrase below:
1. Never debate creationists themselves.
2. Every time a creationist gets any attention, use the attention as an occasion to educate the general public about the science.
3. Create a TV documentary film setting out in understandable terms the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.
4. Broadcast this film on television and on the Internet since creationists do the same.
5. Continue efforts to document and archive every aspect of evolution through evidence.
6. Continue to develop curricular material for inclusion in courses throughout the country so that students will learn about evolution in the same manner as they learn about other scientific theories.
7. [this one relates only to Holocaust denial and cannot be paraphrased to apply to creationism]
8. Emphasize creationists’ other anti-science opinions such as the 6,000 year old universe.
9. Never confuse natural selection with “social Darwinism.”
10. Never put any scientist on the defensive when it comes to evolution. The evidence supports our view, and we should insist on counter-evidence from the creationists, not the other way around.
I couldn’t help notice that the same ploy of defining transitional fossils as specific species.
I think that it would behoove us to make a common use of the Dawkins argument in which he points out that species is a tricky concept, and points out a species of bird that has varieties throughout the globe and each version can mate with its nearest neighbor but not its farthest neighbor.
A lot of people still have a Platonic way of thinking about species.
Creationists should not be debated, they should be interrogated in the guise of a debate format. A good interrogator can turn another’s dedeptive strategies against them with deceptive strategies of his/her own.
The irony is that debating procedures have for the most part evolved to allow either side to make the best use of such strategies, and those who fail to show their skills in that area (and assume truth will prevail regardless of the arena) will lose.
And the moderated format proposed by the devils advocate above seems an excellent suggestion for those who still want to give the deliberately ignorant a fighting chance.
I think it’s futile to debate creationists on this issue. Let’s paint an analogy: would ANY of you consider wasting your time debating a flat-earth proponent? hopefully not. why? because you see how pointless it is. in fact, by debating such a person, you’d be validating that they actually have an argument WORTH debating.
So the real question is: is Creationism an argument worth? I say NO.
I understand how to deal with creationists because i come from an Southern evangelical upbringing. After having wasted many, many hours debating creationists about evolution, I finally realized that creationists are NOT out to find the truth about our origins; they are out to affirm their belief and spread their propaganda. Therefore, they play by different rules.
The thing is, there already EXISTS a very valid “forum” for debating scientific issues…it’s called peer-reviewed journals and society conferences. By continuing to indulge creationists in these pointless arguments, scientists like PZ Myers are only further facilitating their message. Creationists feel validated when real scientists make an effort to debunk them, because it means that scientists CARE about their message…which they then reinterpret as scientists being “threatened” by their message. However, if creationists were just ignored, I really believe they’d go away (yes…it might take a few years….but how many of you know flat-earth or geocentric proponents?).
No debate or argument will ever convince a creationist of the error of their thinking. Creationism is an ideology that will die with its proponents. Therefore, our focus should not be on debunking creationism, but instead on furthering education of the next generation so that we can usher this old dinosaur to its grave. The Dover trial is a perfect example of how this issue will continue to play itself out. As long as creationists have an outlet to debate scientists, their message will propagate. However, if we close off these channels, and instead force ID/creationist proponents to make their case in *valid* forums, like the courtroom and scientific publishing, then we’ll see this debate die a lot quicker. However, by continuing to indulge them, we are only breathing life into their campaign.
To sort of echo what Mr. Niles has posted, science is a matter of the preponderance evidence, not a matter for debate. Dr. Novella alluded to the problem that merely entering the debate implies there *is* a debate as to evolution vs. creationism. It seems like evolution vs. creationism debates are little more than two preachers preaching to two choirs. Actually, that analogy sucks in that scientists aren’t ‘preaching’ at all, but……
The timing of this post was interesting… I actually attended a “discussion” of whether science and religion were compatible tonight. On one side there was an evolutionary biologist with 30 years of scientific experience and on the other side there was a former scientist-turned-missionary and young earth creationist.
I went to the debate intending to learn something about this interesting topic. Were religion and science compatible. The biologist stated that the Christian faith (this was in the bible belt) is fairly adamant that we cannot know the will of God and thus science is not a pursuit of faith, and in addition faith itself is not something that can be shaken by any manner of science.
And the missionary proceeded to use his opening statement to blast evolution and natural selection, using all manner of arguments that we’ve all heard before.
I entertained the conversation for awhile, but it looks like even when the topic is one that can be debated (I take the stance that a public debate isn’t the forum for a creationism vs. evolution discussion), it doesn’t work out right.
Interesting to see that the creationist still used all the standard “there is no fossil record” arguments and “a dog doesn’t change into a goat.”.
I tend to disagree with Steve here as well in that debating creationists is an exercise in futility. I discussed my reasoning in detail in a couple of posts, the most recent of which was a discussion of Steve’s “debate” with homeopaths at the University of Connecticut a few months ago. While I admire Steve for having the intestinal fortitude to engage in such activities, something that I most definitely do not have the public speaking chops to do any better than a mediocre job at, I tend to view such activities as a very long run for a very short slide, with the catcher being the pseudoscientist being debated, sitting there with ball already in mitt, smiling.
I like the first part of Steve’s strategy better, the relentless exposing of the lies, fallacies, and misinformation of pseudoscientists. Unlike Steve, who is polite almost to a fault, I also don’t think that it’s always a bad idea to engage in a bit of serious mockery from time to time. Obviously, this would be a bad strategy if used too much, but nothing quite gets the point across like a good demonstration of the stupidity and mendacity of many creationist arguments.
There’s a difference between debating “Flat Earthers” or holocaust deniers and debating creationists. The former are few while every Sunday morning whole masses of Americans head to church where creationist propaganda is fed to them. And they willingly partake. The KKMS radio station is devoted to YEC.
There will always be a core group of people whose mind can’t be changed no matter what. But there are some intelligent, fence-sitting creationists who will be swayed by these debates. To them, Simmons came away from the debate looking silly – not one of their best spokesmen. So debating creationists should be done, especially in their own backyard, until they are relegated to holocaust denier status.
KKMS allowed Simmons to return a week later and gave him a forum to redeem himself sans Myers. Without the counterpoint, Simmons gave into stream-of-consciousness ramblings, marveling at the incredible complexity of life. I am working on a transcript of that discussion for later dissection. I also happened to write a tongue-in-cheek blog post about the Indohyus discovery being more a victory for creationists. Finding one missing link in a chain, instead of supporting evolution, reveals the need to fill in two more missing links. Little did I know but the radio hosts echoed this same line of reasoning. I was floored.
Whether or not there were any converts after the debate, Myers did provide use with one of the most memobrable quotes about Simmons:
“This is a man who thinks the fact that he isn’t drooling and feces aren’t dribbling down his leg is a miracle from god. “
I was hoping someone would notice that in my model for debating creationists (agreed-to-in-advance strict rules forbidding fallacies, lies, ad hom, etc., and professional moderation), the result would be that no creationist would agree.
Per Skeptick’s note that creationist thinking is far more prevalent and widespread that flat earth theory, I would add also that neither are flat earthers trying to jam their idiotic ideas into public education.
I still say debate the creationists, but it’s not a scientific debate -the debate on evolution is long over -it’s a political debate on a scientific subject with great social import.
Maybe I’m biased, but I though Simmons did very poorly. Myers completely hammered him on the whale fossils, I think anyone could have seen that.
This has left me with impression that debating creationist, as long as it is done people of Myer’s caliber, isn’t such a bad idea after all.
Here’s a strategy which might be effective:
Before the debate, get the Creationist to either sign a statement or publicly agree that;
1.) “There is no possibility that God could have chosen to work through evolution: ‘theistic evolution’ is not an option, in any way, ever — not for me.”
2.)”If evolution did occur, then this means that the Bible is not the word of God, and Christianity is a false religion, and Jesus a liar.”
3.) “If evolution did occur, then there can be no God.”
4.) “If it turns out that the vast majority of the world’s experts in biology, geology, genetics, and related fields are correct, then I, (fill in name here), agree to renounce Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. This I swear.”
If possible, have them get on their knees for this little ceremony. And ask the audience to follow along.
If the Creationist balks — or the audience does — then suggest that maybe, just maybe, they’re becoming uncomfortable with drawing a line like that, and making a “test for God.” Is anything important resting on this issue, really? It seems not. If, when push comes to shove, they would become theistic evolutionists before they renounced Christianity, then clearly this is just a game to them. The debate does not matter to their religion. Evolution could not falsify Christianity after all.
If you really thought it did, you would get on your knees and sign that creepy little agreement, no problem — wouldn’t you?
Make them put up or shut up.
I was in competitive university debating when I was in Grad school – and I think I learned nearly as much doing debate as I did on my thesis.
One thing I learned is that a good debater, largely ignorant on a topic, can crush a better informed opponent.
I don’t think it is the case that one should not debate creationists – especially if there are a lot of fence sitters out there. But probably, respected scientists should not debate creationists – unless they are really good debaters – since people watching will misinterpret poor debate performance with bad science.
I enjoyed the PZ Myers v Simmons debate – PZ did a good job, but let’s be real here, Simmons was incredibly weak – neither a good scientist nor a good debater.
The real test is can you handle someone like Kent Hovid who spews forth a dozen arguments a minute, uses folksy humour to keep the audience on-side, and caters to people’s common-sense ignorance.