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.

Fossils take millions of years to form.

What an incredibly cute straw man.

Construction of the Straw Man

Gary Bates used a quote to introduce this straw man. This reminds me of the wonderful technique of misdirection used by magicians. By having a third party “introduce” the straw man, by placing lies in other people’s mouths, Gary Bates maintains some level of deniability. “No, I didn’t say that, some guy that came up to me said it.” This is very similar to Fred May quoting a lie from the pulpit in Shofar in the second quarter of 2004. Fred May didn’t lie. He didn’t even say the lie was truth. However, the quoted lie was presented in a fashion providing an opportunity for a credulous audience to swallow it. (For the record, the quoted lie was the one about NASA proving Joshua’s missing day: Snopes, Progressive Theology. I tried sending Pastor Sias le Roux an email inquiring about the matter, but received no reply. That was the beginning of the end of my 2004 Shofar stint.)

The quote:

A guy came up to me and said to me “You creationists talk about operational science, and you choose to ignore it.” I said “What are you talking about?” “Well, fossils. We know fossils take millions of years to form” he said. “Therefore your young earth ideas go straight out the window. We know fossils take millions of years to form.”

Once a straw man like this has been constructed, the rest is really quite predictable.

Hacking Apart the Straw Man

The first hack at the straw man was a picture of a fossil of an ichthyosaur giving birth, as proof that fossils could not take millions of years to form. I will spare you Gary Bates’ rhetoric on this matter. If you’re really bored, you can take a look at the Answers in Genesis entry about this.

No, wait, I cannot spare you Gary Bates’ rhetoric, I have to share it.

See what’s coming out of the birth canal? A baby! See? Frozen in the rocks almost. Preserved in the process of giving birth. …(?)… giving birth for millions of years while it was slowly being fossilised? It would be a pretty difficult labour, wouldn’t it? [cue lots of laughter from the choir.]

The second hack at the straw man was made in conjunction with taking a swipe at school textbooks. The story goes (somewhat paraphrased):

A fish swims along, sinks to the bottom, and is slowly fossilised. A little bit of mud, a little bit of water, sediment building up over millions of years, burying the fish. And then the process starts again, another one dies…

Right, another straw man constructed, time to take another nice couple of hacks at it:

Now lets go back a step here. Because in the real world, do fish generally sink to the bottom when they die? [cue a "No" from the choir]. No, they don’t. Do they? Maybe if any of you have been scuba-diving or snorkelling, have you noticed all the thousands of dead fish on the ocean floor waiting to be fossilised? [cue laughter] Of course not! Go home and do the experimental method, add a teaspoon of cyanide to the fish tank, find out if fish sink or float. [cue laughter]

Etcetera etcetera. Further hacks at the straw man, interspersed with laughter: examples of a fossilised miner’s hat and a roll of fossilised fencing wire, as proof that fossils can form rapidly. A question whether the dinosaur fossils you dig up come with labels stating how old they are [cue "no"]… (Um… Oh, wait, yea, the dinosaur fossils at the Creation Museum do have labels. Now if only the Creation Scientists could go bury those labels with the fossils, then we’d know how old they are, eh? Sigh, labels. Hehe. As if labels prove more than the dating techniques scientists use.)

This is how it looks to me: Ridicule, with a nice flavour of “oh those dumb scientists, if only they were as smart as us… if only they attended one creationism seminar, in ten minutes we’ll explain to them why decades and decades of serious scientific study is obviously wrong. I mean, c’mon, it’s obvious! Because we’re laughing at them and we’re so smart!

Undoubtedly they will say the same about the scientists. “Oh, the scientists think they’re better than us. They think they’re so smart, and we’re not, and they laugh at us”… I’m not completely sure how often this happens. You do get your self-righteous “better than thou” scientists that prefer to mock and ridicule the uneducated. While I think that is abhorrent behaviour, I understand it completely. It is a reaction to behaviour that they believe is abhorrent.

The Truth?

Now I am no palaeontologist, I have recently handed in my Masters’ thesis in digital signal processing. I did not even do biology at school, because our school system killed my interest in the interesting subject matter to the point that I was disinterested in having to learn any facts like a parrot. However, even I, relatively uneducated in these matters, save for my incurable curiosity and thirst for knowledge about this remarkable universe, can easily point out the flaws and likely explanations. Or is it just my love for critical thinking?

I’m hoping someone with more knowledge will correct me when I’m wrong. (I also wish Gary Bates had the same attitude.)

Science does not claim that fossils take millions of years to form. Science claims only that the fossils formed millions of years ago. Of course there aren’t thousands of fish lying on the ocean floor waiting to be fossilised. If there were, our fossil record would be so much more complete, valuable fossils would not be so rare, and the existence or absence of a continuous, gap-less fossil record would be much easier to demonstrate. Or maybe not, as the transitional fossils would be hidden amongst billions and billions of other fossils?

School textbooks: if they’re really that bad, they need to be improved. Unless Gary Bates is wilfully telling lies, he is demonstrating the gaps in our education system. If young earth creationism is a fact, it should not be necessary to resort to straw-man arguments. It should not be necessary to appeal to ignorance. It appears we either all need a better understanding of fossils and palaeontology, or dramatically improved critical thinking skills.

We hope to organise a series of talks on these matters early next year. If our school education system is also this poor, it would be a valuable service to all students on campus to introduce them to some serious science. I’m thinking the series should include a palaeontologist that can explain fossil formation and the reasons why scientific consensus concludes specific fossils formed millions of years ago.

Who is “we”? I’m not completely sure yet, but all will become clear in due time. We’re hoping for a diverse group cooperating for the benefit of everyone on campus. We also hope to include theologians in this series, to provide some context about the book of Genesis.

Personally, I’m hoping we can also give Shofar a slot in the series. I believe it is important for everyone to hear Shofar’s perspective as well. I will see what I can do about convincing “the others” of this idea.

A Celebration of Ignorance

Back to a Gary Bates quote:

And maybe this is the way that you can reach people using this subject matter. You don’t have to be really that informed about it. I actually said to the guy “Are you interested in fossils? I’m interested in fossils. Is there a particular fossil you’ve got a problem with?” Think about it. Do most people know the names of fossils? Do you know the names of those fossils? Some of you might, if you have studied palaeontology, but the average person in the street doesn’t. And that is my point. Most people think fossils take millions of years to form, based on what they’ve been told.

Oh what a celebration of ignorance. What a celebration of uninformed, uneducated bunk. I wonder how many people attending the seminar had studied palaeontology.

So why is such bunk swallowed whole? Because there is only one important thing in the world: to avoid going to hell after you die. To go to seventh heaven after you die. Often a fundamentalist will try to save you not because he is compassionate and does not want to see you burn in hell (they sometimes celebrate the fact that sinners will burn), but rather to carry out the divine mandate they have been given. It is their mission on earth to try and “save” as many people as they can. And they really do believe this. With such a perspective, using uneducated misinformation to talk about fossils is completely understandable, as fossils are really not important. Getting saved is much more important than knowing the truth…

The thing that causes non-Shofar Christians much grief, is the damage vocal creationists are doing to the sharing of Jesus’ message (the gospel, or “good tidings” or “good news”). By equating “good news” with logical fallacies and lies, people become disinterested in this “supposed good news”. This dogma is dangerous… They all sense it. Why can’t you?

If you would like to understand what fundamentalistic Christianity looks like to the outsider, you can take a look at Get the Good News Right.

Suppose you are making a movie and you need to have some guy chopped up or hanged, or something dramatic. Knowing you will be unable to chop up or hang a real person, you create a dummy. A dummy that won’t fight back. A man of straw. Now you can drive over this dummy with a truck, throw him out of an aeroplane with no parachute, or stick him in a microwave or a blender. Oh, the blender, particularly useful, as straw blends easily. No bone, no substance, which might clog the blender’s blades or hurt the gears of the machine.

That is the nature of a straw man argument. You create a caricature of the thing you would like to attack, and then you point out all the flaws of your caricature. You don’t bother dealing with reality, because fiction can be very convincing to those that would like to believe. They’re quite happy ignoring all the straw sticking out of the sleeves and the legs, and the lack of blood? Ah, no matter, throw on some tomato sauce or just move on to another scene before too many questions are asked.

The straw man argument. We will be investigating a huge number of such arguments in the upcoming weeks. Here is Wikipedia’s definition of the straw man logical fallacy:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent’s position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.

Any questions about straw man arguments in general, before we investigate examples of such arguments employed to great effect?

Straw Man @ Cectic