thinktoomuch.net

On Wednesday there was another creationism seminar in the Neelsie, presented by a Donald James Batten, B.Sc.Agr. (Hons 1), Ph.D. In my subjective experience, the talk seemed like less of a circus than the seminar presented last year. By that, I mean the nefarious content was a little less obvious to the lay person. A more thorough analysis of the talk is on its way. Rumour has it there may also be something appearing in Die Burger and Die Matie. (A handful of my blog friends were there. Please let me know if/when any articles or letters are published, thanks.)

The short summary should come as no surprise to those used to creationist tactics: the talk consisted largely of quote mining, arguments from incredulity, and straw man arguments.

Quote Mining and Lies

I am quite reserved in my use of the word “liar”, matters pertaining to truth and lies can at times be rather nuanced. A “liar” is someone who deliberately make untruthful statements, not someone that accidentally propagate lies. Consider a friend that really and honestly believes the lie or urban legend he is sharing with you. Such a friend is not a liar, even if they may be a gullible person lacking critical thinking skills. You also get institutionalised lies that become so widespread that even a highly skeptical person ends up believing or propagating the lie.

“Quote mining” is a term referring to the practise of taking quotes out of context in order to promote views contrary to those held by the person quoted. As an act of dishonesty, it classifies as a lie when it is used to deceive. If a person uses quote mining is doing so knowingly and deliberately in order to deceive, that person should be called a liar. However, it is hard to know whether the quote mining is deliberate or from ignorance. I usually prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Stephen Jay Gould, as a proponent of punctuated equilibria rather than gradualism, has become a regular target of quote mining. Such quote mining does not mention the context of the gradualism versus punctuated equilibria debate. Writes Gould (emphasis is mine):

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

Creationists have collections of mined quotes, which they pass on to one another. As such, they often become institutionalised lies, making it hard to accuse their propagators of being liars. Often they are just uneducated with regards to scholarly standards. Any scholar worth his salt knows to verify quotes from original sources, within the original context.

So that brings me to Donald James Batten, B.Sc.Agr. (Hons 1), Ph.D. Any person that goes around calling himself Donald James Batten, B.Sc.Agr. (Hons 1), Ph.D. means to claim some form of scholarly authority. Usually, such claims can be valid on the grounds that doing a Ph.D. at a reputable university requires the highest standard of scholarly research. If someone has a reputable Ph.D., it should be safe to assume they know all about verifying original sources and remaining true to the original context.

So… does everyone agree that I may hold someone flaunting his Ph.D. (claiming he’s an excellent scholar) to a higher standard when it comes to quoting? If we were able to catch Donald James Batten, B.Sc.Agr. (Hons 1), Ph.D. spreading deception through use of dishonest quotes, would you agree it is fair to call him a liar?

If anyone disagrees, speak now or forever hold your peace.

Further reading: Wikipedia: Quote Mining, The Quote Mine Project (lists examples of Creationist quote mining), Cectic (comic) on Quote Mining.

Straw Man Arguments

Creationists often misrepresent evolution, in order to make it seem illogical. Typically, they break mutation and natural selection apart, and attack them separately. This indicates either a lack of understanding with regards to what evolution is and how it works, or it is again an example of deliberate deception, aka lying.

The process of evolution uses natural selection and mutation together, in a sweet example of irreducible complexity. You cannot reduce the evolutionary process to two independent mechanisms, whether evolution is true or not. Doing so, would be spreading a lie.

Examples of the straw men used will be given at a later date.

Argument from Incredulity

The argument from incredulity: “I cannot understand how it can be true, so it must be false”. That could arguably be one of the most self-centred and conceited arguments that exists, as it seems to imply “I have the greatest intellect possible, so anything I cannot understand, must be impossible to understand”. Need I say any more? Just because we cannot understand how the Egyptians built the pyramids, does not mean that they must have been constructed by aliens. Just because a particular five year old cannot understand that daddy isn’t hurting mommy, doesn’t mean that daddy is hurting mommy. We hope the five year old will have the opportunity to grow up to eventually understand and appreciate sex.

UPDATE: (Or rather, continuation, I was in a rush when I posted this.) The point is, argument from incredulity, or argument from ignorance, does not prove anything. In fact, in cases where explanations are available for those that care to look for them, an argument from ignorance does nothing other than emphasize the ignorance of the person employing it.