"Different Starting Points" - More Creationist Propoganda

You've heard of the new "Ark Encounter" monument to ignorance to be built (tax-free) in Kentucky, right? Well, in reading the latest on this I came across some elements it will likely draw from, stuff from that other childish defiance of scientific progress. I'm talking, of course, about Ken Ham's sanctuary from facts, the creation museum. Below is an authoritative little placard--because if it's on a placard, it's automatically authoritative, right?--from the Creation Science Museum (also in Kentucky) explaining why every scientist in the world is deeply biased and will stop at nothing to destroy jesus...eerrrr...I mean, this is how they explain why only their select few, fringe scientists who support Young Earth Creationism are correct in contrast to the overwhelming (and international, and both atheist and theist) majority who do not think children walked Velociraptors on a leash just 500 6000 years ago.

Notice how the term "starting point" comes up a total of six times. It is a clever rhetorical ploy by euphemism. After all, who would challenge the mere existence of different "starting points?" Sounds harmless enough. But by inculcating this into the discourse, they aim to imply that the scientific method--with it's evil policy of not starting with the assumption that the Christian Bible is literal truth--is no better than any other "starting point" that there is to choose from: e.g. Islam, Hinduism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism...

So are all "starting points" equally plausible in the search for scientific knowledge? Is there any merit in what they're saying? Well, the two "starting points" in question most definitely do consist of differing sets of assumptions, but only because creationists operate by ADDING MORE ASSUMPTIONS into the mix.  Despite this, they imply that the fundamental assumptions necessary for rationality itself can be completely abandoned for religious dogma, leaving them no linguistic or philosophical basis from which to offer any argument for their god. Hey, the laws of logic  merely represent an arbitrary starting point, right? Yeah, now pass the bong...

IDers will actually say with a straight face that for science to work you have to "assume" that the laws of physics will remain constant, that human beings are capable of rational thought, that the universe is real, etc. (I bet you didn't know you were such an over-assuming asshole, huh Hawking?) Here's some more of the bias-drenched assumptions of science from prominent Australia-based ID proponent John Mackay: 

"[science requires] a faith position that whatever the world is doing now, it's always done." 

"When you deal with scientific evidence, you first have to believe things like 'man is rational,' 'the world is real,' and 'for every real and rational question there's a real and rational answer.'"

"If I'm going to be a scientist I have to believe that the world's real, that I'm real, that we ask real and rational questions." 

[from the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1TpNSodDU&feature=player_embedded]

Does this mean that creationists don't have to utilize these presuppositions? Of course not. But they don't want you to ask this question. So please do, at every opportunity.

But even if we forgo the preceding point, which renders their entire argument moot, their bias becomes glaringly obvious as soon as we examine the extra assumptions that they are proposing. For example, creationists dodge the problem of radiometric dating by assuming that the half-lives of the isotopes used have adjusted themselves throughout history, decaying much more rapidly at the start of creation and decelerating to the observed constants since. Is this more parsimonious? Is there any good reason to stubbornly assume that all applicable physical constants have varied throughout time to make the age of the Earth (surprise..) equal exactly what creationists are taught in church? Hmmm...suspiciously convenient for their position, huh? And regardless, if the physical constants are so 'UN-constant' and infinitely flexible, then why couldn't they just as likely slow down as we move back in time, yielding an Earth with an age of hundreds of billions or trillions of years? Hell, any timeline is possible when you free yourself of science--perhaps the universe itself is 50,000 septillion years old? And why not? All we need is a different starting point!

All of this is part of the IDer's elaborate "Worldviews" fallacy, a kind of polylogism, which I've detailed in a previous post. To strip away the rhetoric, when a theist says that scientists arrive at "different conclusions" because they begin with a "different starting point," which they claim has to be taken on faith, they are essentially saying:

"If you just begin by assuming that the claims of your religious text are infallible, then you will find a way to make the evidence align with them." [see note below]

Simple confirmation bias, couched in specious philosophical rhetoric. And the bitter irony is that they are accusing the entire scientific community of deep bias.

In order to have their "starting position" seen as on par with the scientific method, creationists must employ a false dichotomy. They fallaciously imply that the fundamental "assumptions" of science (that 'the world is real,' 'we are capable of rationality,' etc) are one option and believing the Bible at face value is another, separate and mutually exclusive option. Well, I certainly agree that belief in the Bible is a great argument against human rationality. However, this false dilemma would only be relevant if creationists did not also assume these fundamental "presuppositions" they so cheerfully bring up, things like the laws of logic, upon which any reasoning they can offer must be built. Since they can't claim to operate independent of the laws of logic, and their position would be irrelevant without assuming that "the world is real and man is real," then they are (obviously) using the same assumptions as science and adding their own. This is a form of special pleading to get around any common standard of truth. "What's that you say? The evidence is against the Bible being true? Well! You just forgot to first assume that the Bible is infallible and any evidence that contradicts it is necessarily suspect!!"

To summarize, the "assumptions of science," as described by the ID camp,  (1) do not show any bias whatsoever, as opposed to the extra assumptions proposed by creationists, and (2) are necessary for any critical thought or rational investigation--any rational discourse, not just that of science.

So, Banana Man, Behe, Dembski, et al: why should we ever begin scientific research with the injection of any unfounded assumptions? Why have you and your supporters resorted to attacking logic itself as your primary strategy? The entirety of creationist argumentation reeks of ad hoc desperation through and through. It reminds me of Bill Clinton's famous evasion, "that depends what the definition of 'is' is."



[Note: IDers (but not Y.E.C.'s) will nearly always avoid giving away their own religious belief and instead use more "scientific" sounding euphemisms, for the sake of political advantage]

"Differing Worldviews" - Brave New Propaganda

Atheists are one of the fastest growing minorities in the U.S. As more and more of us "come out" for what we are, and stand up for reason in the face of militant religiosity, even more of the millions of skeptical "social" religious observers are encouraged to openly admit what they already know for themselves.

With this ever-growing community of freethinkers willing to challenge the (empty) grounds for religious belief, many creationists--particularly the self-termed "Intelligent Design" camp--are seeking new ways to avoid their complete lack of evidence for god. Misleading rhetoric has so far been their most effective means of obscuring this issue. For example, just look at the ongoing "teach the controversy" campaign. There is obviously no controversy in the scientific community regarding the veracity of the fact of evolution, but unfortunately IDers are right in believing that they can dupe many lesser informed Americans into thinking there is.

Well, this trend has now led them to actually create a new logical fallacy. From now on, I'm going to call it the "worldviews fallacy." It is a bewildering and brain-fogging mix of non sequitur/red herring, ad hominem ala genetic fallacy (fallacies of relevance), false cause, and the subjectivist fallacy (fallacies of presumption.) Yet the most interesting (and highly amusing) thing I've found in researching this--atheists prepare to soil yourselves in delight--is that the nearest single fallacy there is to it is something called "polylogism," a fallacy so insidiously condescending that it was a cornerstone of Nazi propoganda. This fallacy states that one group (in the Nazi's case Jews, or for IDers "evolutionists") is, simply by merit of belonging to that group, flawed in their basic capacity to reason, while there is usually an idealized group (Nazis/IDers/Pastafarians) who are the only ones who can perceive true reality.

It is also similar to C.S. Lewis' Bulverism, except that this is an appeal to motive, whereas the fallacy we're investigating is an obfuscation of the very foundation of logic. If you want more info on polylogism, go to this link from the Ayn Rand lexicon website.

The claim believers put forth in the worldviews fallacy is that two conflicting theories or ideas (e.g. evolution and creationism) do not result from different data sets or scientific processes, but are simply the inevitable product of differing worldviews. (They also like to tie this in to the old "you have to have faith in science" zinger...but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.) What they are really saying is that it's impossible to use the scientific method without simply imposing your predetermined beliefs onto the research in question; regardless of what the data supports, they claim that human interpretation will always lead conclusions to conform to one's preformed worldview, defeating the purpose of the scientific method. (Nevermind the glaring irony that they go on to claim that creationism is completely backed by science.) I suppose this belief in extreme bias does hold true in the case of creationists themselves, given that they are the presiding experts in believing something no matter what amount of evidence comes up against it.

But the real shame is that this kind of surreptitious rhetorical bunk actually persuades that demographic of people who aren't as scientifically informed and/or lack the critical thinking skills to see this argument for the fallacy that it is. This "worldviews" strategy is spreading like wildfire among IDers and other believers. I believe one of the most important things we can do as a community is to educate ourselves on exactly what this fallacy is so that we can make it crystal clear to anyone listening anytime one of us encounters it.

In order to help the effort to raise consciousness, I'd like to open a discussion here on the worldviews fallacy. Do you agree or disagree that it is complete bullshit? Why? Specificity will be much appreciated! This is a relatively new issue, so anything you can add to the discussion is helpful =)

(Skip to 0:40 for the important part.)

Dawkins: "How old are those fossils?"

Mackay: "Well if I was speaking as an orthodox geologist I'd say anywhere between 100,000 and 10 million, right? Up to 40 million, right? So, the age is a product of our theories about how we view the world."

Dawkins: "It's not a product of fact, not a product of evidence?"

Mackay: "No. . . .it doesn't really matter because what you've got is different philosophies."

Chick Tract Highlights

Some hilarious, if not disturbing, glimpses into fundamentalist Christianity. Hopefully they will give you a few laughs...

Most everyone has had to awkwardly accept (or awkwardly refuse) one of these tracts at some time or another. They are probably the most widely distributed religious pamphlets in the world (the Chick website claims that 750 million have been sold.) Chick tracts portray a demon-filled world where every paranoid, fundy conspiracy is true, where every minority is part of a satanic agenda. In the Chick world, 90% of the globe's population is under the direct control of dark, mystical forces, which are always lurking in the background and anxiously awaiting the opportunity to prey on the vulnerable in order to create more satanic zombies like them. We are told that to accomplish this, Satan employs such insidious and destructive things as ouija boards, rock music, astrology, the teaching of evolution, homosexuality, communism, and halloween.

So let us now delve into the deep, dark recesses of Jack T. Chick's mind...

And it all starts with Dungeons & Dragons...

Yes, Satan has a pumpkin for a head. Perhaps this is why his memory ain't what it used to be.

What Jack Chick has learned about American Indians

Those poor, discriminated religious folk

are always fending off "militant gays"

Jack Chick's concept of the typical atheist...

So I wonder how dissent is handled in a church...

When he doesn't have a pumpkin on his head, Satan is Leonard Nimoy.

This has been the first installment of Chick Tract Highlights! I have much more material where that came from. Until then, don't let the demons eat your brain!

Creating common grounds for (productive) discussion with the entrenched and indoctrinated.

I read a post on the RichardDawkins.net discussion board today entitled "Another Family Destroyed by Religion." I have also personally witnessed two separate incidents of families becoming absolutely broken apart by the JWs. It struck me that it is obvious to we who lack the reality-distorting paradigm of religion that the act of parents disowning and abandoning their children for the mere fact that they reject a single belief is appalling, while to the ones inside the religion it is rationalized into being seen as a just and necessary act--hell, they'll even call it "divinely ordained."

This leads me to wonder how we can bridge this gap with believers and get them to look at their beliefs objectively. We can spend all day creating dialogue, and that is a great way to start, but in my experience, it often doesn't matter in the end what amount of evidence you have, how perfectly you refute their every argument, or how clearly you explain the fallacy of their thinking: a dyed-in-the-wool theist will simply resort to a vague, subjective sense of confidence in their beliefs and say, "I can feel it in my heart, and it doesn't matter what anyone says because I believe it on faith." In other words, the information presented is made arbitrary by the believer's indomitable bias for their beliefs. So how do we get them to realize and acknowledge this bias for what it is?

The more debate and discussion I take part in, the more I come to believe that nearly every argument for the existence of god has become a PRATT (previously refuted a thousand times), so much so that it is almost a waste of time to keep giving our time and attention to specific arguments for god--*there are no good arguments*. The time has come to criticize faith itself. We need to stand up as a community and tell the world why faith is unreasonable, unnecessary and inferior as a means of inquiry. 

I applaud Jerry Coyne for taking a firm stand on the subject in his recent article, "Science and religion aren't friends." EbonMuse has taken the different and directly engaging approach of describing what kind of evidence he would require in order to believe in god and, in return, asking any willing theists to explain what evidence they would need before they gave up their belief. In nine years, he has gotten six takers.

So my question(s) is this:

How do we best state the case against faith in a way that will lead believers to a common, rational grounds for productive discussion while not sounding derogatory or condescending? How do we get them to see faith for the simple unfounded bias that it is? How do we get them to question their belief and think critically?