Thanks to all of you for your thoughtful responses. It may well be that this site, with the focus being on charity and grace, is not the appropriate forum to make allegations or even speculate as to the motivations of individuals or of the owners of AiG. I respect that.
In the broader context of communicating with these people though, outside of this site as it may be, I would like to put forward some additional points for your consideration, merely as a talking point germane to the forum topic.
I have learnt from the atheist community something that I think is valuable. They have spoken of challenging the taboo of not questioning religion, and say that it is fair game to questions ‘its’ claims, and ‘its’ actions., given that ‘it’ seeks to affect public policy and so on. I feel this is a legitimate argument and should be applied in all situations. Whether it be in the political or religious spheres, where our opponents seek to influence people in power, or indeed seek power, to enact legislation that effects our way of life, and enforces their worldview, we are entitled to put some serious questions to them. But let me take this a little further.
The underlying point is that we need to hold everyone to a standard of truth and veracity and intellectual honesty no matter their beliefs, politics or creed, in whatever domain of human discourse. We should not allow people to play the ubiquitous ‘get out of jail free card’ of ‘sincere and deeply held beliefs’ to free them from accountability for their actions. Because what it seems to me that you are all saying, and with the greatest respect, is that people are not to be blamed for being misled or ignorant.
There is a question here of personal responsibility. We are talking about grown ups here. Adults who can vote, drive a car and rear children. If they commit a crime and say they did not know there was a law against their actions, we could quickly say that ignorance of the law is no excuse. We say that because we believe that as an adult, as a member of our society, as a citizen, you have a duty to us all to know the law. We would not accept an excuse from a perpetrator of tax fraud that they were getting their advice from a site called ‘Answers in Make-Believe tax law’. We would not excuse them because of a sincere belief that the site they sought their advice from was convincing and in line with their previously held beliefs about tax. We would not allow them to pretend to be the victim.
This preparedness to treat people differently when it comes to hopelessly and farcically incorrect views is only the case when it comes to religion. While I get that this site is perhaps not the best place to push back against these people in the way I advocate, I would like to encourage people to consider that YECs are doing a great deal of harm in the USA and that this is spreading around the world right now. This destructive, anti-science, anti-reason, anti-democracy poison is destabilizing to our democracy, and is threatening our legal, scientific and educational institutions. I would like people to take a less forgiving attitude to people who spread this nonsense and ask them to demonstrate that they have studied evolution and all the related sciences properly, can explain how evolution really works (according to science) and present a properly argued and evidence-based case for their position, and that until they do that, they do not have an audience with you, and should not be allowed positions of influence over public policy. If we all take this approach, we will do more to shut down the progress of this movement.
They are adults and should be treated as such.
Sorry for going on a rant here, but this is a pet topic of mine and it is my passion to fight ignorance, nonsense and pseudoscience wherever I find it. Yes, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but it is also true that you can’t stop cancer by being nice to it.
I will continue my fight outside of this site. Thanks again for your considered responses
There is so much to resonate with here. I think that I and many long-time participants in this forum here feel all the same convictions you express in your posts, Peter, the necessary exhortation to stay with gracious dialogue notwithstanding. And I argue that we here are fighting that same fight. There is more than one kind of weapon against evils, falsehoods, and ‘innocent’ deceit. The direct frontal assault is one approach (often a necessary one I will concede), but it is not always the best one in every situation. Sometimes, refusing to stoop to the opposition’s tactics yourself and taking the high road of patiently pointing to (and living) the truth will be the more effective way to get people to slowly open their eyes and consider their own ways. Sometimes the outright assault does no more than drive them deeper into their tribal echo chambers and carefully vetted “news” sources that only feed their delusions. “They” seem most prepared to buttress up their views against just such a frontal assault because it’s what they themselves would do. They understand that. Sometimes the most effective tool to effect good in the world is to let the enemy spend themselves and their ammunition of deceit, while continuing to model truth and grace in your own life and words, even when it seems your side is getting nailed to a cross in the process. The light of truth does expose each work for what it is, but I do recognize it is hard to be patient as the truth seems to take agonizingly long to be “strapping on its boots”, so-to-speak, while conspiracy theories know no such caution or restraint. I think this site is an excellent provisioner of just such boots to carry truth to the many (especially here in the U.S.) that are starving for want of truth right now while being shamelessly played by their own tribal media sources who would like their listeners to imagine they are feasting on truth. There is much room for passion and anger - a time to be fashioning whips and upsetting tables against such false shepherds - especially ones that clothe themselves as pious and faithful. And many of them will refer to sites like this one in exactly those same hot terms. But it quickly becomes apparent which ones are most afraid of exposure to light and truth when one compares the insular vs. open natures in the tactics. Which site is most open to inviting all voices to come out and be heard and evaluated with data and opportunity for response and continued rebuttal? Which sites lock themselves down so that only the on-message voices voices (or at best maybe non-hostile or seeking ones) are allowed in their forums (if they even have a public forum at all)? In this way we all show our true colors, and those who know in their hearts that their “truth” does not fare well when brought out into the light are revealed for what they are [it is]. In order for that to continue, BioLogos needs to be sure it does not respond in kind the way so many of these other sites do. We are far from perfect in all this, of course, and the best of us still fall into passionate ad-hominem ourselves far too often, but as long as we recognize this and continue to call ourselves to that higher standard of gracious dialogue, and understanding, we are making use of other effective tools that also can gently rescue many sheep from the many false shepherds that vie for their exclusive attention in our society today.
BioLogos enthusiasts are also encouraged to have the humility to know that we (as individuals here, or even corporately - to the extent that any collection of participants here can be said to well-represent the mission of BioLogos) almost certainly will not be right about everything. So humility in this, and openness to correction is perhaps the main distinction between those sources that care about truth over those who care primarily about ideology. Culturally loud voices that show no humility, no caution, no evidence of any self-reflection or self-examination at all are the voices most likely to be misleading. Give me - any day - the philosophy of accepting correction, or allowing for update and higher, better understanding - of concern for what reality actually shows whether that is convenient or not. In other words, I want to hear from the voices who know that they can be wrong and are very conscious of that fact. The best of science excels at just this attitude, but it is not a principle exclusive to science alone - even if science has perhaps done the best job of making this its creed. But in reality, there is no arena in life (and never has been) where this same attitude of humility has not been the hallmark of those who are, in the end, the most reliable when it comes to knowing and understanding reality. Our culture is literally starving for that right now, and sites like BioLogos are all too rare in helping to fill that need. May their labors continue to be fruitful on behalf of all.
Thanks for your thoughts and also your spirited support for this site and its philosophy.
To be clear, I concede that this site is not the forum for a frontal assault on the YEC brigade. My last points really were about what we should consider doing outside of this site. I understand and support your thoughts and others’ regarding the preferred approach for this site.
I do take on board your point, as the others have also said, that pushing back on these people can be counter-productive and all too often they are well-prepared with canned comebacks designed to confound all attacks with yet more ignorance. This is the insidious nature of the carefully managed ignorance machine they have created.
I believe though, that (outside of this site) we should still at least be steadfast in our demand for truth and veracity from those who seek a public audience, no matter whether it is in the domain of religion or politics, or about vaccinations, moon landings, or the shape of the earth. This ought to be a default, a universal, a social contract if you will, that affords us the common ground to say “No, I need more than just unfounded claims and conspiracy theories if you seek my audience. I need real facts, real evidence, and multiple, disparate sources in support of your claims”.
I think the role of this site is perhaps to play ‘good cop’ here. Invite them in for a chat over a cup of tea, lead by example in grace and humility as you have said, and leave them feeling that those who accept evolution are not the misguided demons they have been lead to believe. I agree with the need to maintain the high ground here, and this is an important role for this site. The ‘bad cop’ role, if you will, needs to be in the general public sphere where we are able to tackle them in a shared, secular voice as representatives of the broader community independent of one’s beliefs.
While I fully support the approach taken by this site, I will say that the success of this approach is not reflected in the increasing and disturbing spread of YEC both in the USA, Europe, Australia and NZ. Increasingly, political candidates in the USA not only have to be professing Christians, but feel the pressure to avoid support for evolution and an old earth, or openly garner votes on the basis of being a YEC. This creeping force of ignorance is a big problem and as they say ‘all that is needed for evil to prosper, is for good men to do nothing’ (sorry ladies, but that was a verbatum quote. I of course include everyone here )
Lastly, I want to take the opportunity right now as an Australian, to apologize for Ken Ham to the USA and the world. He is every bit as bad as your Kent Hovind but with lots more money.
I would really, really, really love to see an updated version of Talk Origins, especially one written by Christians. It’s such a good resource, but it’s outdated and has some obviously atheist contributors, which poisons the well for some Christians. The format of the site is great, having the outline form list of creationist arguments. I got a lot out of the site when I started my journey out of YEC.
Yes, I agree that an updated version for Abrahamic monotheists would be welcome. This isn’t only for or about Christians as well, since Jews, Muslims and Baha’is all believe in the Garden of Eden origin story for humankind.
I’ve been gathering a similar but different list, and would be willing to work with others to bring a new collaborative list together. In fact, this is indeed a plan that I’ve had also for the past couple of years, since there is so much contention around primary and secondary sources in science, philosophy, theology discourse. Contact me by DM if interested.
Isn’t this what Swamidass was recently planning to do with a wiki page for Peaceful Science? He floated that idea last month, but it didn’t get much traction. Of course, it would still be a “secular list”, since Swamidass insists that “secular” means “neutral” and “fair”. I would not “trust” a Swamidass-generated list anymore than being always careful with Talk Origins.
I think it might be best to try to approach Talk Origins with the idea of building a section within the site specific tailored to address the kinds of questions that YEC have regardless of their faith tradition. This would give them a sense that there are people associated with the site who understand and respect them and want to help them with their questions. Once they have been reassured, they might be more disposed to venture more broadly throughout the site, ever able to retreat back to the theist section if they get too anxious.
I disagree strongly that Talk Origins is the right place to build further. That’s the old, but best not the new. The expression of “especially one written by Christians” would make it considerably different than Wesley Elsberry’s project.
I’ve seem to be the opposite where I find myself less and less wandering into there! Probably 10-11 years ago I was a frequent reader of exclusively YEC material. I basically filtered everything through that lens, basically afraid to learn anything outside of its constructs. When learning about a new topic, I would carefully come back and see ‘what does AiG or CMI or ICR’ have to say about this. And then through that filter, I successfully had my viewpoint never challenged.
The thing that broke the camel’s back for me… was when I actually went to research a topic on my own (in my case it was cosmology). I slowly began realizing that scientists actually do know what they’re talking about and models like the big bang model are on really solid ground.
Then, I became disillusioned and shocked at my previous arrogance. I was disillusioned that the articles never actually taught me why or how it is that scientists came to various conclusions… and when they reported or articles they often just cherry picked a phrase to cast doubt, but they would leave off the explanation oftentimes literally right after the statement in an academic paper. And then I was really humbled at the arrogance that came from me reading this material exclusively. I had superpowers… where I was able to read any scientific paper and know better on any topic than the actual authors. This is pretty shocking to think about in retrospect as I’ve written many scientific papers and a random person couldn’t just read my paper and have the slightest clue about correcting my conclusions. That would be a joke and even then, they would have to set up many experiments to prove me wrong and publish their own paper.
So today, I don’t really care what they have to say about much of anything beyond just loosely keeping tabs on the most recent ideas to share in some of my classes. It’s better for my blood pressure levels anyways.
Agreed. And you will find on this forum many instances where people have taken claims made by AiG in articles or its museum or creationist films and dissected them and pointed out the errors. For example: Misrepresentation of Grand Canyon rock formations - #2 by jammycakes
No one is claiming that everything they say should be taken at face value with a smile and nod. It’s just that we don’t know why every individual does what he or she does. People are very different and very complicated and when you have the kind of indoctrination that goes on in these circles (some of which involves spiritual abuse and resulting trauma) you just never know what motivates people. We can empathize with people we strongly disagree with. You can have full and informative conversations about the lies of AiG without getting into the “why” part.
It is destructive. But can you name a single example of a time your approach actually worked and an influential YEC was shamed and bullied into good science and theology? Look at where the country is right now! Forget YEC, look at the complete unwillingness to accept basic facts about vaccines, viruses, masks, and climate change. If you think yelling at people and demanding an evidence-based argument gets anyone to change their mind about conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, you must never venture on to social media or have a single friend, family, or acquaintance in those demographics.
True, and the audience is people in the pews, the consumers not the producers. I’m all for vociferously publicly denouncing dishonesty of elected officials and others who have influential public platforms and are spreading lies. That is a democratic obligation. But those people don’t hang out here.
You would need to ask yourself if you are seeking justice or seeking change. If you are going to change peoples’ minds then you need to consider grace, empathy, and compassion. If all you seek is the satisfaction of telling people they are wrong, then you can use a program of calling people out or “holding them accountable”. There is also the line between law and personal liberties. Are we really going to go around and arrest people because of their beliefs?
Hi Gregory, thanks for introducing me to Wesley Elseberry and his site counterbalance. That looks like an excellent resource. We just need to find a way to lure YECs there. Perhaps this site could leave the figurative trail of breadcrumbs…?
I’ve been arguing with creationists off and on for several decades now, and I’ve often been infuriated by some of the illogic and falsehoods. But I can’t think of a time that I’ve ended up regretting it when I was able to control my temper and respond without anger.
If only it was as simple as those who fooled you with YEC had known better but just had it in for you. But of course the most effective promoters were themselves also fooled into these irrational views. It is an organization of victims, top to bottom. No one is directly responsible for holding beliefs they were carefully brought up in. So rather than looking for someone to punish, it is better to look for those who can be helped.
Agreed. It can be so easy to want to have a specific target when you feel anger, betrayal, or other emotions that can come with a worldview shift. Sometimes a person can also feel shame about what they used to be like, and project that onto others who still hold the same views. It’s good to find healthy ways to process these kinds of things without taking them out on others, and I appreciate how this forum and other groups can help with that.
I’ve certainly seen that on atheist forums. So much anger and the compulsion to go off on someone who reminds you of the feeling of betrayal never diminished. It isn’t a good quality of life. There are good self serving reasons to forgive others.
I hope it is understood that I am now just speaking in context of the issue of this forum post? I am not making a case for changing the mode of dialog when dealing with YECs who visit BioLogos. I am just exploring the ways in which we might engage with these people in a broader sense, and I am proposing a framework for responding to these people’s claims, that puts the onus on them to raise the level of their conversation such that it can be considered fair, justified, rational and reasonable, and thus worthy of the consideration of informed people.
Let us separate out the producers from the consumers as you put it.
Firstly the producers, those who create and maintain the AiG site. Of the five people listed on the site, three of them have a background in science. These are Ken Ham, Dr Danny R Faulkner and Andrew Snelling.
Ken Ham has a degree in applied science with an emphasis on environmental biology. AiG is chock-full of false claims and the ridicule of scientific studies, which anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works would know are false. His famously obtuse line ‘were you there?’ is an attitude to scientific evidence that belies what he has to know given he has studied science himself. You simply cannot be unaware of this level of cherry-picking and distortion of information on this scale. To quote mine, you have to actually read the papers and gloss over the detail to find something you can twist to your purposes. This obfuscation and misrepresentation cannot be merely the bi-product of personal belief. Calling this cherry picking doesn’t really convey the level of deception, because it is conscious hiding of the key information in the paper that shows that the quote, if seen in context, would say the opposite, that supports the lie. This is deceit, plain and simple.
Andrew Snelling, another Australian (sorry!) has a PhD in geology is AiGs director of research.
Snelling works professionally as a geologist for mining companies and produces peer-review papers talking about the earth being billions of years old. He uses correct scientific knowledge to advise companies where to prospect for oil, gas and minerals and so he knows for a fact that the scientific explanation of strata, rock formation, mineral deposit rates, and radiometric dating techniques, produce accurate predictions that cannot be derived from a literal interpretation of the bible, yet he is publicly saying that the bible and Noah’s flood explain it. This is clearly a case of lying. And, even if you were to say that his sincerely held beliefs mean that he isn’t lying when he says the earth is young, I would say that this is excusing ignorance for ignorance sake, and at any rate he is at least lying in his published work (in his own mind).
Dr. Danny R. Faulkner has a BS (math), MS (physics), MA and PhD (astronomy, Indiana University). He is full professor at the University of South Carolina–Lancaster, where he teaches physics and astronomy. He has published about two dozen papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals. This man will be fully aware of the comprehensive evidence for a 13.7 billion year old universe and and yet publicly professes 6,000 years on the AiG site.
These luminaries are knowingly hiding information from their readers, publicly professing two entirely different claims in different forums. They are knowingly misrepresenting science, cherry picking, and quote mining to try to paint a different picture than they know is presented by the papers they refer to. This is a deliberate deception which they absolutely do know about. So in my view, allegations of coordinated, large-scale deception are well-founded.
So my charge that these people set out to deceive on a large scale is unimpeachable.
I will talk about the second group further down. First I want to respond to this from you Christy…
Christy, with respect, I don’t think you have fairly represented what I said. My approach is not about confronting people and bullying them. It is not about yelling at them. I didn’t suggest anything like that at all. In fact, my personal approach with people has always been a form of street epistemology where I gently but firmly re-route the conversation onto the need for veracity, fairness and fact checking, and about what constitutes valid and sound arguments and evidence. My push-back only comes if and when people refuse to engage in that discussion - usually when they don’t like where it is heading in that it shows their position to be weak - and start getting forceful, dogmatic and arrogant. This is not a common occurrence, but if this happens, my response is to say that I am more than happy to continue a conversation with them once they have done the research, properly informed themselves of the science, and can show that they have a proper understanding of what science is saying. I say that until then, I simply cannot take anything they say as anything more than uniformed opinion which I am not obliged to take seriously.
I often use the example of them going to a doctor for medical advise only to find that this was not a real doctor but someone who downloaded their degree from a bogus online ‘institution’ and got their source information from ‘Answers in Homeopathy’. Would they accept treatment from that doctor or would they demand that the doctor attend medical school and actually know and understand the science? Would they allow such a doctor to operate on their kids, or advise medical boards, and lobby governments to change policy in line with their uninformed views?
I merely point out to them that this is exactly what they are expecting from me, and are expecting me to sit by and watch while they influence others.
It is the others that I am referring to here, and also those that are in public office that are also of this ilk. We should be calling out dishonesty wherever we find it, regardless of the domain of discourse or the personal beliefs of the speaker.
If we can say that what is published on AiG are lies then we are implying conscious deception on the part of the authors. To assert a lie is to assert intent. Otherwise you must downgrade the charge to willful ignorance. So, if we agree that the writings on AiG are lies, then we agree there is intent to deceive. Hence, it is valid and reasonable to want to know why. For, as in life generally, understanding the real motives behind people’s actions, equip us to better direct our responses. Responses that go straight to the why, can very quickly erode the flimsy foundations of someone’s position, provided of course we do get to their ‘why’. It is a challenge yes, and it is fraught yes, but it isn’t not an invalid approach.
Questioning the why of the consumers invariably leads to their fear of immorality and of moral decline which they have been taught is a product of people straying from the literal Word, and following the godless and hateful evolutionists. Their fear is much easier to address then going line by line through the countless lies in AiG and furnishing convincing rebuttals. In my experience, gently confronting people with their why is really to get to the core of the problem.
Lastly, to get back to those who proselytize, and by this I mean go out of their way to push their agenda. I say again that once someone chooses this path, they take upon themselves the slings and arrows that brings. If you choose to push unfounded claims and influence others, and public policy etc, then a more robust and direct approach is quite warranted. Nevertheless, I am always calm and reasonable with people and direct them down the path I outlined above.
Yes, this is a point that I’ve made myself in the past.
It’s one thing for an English Literature student who hasn’t set foot in a laboratory since they finished compulsory science education at age sixteen to make scientifically incorrect or incoherent claims from the pulpit. Their mistakes could be unintentional and made in good faith. They don’t know what they don’t know. It’s a different matter altogether for someone with a science degree to do so. If someone has a university degree in science — any science subject — that means that they understand, at least in general terms, what science is, how it works, what the rules are, and the role played in it by measurement and mathematics. They also know how to get to grips with at least the basics of subjects with which they were previously unfamiliar. They do not have the luxury of the excuse of ignorance. This being the case, they have to meet a much higher standard before they can be excused from charges of lying.
This is not at all what I said or proposed. I have not talked about justice seeking, and that is definitely not my thinking at all.
Also, it is not about some kind of satisfaction in telling people they are wrong. This is another mis-characterization of what I have said.
It seems that I am being criticized here for impugning motives of others, yet here you are impugning my motives.
Holding people to account is not possible when one is not their boss. I am talking here about a community attitude adjustment. I am saying that we should all demand more from people who make unfounded claims, present long-debunked arguments without bothering to research and fact check, and actively promote beliefs that impact all our lives adversely.
This is a consciousness-raising exercise for me. A case of ‘let’s rethink our collective response to these people’ in the same way that we might fight racism say. If I encounter someone claiming some negative thing against another race, or that their race is superior, I am not going to let that go unchallenged (even if that challenge is gentle but firm). I will meet that comment with a demand for evidence and facts and a logical coherent argument, because we should demand this from people who are potentially causing harm to us and others (and because as we know with racism as with YEC, there isn’t a coherent argument or any evidence).
I am able to be empathetic but still be steadfast in my opposition.
I am able to be compassionate about someone’s experience, given their upbringing and experiences and even rarely, possible abuse, but still not allow this as a reason to let the poison forced into their heads be spread still further and infect others.
I am able to consider grace in my dealings with these people, but still be resolute in the defense of truth.
Yes there is a line between law and personal liberties, but there is also a line between the rights of the individual and the greater good (at the risk of sounding like a lefty).
"This is a very serious cause for concern. The Bible has far, far more to say about the need for honesty and integrity than about either the age of the earth or evolution. If we are to acknowledge that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6), we must abhor any kind of falsehood, and right at the top of the list of falsehoods to abhor are religious falsehoods within our own ranks. Such falsehoods are immensely damaging to the Great Commission."
Are you serious T? Surely you know I am not saying that?
Let us challenge these people as we would challenge racism. Let us challenge these people as we might challenge communism say. (Outside of BioLogos of course) Otherwise we are in danger of normalizing crackpottery and conspiracy theories as socially ‘cool’ and acceptable - if we aren’t already at that point. I am not talking about ostracizing, bullying or shaming like some of you have suggested but merely meeting their nonsense gently and firmly with the demand for rigor and research and evidence, otherwise to treat what they are saying as the nonsense that it is - exactly as if they were spewing racist nonsense to you. As Hitchens said “Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”.
)
