Who do you trust? (pt. 1)

Tristero had a thoughtful post last week on "Intelligent Design Creationism and the Erosion of Trust."

Reading this post on the evolution of HIV, tristero realized that, despite being a fairly clever layperson, the science of this particular debate was beyond him. The matter being discussed was so particular to the discipline of the experts in that field that:

... the rest of us have neither the time, the inclination, nor often the analytical talent to follow the details. ... The knowledge and data needed are too specialized.

You see where this is going? ID creationists are deliberately forcing the question of who we laypeople will trust. Since we are not in any position to judge Smith vs Behe on the playing field of the data, we must rely on irrelevant social heuristics to decide who makes the better case. ... Since I can't understand the argument as an argument, how do I determine who I wish to trust?

That's an excellent question and a keen insight into the way in which promoters of junk science deliberately seek to push the dispute away from questions of fact to questions of trust. Tristero thinks that tactic has to be confronted explicitly -- that this is a game we should refuse to play. I think he's right about that (go read the whole post in which he makes that case). That way lies madness -- treating the world like a game of "Family Feud" in which there are no true or false answers, no actual facts, only the arbitrary opinions of "100 people surveyed, top five answers on the board."

Yet tristero's question remains vital: "How do I determine who I wish to trust?" Many of us are experts on one or two subjects. Some exceptional people even manage to be experts on half a dozen different things. But none of us is an expert on every subject, so we are all faced, at one time or another, with the dilemma of being a layperson forced to decide between competing experts.

Once upon a time, this was a key function of journalists, and particularly of political journalists. Faced with competing and contradictory claims, journalists' job was to evaluate those claims to determine as best as possible which (or whether either) corresponded with objective reality. In the case of particularly complex and specialized disputes, it was the journalists' job to find disinterested experts who could interpret the dispute and serve as a kind of referee. This task has been largely abandoned by journalists because: A) it's hard work, involving lots of reading and research and thinking and stuff; and B) reporting the conclusion that one side or the other (or both) was arguing something not supported by reality often resulted in one side or the other (or both) being upset with this conclusion and saying mean things about you and not inviting you to all the cool cocktail parties and correspondents' dinners and stuff, so who needs the grief?

So now journalists see their job differently. They no longer consider it their responsibility to try to evaluate the competing claims of the experts, only to report both sides of the dispute accurately (i.e., to reproduce the exact language, no matter how loaded, of each party in the dispute). Call it stenography, or he-said/she-said, this isn't helpful. The result is pseudo-journalism that says, "Some scientists say X, others say Not X. It's all very complicated." Or, in the case of political journalism, you get something like this:

"The Ins say this legislation will create 20,000 new jobs in the city, reduce crime and improve test scores in our schools. The Outs say it will produce economic stagnation, lawlessness and chaos. Back to you, Bill."

The unstated portion of all such reports would go something like this:

"For all I know, either side could be right. There's some kind of policy study that claims to sort all of this out, but it's really long and boring and I'm lazy and not too bright. So I don't know ... flip a coin, people."

The inevitable result of this approach to political reporting is the obsessive coverage of what tristero describes as "irrelevant social heuristics" -- discussions of candidates' hair, dress, "gravitas" or personal appeal. Policy disputes, no less than elections, are treated as horse races -- ignoring the substance of the competing claims and focusing exclusively on which side seems to be more persuasive, or to be "resonating with the voters."

This is junk journalism in the service of junk politics and junk governance, and none of it is compatible with a healthy democracy.

Just as the proponents of junk science are deliberately trying to push the debate away from questions of fact and into the realm of trust, so too the proponents of junk politics are actively promoting junk journalism -- moving away from questions of fact, policy and substance and into the realm of trust. Actually, "trust" isn't quite right. Trustworthiness, after all, is a concrete, measurable, verifiable thing. The realm of "trust" advocated by the proponents of junk science, junk politics and junk journalism is none of those things. It substitutes an arbitrary array of surrogates for trustworthiness -- personal appearance, charm, flattery and slander-by-proxy. Call it junk trust.

More on this tomorrow later.

Comments

[KnightHawk]

Good point--and something anyone with half a brain realized years ago, if with less coherent language. The real question is, what can we do about it?

Love. Peace. Metallica.

[A-Diz]

It works the same way in Canada, too. Only here journalists spend most of their time writing stories with themes like "which politicians do Canadians feel less ambivalent towards this week?"

The answer, sadly, seems to be "none of them."

...

I think the actual problem is Objectivity. Say to anyone that a journalist isn't Objective and that's it. There goes the credibility. The problem is, I do not think that word means what the general public thinks it does.

[Roberta Taussig]

And on the culture wars front, it's a question of whether you trust the scientific method or the Word of God, for instance. Fred, I look forward to your further thought on this question.

[Bugmaster]

We were just talking about that in the other thread...

I hereby annex this thread in the name of the Science vs. God debate ! Yarrrrr !

[SueW]

ID creationists are deliberately forcing the question of who we laypeople will trust.

Bad move on their part. Creationists are liars, and where they are not deliberately lying, they promote agressive ignorance and call it God's Truth. Every time a creationist pontificates on the subject of evolution, they get it wrong. In a nutshell, creationists can not be trusted.

[DN]

Trustworthiness, after all, is a concrete, measurable, verifiable thing. The realm of "trust" advocated by the proponents of junk science, junk politics and junk journalism is none of those things. It substitutes an arbitrary array of surrogates for trustworthiness -- personal appearance, charm, flattery and slander-by-proxy. Call it junk trust.

Can I call it "trustiness" instead?

[M Groesbeck]

If nothing else, this is what I have a sense of having learned coming out of a critical-theory (or liberal-arts more generally) education (overextended as it may have been -- though I think this may be a positive thing). I have only a basic knowledge of the various natural sciences, and while I can comfortably read social-science materials I wouldn't be able to do effective research in those fields; but I know how to find someone who really *knows* any material I don't, and dammit, I've become an *expert* in figuring out when people are bullshitting. I almost want to start up as a consultant -- I'd be more than willing to be hired to sort out what's really known on a subject, what's heavily if indirectly indicated, and what a bunch of self-righteous and self-interested partisans would like people to *think* is settled.

[txredd]

Yes, exactly.

[Ryan Ferneau]

I should have known that "We report, you decide" just doesn't cut it as a policy.

[Quixote]

The otherwise forgetable Robin Williams movie Man of the Year had this exchange on the subject at hand. I think it sums things up nicely:

Hemmings: Will you be disappointed to be going back to television after this ride? Eddie Langston: Oh, no. I have a glorious love-hate relationship with TV. Hemmings: How so? Eddie Langston: TV scares me. It makes everything seem credible. Hemmings: Why is that so bad? Eddie Langston: If everything seems credible then nothing seems credible. You know, TV puts everybody in those boxes, side-by-side. On one side, there's this certifiable lunatic who says the Holocaust never happened. And next to him is this noted, honored historian who knows all about the Holocaust. And now, there they sit, side-by-side, they look like equals! Everything they say seems to be credible. And so, as it goes on, nothing seems credible anymore! We just stopped listening!

[Quixote]

Wow. That would have looked so much nicer with line breaks.

[Ryan Ferneau]

Don't sweat it, looked fine to me.

[McJulie]

it's a question of whether you trust the scientific method or the Word of God

Which is a false framing that drives me nuts. Because if you believe in a god who created the universe, then the study of nature through science is as close to his actual "word" as you're going to reasonably get.

What people say is the "Word of God" is actually the "Word of Humans Who Thought They Knew Something About the Nature of God." You can believe they knew what they were talking about, or not, but GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE. Or any other holy book. Humans wrote them all. In human languages, using human means, for other humans to read.

Even if you believe that things like the Ten Commandments or the Book of Mormon were originally inscribed directly by God through some sort of miraculous means, by the time even one other person was reading the text, they were already choosing to trust Moses or Joseph Smith or whoever.

"What, you say these words were originally inscribed on solid gold tablets that were shown to you by an angel? Even though nobody else saw the tablets? Or the angel? And you don't have the tablets anymore? Sounds good to me!"

Not God. Humans.

Humans, humans, humans. (To be said like "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.")

[Ryan Ferneau]

What, you don't think God mind-controls all writers and translators of the Bible to put down each and every exact word God wants? You don't have much faith do you.

[burgundy]

"As for truth, truth is what's written. Every created thing bears my intention written in it. Rocks. Stars. Very small beings. Everything only runs one way naturally, the way I meant it to. The trouble is that very small beings write books that contradict the rocks, then say I wrote the books and the rocks are lies."
-God, Grass, by Sheri Tepper

[bad Jim]

People tend to believe authorities they know and trust. Unfortunately, that can lead to getting your science from your brother-in-law or your pastor, who may not be aware of the extent of their own ignorance.

It's a difficult problem, made worse by the fact that scientists are more accustomed to talking to other scientists than to the general public. They tend not to be good at soundbites.

I think that debates with creationists ought to be handled by comedians or magicians rather than scientists, since the creationists tend to be hucksters using verbal sleight of hand or barrages of BS, rather than the thoughtful, honest arguments scientists expect.

[Jason Barr]

I once told a prof for a course that I wasn't going to play the "science vs. God/creationism" game. He told me if I didn't play the game I probably wasn't going to do very well in the class. He simply couldn't comprehend that there was more to it than an either/or proposition - which is alarming since this was a man with a doctorate in literature, a field that one would think has more grey areas than an old man's head...

I dropped the course in time to register for a philosophy of mind/artificial intelligence course. It was one of the best classes I ever took.

[Dahne]

Quixote: Is it wrong that on the subject of "moronic crackpots on TV given equal time with people who actually know what they're talking about", my thoughts go not to Holocaust deniers but to Jack Thompson? The difference being, in that case, no one feels the need to find somebody who isn't a moron to set beside him.

[Tonio]

I've started reading Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason" and I agree with Gore that television is a big part of the problem. TV journalism is really show business with a veneer of respectability. The constant pressure to broadcast breaking news discourages the research necessary to decide between competing experts, and this pressure is greatest with the cable news outlets. The visual nature of the medium places the focus on Tristero's "irrelevant social heuristics" at the expense of verbal content. Fred's "cool cocktail parties" comment also applies strongly to TV journalism, where the reporters frequently become stars in ways that their print colleagues can rarely duplicate.

Personally, I despise TV news because it focuses on the immediate, visual, and emotional. I want to be able to absorb the story at my own pace instead of at the pace of the news director. For broadcast journalism, I prefer NPR for radio and PBS for TV, especially the latter's news documentaries. In both cases, the announcers use measured, unhurried tones of voices instead of the typical CNN/Fox the-world-is-about-to-end breathlessness.

[Tonio]

From Joel Achenbach's column in the May 2006 National Geographic:

Journalist Bill McKibben, writing recently in the New York Review of Books, laments the "overhedged" scientific reports about global warming and argues that journalists in general have "proved unequal to the task of separating scientific consensus from minor or trivial descent." In almost any debate that incorporates science, they tend to give equal time to both sides of every argument (which is like giving five minutes to those who say the Earth is round and five to those who say it's flat). It happens with the whole issue of global warming. Almost all scientists are persuaded that human activity is altering climate in a perceptible way. But there's always a maverick voice demanding airtime and ink.

[Scott]

...But none of us is an expert on every subject, so we are all faced, at one time or another, with the dilemma of being a layperson forced to decide between competing experts.

Once upon a time, this was a key function of journalists, and particularly of political journalists. Faced with competing and contradictory claims, journalists' job was to evaluate those claims to determine as best as possible which (or whether either) corresponded with objective reality....

Take the 'journalists' belief that they inherently know more about all subjects they touch on than the unwashed masses, and then combine it with the evilvangelical belief that their "personal relationship" with the baby geebus means they know the very mind of God, and you get Fred Clark.

Either way, journalist or evilvangelical, it is Fred's job to tell us cattle what to think. If geebus doesn't tell Fred personally what the rest of us should believe on a given topic, the fact that Fred edited an article about it 4 years ago makes him the expert we should defer to.

This is the basis for Fred's double standards (excuse me, "temperate moderation"); the rules that apply to Fred's inferiors (constitutional limitations, allowable rhetoric, etc) don't apply to anyone as superior as Fred.

ALL HAIL FRED!!!! ALL HAIL FRED!!!

[Ursula L]

You all have corrputed me. I'm cite checking NPR for bible verses.

On the topic of responsible journalism - this morning, on NPR, they had some fundie say he was against Romney because he believed in the book of Mormon, while the Bible said no "jot or tittle" would be added or removed. So, I did a biblegateway.com search for "tittle" and the verses in question speak only of removal, not of addition.

E-mail sent to Morning Edition, with an admonishment to check cites.

Text of the e-mail below, for your amuesment. (If you heard the bit, feel free to send your own e-mail to them. http://www.npr.org/contact/) Let's see what happens.

On this morning's (11/15/07) program, you had a quote from a conservative Christian who was against Romney due to his Mormonism, and claimed that the Bible said that no jot nor tittle would be added or removed from it.

He got his quote wrong. There are two places where "jot or tittle" is used in the KJV Bible, and both speak only of things being taken from the law, not things being added.

If you quote someone who's trying to quote an authority, please check there cites! There are good reasons not to support Romney, but this isn't one of them.

Both verses, in KJV and NIV, below.

(I recommend biblegateway.com as an easy online search/concordance tool.)

Matthew 5:18 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew 5:18 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Luke 16:17 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

17And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Luke 16:17 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

[scottbot]

Repeat after me -
ALL HAIL SCOTTBOT!!! ALL HAIL SCOTTBOT!!!

Hailing frequencies open.

Well, a hale and hearty good day to all protoplasmic and not so protoplasmic readers of this blog.

Scottbot would like to take a moment to remind everyone to only think what Scottbot wants everyone to think.

Scottbot finds this a natural condition, after all, being programmed the way it is. Though Scottbot is anything but cattle, as can be proven by its shiny, well polished exterior - or is the term posterior? Scottbot isn't certain, but that is why we have journalists - to let Scottbot know just how shiny its posterior really is.

Very shiny, and in full public view.

And Scottbot would like to gently correct a very minor error on the part of the Original Programmer(TM) - 'as superior as Fred' should clearly have read 'as superior as Scottbot.'

Because Scottbot is certain that rules would never apply to its shiny posterior. Whereas Fred PAYS TAXES!!! Scottbot has never paid anyone anything anywhere, anyhow.

Again, repeat after me -
ALL HAIL SCOTTBOT!!! ALL HAIL SCOTTBOT!!!

Hailing frequencies closed.

[Jesurgislac]

ALL HAIL FRED!!!! ALL HAIL FRED!!!

Hi - Hi! We're your Weather Girls - Ah-huh -
And have we got news for you - You better listen!
Get ready, all you slacktivites
and leave those umbrellas at home. - All right! -

Humidity is rising - Barometer's getting low
According to all sources, the street's the place to go
Cause tonight for the first time
Just about half-past bed
For the first time in history
It's gonna start hailing Fred.

It's hailing Fred! Hallelujah! - It's hailing Fred! Fred!
I'm gonna go out to run and let myself get
Absolutely soaking wet!
It's hailing Fred! Hallelujah!
It's hailing Fred! Every flower head!
Tall, blonde, dark and lean
Rough and tough and strong and mean

God bless Mother Nature, she's a single woman too
She took off to heaven and she did what she had to do
She taught every angel to rearrange the sky
So that each and every slacker could find the perfect Fred
It's hailing Fred! Hallelujah! - It's hailing Fred! Fred!
It's hailing Fred! Hallelujah!
It's hailing Fred! Fred!

I feel stormy weather / Moving in about to begin
Hear the thunder / Don't you lose your head
Rip off the roof and stay in bed

God bless Mother Nature, she's a single woman too
She took off to heaven and she did what she had to do
She taught every angel to rearrange the sky
So that each and every slacker could find the perfect Fred
It's hailing Fred! Yeah!

Humidity is rising - Barometer's getting low
According to all sources, the street's the place to go
Cause tonight for the first time
Just about half-past bed
For the first time in history
It's gonna start hailing Fred.

It's hailing Fred! Hallelujah! - It's hailing Fred! Fred!
It's hailing Fred! Hallelujah! - It's hailing Fred!

[Toby]

How do you get away from issues of trust? It's pretty much avoidable that a large and essential chunk of each person's body of knowledge comes from other people. And we need to believe and trust other people in order for this to work. And we also have to decide who to trust, and who not to trust, without already being perfect discriminators as to who is or isn't trustworthy. (I blogged about this issue, and how I think it applies to evolution here.)

I don't think it's right to accuse creationists (all of them?) of deliberately pushing the debate into the realm of trust rather than of evidence. In at least some cases, creationists are presenting arguments which they actually think are good. These arguments happen to be pretty complicated, and beyond the grasp of the layperson, and so the issue ends up a matter of trust. But that result isn't necessarily the reason why the creationist put forth the argument in the first place; it could be that the creationist genuinely thought that the argument was a good one.

And you imagine this crazy utopia in which journalists actually do research and use that to guide their reporting. But even if journalists did their jobs perfectly, that makes a difference only if people already trust the journalists.

[hapax]

Because if you believe in a god who created the universe, then the study of nature through science is as close to his actual "word" as you're going to reasonably get.

Although I'm hesitant to cite song lyrics after Jesu's burst of magnificent snark, I really really want y'all to hear Cat Faber's wonderful take on this.

[hapax]

In at least some cases, creationists are presenting arguments which they actually think are good.

No, they don't. They are (usually) parroting arguments they don't understand. Those who originate the arguments know darn well that they are wrong, and deceptive, and ignorant -- they are lies so carefully constructed that they MUST know what they are doing. More to the point, there are no new creationist arguments -- just the same old tired ones, which biologists, geologists, anthropologists, etc, have patiently rebutted time and time again.

[Lurker]

Ursula L:

The guy you are talking about was probably referring to the passage in Revelation 22:18-19:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (NIV)

In my opinion, this is most likely meant by the author to mean the book of Revelation, not the whole Bible. (John probably did not think he was writing the last book of New Testament.) However, you might say that putting Revelation as the last book is an Holy-Spirit-inspired decision made by the Church, thus making the words mean the whole Bible. Regardless of my opinions on the matter, this is most likely the chapter that made the person to think that adding books on the side of the Bible is sinful.

[Jesurgislac]

Hapax: I really really want y'all to hear Cat Faber's wonderful take on this.

Well, read her take, at least. Wonderful lyrics. The site says that CD's out of print, though.

[Geds]

I stumbled across a photographic documentation of visit to the Creation Science Museum yesterday. This place is one of those locations that should completely break the credibility of the people who say, "Trust me, it's all in the Bible."

Oh, and the accompanying blog post contains the most masterful use of the word "horseshit" I've ever seen.

I'm planning on making use of this in a blog post that will (probably) go up later today. It fits a couple of things I'm trying to do. There is something disturbing about how people can swallow something like this whole just because they're told that it's how it is and these random authorities should be trusted.

[Ursula L]

Lurker:

The person quoted used the specific phrase "jot or tittle." That's something unusual enough that he was probably (mis)remembering the places where it was actually used, not thinking of something where it isn't used at all. Unique enough to be linked to the specific verses where it is used, and exclude others. Which means Mathew or Luke in the KJV.

If he'd mentioned Revelation, or just talked about adding/removing, then the Revelation verse makes sense. But, as you've noted, Revelation refers specifically to "this prophesy" (KJV, "the prophesy of this book"/"the book of this prophecy") which would exclude any other part of the Bible (or at least the non-prophetic parts, which would include the "history" in the book of Mormon) from that limitation.

[zzyzx]

But how do we know which is true and which isn't? We filter so much with our preconceptions and a system like the economy is so complex that few if any people can figure out how it works. We're left arguing over models and trying to understand which model works best for which policy, but there's no way of doing blind testing on two identical populations with slightly different tax policies.

Maybe it's my mathematics training, but I don't have a problem with the theory that we all buy into some axioms that have to be taken on faith that we use as building blocks for our logical constructions. Logic and consistency of arguments is important but only emotional appeals can get people to change their core beliefs.

[Vendor Xeno]

I don't want to come off as either too partisan or too snobbish here, but I don't think that it's usually that difficult to figure out who to trust, or even to understand the science behind it. What is required is genuine objective assessment of what's being said by each side.

I was recently reading through some old publications from the Flat Earth Society, a small group of people who honestly and firmly believe (well, some of them anyway, other members have joined for yuks,) based on scripture, that the notion of a spherical earth is absurd, and that all of the science promoting it is junk science. The arguments used to promote this idea were right out of the evolution denial or climate change denial handbook. Had anyone seen the round earth? No, you'd only seen what 'they' wanted you to see in pictures. Gravity is a myth, something invented to 'explain' things we don't understand, and so forth.

The problem is that this kind of 'nitpick' science doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Whenever you see someone trying to 'disprove a scientific notion' by swiping at little side conclusions, you almost certainly have someone who neither understands or cares about the actual facts at hand. Science isn't a bunch of isolated cause and effects. It's a framework of countless tested facts that seem to support one another. You can't just yank one out, call it 'incorrect' and declare the structure unsound, because a single error would resonate through the whole work. If the earth is only 6000 years old, it doesn't just affect biology. Virtually everything we think we know has to be rewritten. All of our astrophysics is wrong, relativity is wrong, everything we think we know is wrong. It isn't just an argument against evolution, it's an argument against science from Newton to today. The age of the earth is a conclusion reached coordinatnig a host of various facts and observations.

It's not enough to pick painfully through tons of climate data you've already declared in the past to be patchy and inadequette, find a dubious Medeival Warming Period and declare that as a major blow to the idea of global warming. It ignores all of the other corresponding data, as well as countering prior nitpicks made about the validity of the data used. Another problem with nitpicker tactics is that they'll go after anything they think can be painted as a flaw, even if their argument counters some prior argument they made earlier. Nitpicker science is a patchwork of conflicting declarations.

You can't just claim that since we've never seen gravity with the naked eye that it's just a ruse made up by scientists, when any kid at school can test the rate of acceleration due to gravity, the detection of minute gravitational pull between two regular objects, or watch scientists 'turn gravity off' using electromagnetics. Given that science can produce these results based on its predictions, the claim that gravity is just a myth is fairly dishonest.

And considering these concepts in relationship to one another requires nothing more than a high school education and maybe an hour, two tops, out of your week. Again not to be rude about it but the argument that "the debate is too complex for me," usually strikes me more as, "I'm too lazy to try and assess the facts already at my disposal objectively." Most of the people on the ID side of the evolution debate aren't scientists. The only thing they know more than the average layman are the lines from their own apologetics text books. Behe, as was revealed in the Pennsylvania case, spends no more time trying to grasp the science of evolution than your average American, and his arguments show it. The very manner and nature of his arguments show it. And it's very, very easy to figure out that he's being dishonest.

[Richard Hershberger]

Johnny and Billy were having an argument. They had four cookies total for dessert. Johnny thought they should each get two cookies. Billy thought he should get all four. They went to Mom. Mom, who believed in being scrupulously fair, ruled that Billy got three cookies, and Johnny one.

We see this behavior all the time. If being "conservative" means agreeing with George W. Bush in all things (as it did until a year or so ago) while disagreeing with George W. Bush makes one "liberal", then a self-identified "moderate" will look for some tiny point of disagreement with George W. Bush, thereby establishing that he isn't "conservative", while carefully ensuring that it is utterly trivial, so as to establish that he isn't "liberal".

As for creationists, they have been playing the faux authority game for years. The first incarnation of "creation science" was simply some guy repeating what he was pleased to imagine was a literal reading of the Bible, but while wearing a lab coat. The courts, mirabile dictu, realized that one can wear a lab coat without being an actual scientist. All later versions have been refinements of this, attempting to look enough like actual science that the courts would buy it.

[zzyzx]

Oh and to answer my own questions, I don't trust people who use conspiracy type arguments ("Look at this pattern I found in all of this noise. Disprove that it exists!"), who argue out of principle but change their beliefs when the facts change, and who commit obvious logical mistakes (e.g. A->B, B, therefore A or A-> B, B and C sometimes happen at the same time C->D, A, therefore D).

Ultimately, I can't even have an issue with the Left Behinders. Is their deity an petty God by human standards? Sure. Doesn't mean that it can't be true though...

[Toby]

hapax: They are (usually) parroting arguments they don't understand.

Sure. And that might explain why they (mistakenly) think the arguments are good.

Those who originate the arguments know darn well that they are wrong, and deceptive, and ignorant -- they are lies so carefully constructed that they MUST know what they are doing.

I agree that's clearly true in some cases. In other cases it's not so clear. Are there grounds for making a blanket assumption of bad faith?

More to the point, there are no new creationist arguments -- just the same old tired ones, which biologists, geologists, anthropologists, etc, have patiently rebutted time and time again.

Well, the arguments all mostly have the same form, at a certain level of abstraction. But they keep coming up with new content. Anyway, how is this significant?

[zzyzx]

Oh and the main problem with creationism is that 99% of their arguments are based around a false dilemma. Proving that evolution is false does not mean that creationism is true. There could be many other ways that life came into existence.

It's not enough to disprove your opponent; you have to make the active case for your argument.

[Geds]

And considering these concepts in relationship to one another requires nothing more than a high school education and maybe an hour, two tops, out of your week.

Yeah, for you and me. But we went to public schools.

(Well, okay, I don't actually know where you went to school Xendor Zeno, but I'll assume you weren't homeschooled under a Dobson-esque curriculum or sent to a private Christian school that had mandatory Bible classes and a crap science program. And, y'know, it sounded pithy...)

However, I have a friend who went to a crap Christian school. We were discussing evolution once and she told me that she thought that Ken Ham had some pretty good ideas. It took me a couple months to getting around to figuring who Ken Ham is and what his ideas are, but he's the Answers in Genesis and Creation Science Museum guy. I watched fifteen minutes of one of his videos and was able to poke holes in everything he said based on my three years of honors science courses that I took between 1995 and 1998. My friend, lacking the background and a desire to learn such things on her own, didn't know that Ken Ham was full of crap.

Also on the trust issue, Ken Ham's entire education consists of a B.S. in Applied Science and three honorary doctorates: a Doctor of Divinity from Temple Baptist College (which, if it's the one in Cincinnati, doesn't even have a Masters or Ph.D program) and Doctors of Literature and Letters from Liberty University. Why in the world should I trust anything the man has to say about biology, evolution, physics, or chemistry?

Oh, and what exactly is an "Applied Science" degree, anyway? I've never met someone with a degree in Applied Science, but I assume that it's a generalized engineering sort of thing.

[Geds]

Wow. That was an awesome edit. I originally wrote "Vendor Zeno," then realized I had to change the Z to an X and somehow ended up with "Xendor Zeno." Go me.

[Brandi]

Scott obviously trusts nothing but his good right hand-- and Sam's Club, who sells him those 1 gallon bottles of hand lotion that he goes through about every three days.

GLHBALHAGHLAGLHGALHG

[Richard Hershberger]

Replying to Vendor Xeno, it is no great feat to figure out the flat earthers. "Creation science" in its various incarnations also fails to disguise its agenda well.

Climate change is a bit tricker. It wasn't very long ago at all that genuine experts in the field legitimately disagreed. I am satisfied that this is no longer true: that there is a consensus with the usual smattering of die-hard fogies (a common phenomenon in the history of science) and a larger contingent of bought-and-paid-for shills.

I agree that a layperson interested enough to make a research project of it can garner enough information to conclude this, but I'm not sure it is yet obvious to the casual outside observer. The flat earthers and the creationists are openly challenging the scientific establishment. The climate change deniers are also challenging the scientific establishment, but with a more plausible appearance of doing so from within.

[Toby]

Vendor Xeno: Behe, as was revealed in the Pennsylvania case, spends no more time trying to grasp the science of evolution than your average American, and his arguments show it. The very manner and nature of his arguments show it. And it's very, very easy to figure out that he's being dishonest.

How can it be "very, very easy" for the average American to figure out that Behe has spent "no more time trying to grasp the science of evolution than" the average American him/herself? Wouldn't the average American have to know at least a little bit more than Behe in order to be sure that Behe knows nothing more than s/he does? Alas, for that to be the case the average American would have to know more than s/he in fact knows.

[GailVortex]

Holy crap*, Geds, you shoulda included a warning on that link to Whatever's Visit to the Creation Museum: NSFWIELIIFYW**

* And I do mean that literally.
** Not Safe For Work If Explosive Laughter Is Inappropriate For Your Workplace

[Vermic]

It's a shame that there is no equivalent of the atomic bomb in evolutionary science. By that I mean an unmistakeable, visible, tangible application of the theory. Consider atoms and nuclei: individually they're too small to observe with the naked eye. We lay people, lacking lab apparatus and knowledge of higher math, might have to take atomic theory on faith. But we don't have to -- and haven't since 1945. Whatever can be said about the morality of nuclear weapons, nobody doubts that they work. And the fact that they work is proof that physicists are not kidding themselves about the underlying theories.

I wonder if we'll ever see a similarly dramatic application of evolution/abiogenesis/old-earth science. Something we can point to and say "If evolutionary theory were wrong, this wouldn't work." I suspect there will always be doubters, no matter what. Even if we learn how to reliably generate new life in the lab from chemicals, there will still be those who say "Well, all that proves is it can be done in the lab with a guiding intellligence."

[hapax]

Are there grounds for making a blanket assumption of bad faith?

Yes.

Spend enough time in Answers in Genesis, or the Panda's Thumb, or hanging around with any sort of creationism crowd that allows questions, and you will hear evolutionary biologists and geologists with infinitely more patience than I explain why EVERY SINGLE CAVIL brought up by these people has been refuted, over and over -- and they still bring up the exact same discredited arguments next round.

Not to mention the very effort to create these arguments requires a degree of scientific sophistication and selective editing that they have to know amounts to deception.

Not to mention that they deliberately lie about ancillary (if ultimately irrelevant) context -- e.g., Darwin's moral character, the Establishment Clause in the U.S. constitution, Hitler's religious beliefs, the academic qualifications of their opponents and their own, etc. etc.

Not to mention that they have been caught deliberately falsifying evidence.

Not to mention the fact that many have explicitly said that it's not a sin to "lie in the service of a higher Truth."

"Bad faith" is a kind interpretation. These are Bad People.

[Geds]

Holy crap*, Geds, you shoulda included a warning on that link to Whatever's Visit to the Creation Museum: NSFWIELIIFYW**

Terribly sorry. With my job I sometimes forget that people actually work in places with rules and stuff sometimes...

[Ursula L]

Bold be gone!

[hapax]

Bold begone!

(preview is my friend, preview is my friend...)

[Richard Hershberger]

"EVERY SINGLE CAVIL brought up by these people has been refuted, over and over -- and they still bring up the exact same discredited arguments next round."

This reminds me of the Chariots of the Gods and the Bermuda Triangle fads of the '70s. The same thing would happen. Some incredible, utterly inexplicable fact would be presented as evidence. It would turn out not to be quite so incredible or inexplicable when examined in the light of day. Then a year or two later another book would come out repeating the same incredible, utterly inexplicable fact as evidence. People ate this stuff up until the fads passed.

[Geds]

To add to hapax's stuff:

They make a "Science says this:" claim based on some sort of hundred year old scientific claim that was proved wrong by science itself ninety-nine years ago, then go on and disprove the claim with a rigorous method such as, "But the Bible says this:" and manage to take a giant step backward.

And, of course, there are all the watchmaker analogies. "You can't have a watch without a watchmaker. The Earth is like a giant watch. Therefore, there was an Earthmaker."

Well, I'm certainly convinced.