New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | July 19, 2005

At the Creation Mega-Conference in Lynchburg, VA., bible-believers kick all evolutionists, big bangers, and lily-livered intelligent designers off the ark. Ronald Bailey, who will be reporting from the CMC all week, saddles up his dinosaur and samples the fruit of knowledge with some of America's leading biblical literalists.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← There's Probably a Rovegate Parallel In… | Main | Vice Squad →

See all 118 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|7.19.05 @ 5:47PM|#

Oh

my

god

|7.19.05 @ 6:04PM|#

Is it just me or does Ken Ham look like someone who just stepped out of the neanderthal exhibit at any fine museum of natural history?!

Jeff|7.19.05 @ 6:05PM|#

Science textbooks change every year, as opposed to religious texts which have remained immutable through countless rewrites, translations, edits by various denominations, addendums, opposing views as to what counts as apocrypha, and selective interpretations...

|7.19.05 @ 6:05PM|#

As a believer who accepts the tenets of science (and is, in fact, a scientist at heart), all I can say is that Ron has a stronger stomach than I do. Ten minutes into some of that drivel and I'd be bazooka barfing over the entire audience.

I'm virtually certain that there are more who believe as I do than as those imbeciles do, but unfortunately, it seems as if the morons have the louder voices.

|7.19.05 @ 6:06PM|#

Yep, I think he comes from the "Lost World." Obviously, he didn't make it onto the Ark.

|7.19.05 @ 6:07PM|#

My first thought -- after marvelling that Bailey can walk around there and keep a straight face -- was of some Muslim nations that hold the Koran as their "constitution", and how... alien that is. These guys seem to want the same thing.

|7.19.05 @ 6:10PM|#

>> But there is hope according to Falwell, "I recall the election in 2004. Hollywood was against us. The media were against us. The universities were against us. And despite them all the church of Jesus Christ put George W. Bush back in the White House. We're on the winning side; we are going to win because we have the truth. We have the inerrant word of God."

Vote Democrat2006 Vote Democrat2008
Vote Democrat2006 Vote Democrat2008
Vote Democrat2006 Vote Democrat2008
Vote Democrat2006 Vote Democrat2008
Vote Democrat2006 Vote Democrat2008
Vote Democrat2006 Vote Democrat2008
Vote Democrat2006 Vote Democrat2008

|7.19.05 @ 6:15PM|#

Yes, the Big Bang is a theory. Hubble discovered redshift, but he wasn't so sure it was a doppler effect, ie that the stars are necessarily moving away from us. There is some evidence that it may be due to some other, as yet unknown, process. See the work of Halton Arp.

But to use that for some evidence that the universe isn't billions of years old is preposterous. Some astronomers are beginning to think that the universe has always been and always will be. What's more incredible than that?

|7.19.05 @ 6:17PM|#

Will they claim the Earth is the center of the universe and does not move?

If these people get in power, say goodbye to science. They won't stop at biology. Astronomy, chemistry, physics. You name it, they'll attack it. They'll try and debunk it.

And if enough people support them, they'll win.

American Taliban.

|7.19.05 @ 6:19PM|#

joe,

Can I choose what's behind door number 3? Both of the other choices gives me indigestion :o)

|7.19.05 @ 6:20PM|#

I'd just like to point out that these guys speak for who they speak for, and nobody else. ...like the Pope doesn't speak for Methodists, you know what I mean?

...And I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize on behalf of critically thinking Christians--wherever they are--to the critically thinking rest of you--everywhere you are--for what I suspect it is that these people are about to say.

...and IF these people are unreasonable about science, I'd like to point out that it's entirely plausible that they're unreasonable about Christianity too. ...and that's all I'm tryin' to say. ...for now.

Morat|7.19.05 @ 6:25PM|#

Some astronomers are beginning to think that the universe has always been and always will be

Which ones? Because out universe had a discrete beginning about 14 billion years ago.

There hasn't been a steady-state proponent -- not one taken seriously -- in thirty years.

|7.19.05 @ 6:26PM|#

Because Genesis explains that God created the waters and the Earth on the third day of Creation (Genesis 1:9) and THEN the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day of Creation (Genesis 1:16).

Apparently no mention of when 'He' created the other planets... Now that might have convinced me - maybe something about Jupiter, Saturn (with a description of the rings!) or Neptune and the rest? Or how about even a clue that there were billions upon billions of other galaxies, not to mention extra-solar planets? It's always struck me as an obvious fatal flaw that the Bible contains not a word about anything that was unknown to humans at the time it was written. If it is the "inerrant word of God" wouldn't he have let us in on some of his other less obvious creations?

|7.19.05 @ 6:28PM|#

In four Prez elections Ive moved from left to libertarian. During those same 14 years Ive heard all the creation talk before and thought it mostly harmless, except to the people who believed it. And then I hear Falwell's clarion call about election 2004. And then I read the Gallup poll saying only 1/3 of Americans believe evolution is backed by evidence, and over one half of Americans believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago. And then I want to vote Democrat again.

|7.19.05 @ 6:28PM|#

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that these types of fundies represent 4% to 10% of the entire population. They probably aren't going to be taking over anything. If they were at all powerful, Gary Bauer would have won the Republican primary.

And Ron has my sympathies.

|7.19.05 @ 6:32PM|#

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that these types of fundies represent 4% to 10% of the entire population.

Perhaps. But then what to make of the Gallup poll Matt mentioned, showing over half believe the Earth was created in the last 10,000 years?

|7.19.05 @ 6:33PM|#

I mean,

Oh my god!

How does one deal with this? I just took the virtual walk-thru of their museum. I note that the exhibits are especially geared toward children.

Has anyone else noted the historical irony that the Catholic Church suppressed Galileo, but that now evolutionary theory is OK in the Vatican; meanwhile, these Protestants are seriously contending that the whole universe was created in 6 24-hour days.

Oh my god!

|7.19.05 @ 6:35PM|#

However, the longer I listened the clearer it became that creationism is not about science. It's about morality. Specifically, creationists worry that biological evolution undermines people's moral beliefs, leading to lawlessness, family breakdown, homosexuality, pornography, and abortion. The real heart of creationism is existential dread.

This is a surprisingly overlooked aspect of the whole debate. Young earth creationists aren't stupid; in fact, they have pretty good insight into the logical consequences of accepting evolution (with respect to morality, etc.), better than most people who "believe" evolution by default.

|7.19.05 @ 6:37PM|#

Ron, thanks for doing something there's no way in hell I would be able to do. I don't always agree with you, but I give you props (as the kids say, or used to say, I can't keep up with cool slang) for reporting back from the land of the willfully ignorant.

That's basically what I find so infuriating about the whole argument, the willful ignorance on the part of the creationists. Biologists don't support evolution because they hate god or christians and we don't support evolution because we support evolution, an obvious tautology. We support evolution because that's what we get from the evidence. It's the most plausible NATURAL explanation, one that doesn't require invoking a deity or other supernatural agency to operate.

One of my colleagues today said he has an article (I haven't read it yet) that Institution for Creation Research - linked people are getting PhD's in biology at secular, accredited institutions with the goal of holding these people up as biologists with doctorates from "normal" universities that support creationism. For supposed Christians being so concerned about morality, the innate dishonesty of this ploy is ironic (and, again, infuriating).

|7.19.05 @ 6:42PM|#

If they put this creationist shit in the schools, I'm definitely homeschooling my kid (if and when I have one).

|7.19.05 @ 6:45PM|#

Morat - the controversial ones. Plasma cosmologists, mostly. Folks like Halton Arp and Anthony Perat (I think). Then there are the electric universe proponents, people like Wallace Thornhill, who are not physicists or astronomers, but electrical engineers and other disciplines.

I'm not much of a physicist or astronomer, so these folks could be completely wrong, but they've been making predictions about comets that are proving to be very accurate. They've also made some predictions about Mars that turned out to be true, but it could be the blind squirrel finding a nut paradox at work. :)

I just like reading about alternate theories and seeing how well they hold up. I'm a skeptic.

|7.19.05 @ 6:47PM|#

qwerty,

Its not an overlooked issue; we've talked about over and over again over the past week or two.

|7.19.05 @ 6:47PM|#

Perhaps. But then what to make of the Gallup poll Matt mentioned, showing over half believe the Earth was created in the last 10,000 years?

I've never seen that poll. I did see a poll pre-2000 that had 45% being creationists.

At any rate, I'm betting there's a lot of people who answer polls based on what they think they should say, rather than what they actually believe.

And I just have a hard time imagining a fundie takeover. I distinctly remember in 2000 that Dubya was denounced as being too liberal for most of them. They like to revise history to suit their needs -- in this case to pretend they were pro Bush the entire time.

|7.19.05 @ 6:50PM|#

I used to be a Republican sympathizer before I was liberated. My conservative friends and I used to refer to the creationists as useful idiots because we thought them quite stupid, even though they would generally vote properly.

Seriously, I always thought of them as either too fearful of the implications (moral and otherwise) of a huge impersonal universe or just plain intellectually lazy.

After reading some of these links, though, it appears they are anything but intellectually lazy. It takes monumental effort to twist evidence and logic to such extremes.

These people really scare me.

|7.19.05 @ 6:52PM|#

"This is a surprisingly overlooked aspect of the whole debate. Young earth creationists aren't stupid; in fact, they have pretty good insight into the logical consequences of accepting evolution (with respect to morality, etc.), better than most people who "believe" evolution by default."

It doesn't seem logical to me at all. There are billions of people on this planet who don't know squat of the bible & it's claims. There is no obvious correlation between christians & those non-christians concerning lawlessness, morality, family cohesion, etc. Both groups contain the extent of human variability on these matters as a result of their local cultures, environments, etc.
Just because evolution might upset the superstitions that underlie these folks' version of morality doesn't really mean anything, except that these folks need to find a more legitimate foundation for their "meaning" or whatever it is they need to feel like living or being "good".

|7.19.05 @ 6:52PM|#

"At any rate, I'm betting there's a lot of people who answer polls based on what they think they should say, rather than what they actually believe."

That's a pretty depressing thought too, no?

|7.19.05 @ 6:59PM|#

I was surprised to learn from the theologian John Whitcomb, co-author of the seminal creationist book, The Genesis Flood (1961), that Noah's ark carried 1,000 different kinds of dinosaurs as well as all of the other species. Whitcomb's book has sold more than a quarter of a million copies in English. The conferees revere Whitcomb�he is the only speaker so far who has merited standing ovations.

I honestly can feel only pity and embarressment for those who believe in the flood story.

Whitcomb reproaches the leaders of the intelligent design movement for believing that evolutionism can be defeated without any reference to the Bible or the Creator of the World.

Well, I.D. people (like Behe and Dembski) refer to the Bible all the time; so his criticism is a bit ignorant of the facts.

Ron, why don't you ask them why there are two creation stories in Genesis? :)

There use of the "moral argument" is pretty laughable, BTW.

|7.19.05 @ 7:04PM|#

--Will they claim the Earth is the center of the universe and does not move?

Well, apparently the earth is at the center of the universe.

http://www.geocentricity.com

And it's flat as well!

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

|7.19.05 @ 7:08PM|#

Oh yes, I also wanted to comment on the folks that are afraid of 'existentialist despair'. I don't know, but ever since I stopped believing in the invisible sky man my life has become profoundly more meaningful. Sure, what we don't know is daunting, but the fact that I now know that I have only myself and those I choose to associate with looking out for me to varying degrees gives me a lot more interest in life. When everything was dictated by a book of fables and I was scolded for asking too many questions, that was despair (at the risk of sounding like it scared me too much - I recovered quite well, thank you).

It's quite liberating to realise that your life and morality are yours to mold. And you face consequences, not in some nebulous 'afterlife' but in the only form of being that you know.

They are a bunch of unimaginative and weak folks to worry about 'existentialist despair'. And yet, as other posters have commented, they're pretty bright to come up with all this semantic/scientific/etc ninjitsu.

Kebko - just because evolution might upset the superstitions that underlie these folks' version of morality doesn't really mean anything, except that these folks need to find a more legitimate foundation for their "meaning" or whatever it is they need to feel like living or being "good".

Exactly...

|7.19.05 @ 7:17PM|#

Whitcomb doesn't just take godless evolutionists to task; he is also critical of Christians who accept progressive creationism or intelligent design.

This must be the evangelical equivalent to RINO. You accept many of the teachings of the bible but since you don't fully accept creationism, you are out! Now get out or we are all going to hell, you filthy liberal!

|7.19.05 @ 7:22PM|#

My conservative friends and I used to refer to the creationists as useful idiots because we thought them quite stupid, even though they would generally vote properly.

The funny thing is, JMoore, that while you and your friends were saying these things about them, they were saying the same things about you. That fact alone should give anyone who votes as part of a coalition reason to examine their allies very carefully.

|7.19.05 @ 7:29PM|#

I'm pretty ashamed to say I was once one of these people. I even attended a conference similar to this one back in the mid-90s. Fortunately, I kept reading, researching, and learning, and eventually I dropped this nonsense. It helped that several well-meaning friends took apart the quote-mining that passes for research in creationist circles.

- Josh

|7.19.05 @ 7:40PM|#

You know I have no idea what happens after people die, if there is a god, those sort of things...

But I really hope all these crazy people are wrong and really disappointed if there is an afterlife.

|7.19.05 @ 7:43PM|#

What I don't understand is why these kooks have any desire to disprove things like evolution and the age of the universe at all. Their every belief is based on faith; proofs are not only unessential but I would imagine inimical to their agenda. How can they even imagine that it's possible to use logic and science to prove that you don't need logic and science? Their very argument defeats their purpose. What am I missing here?

|7.19.05 @ 7:45PM|#

If there is a god and an afterlife, I imagine that most followers of most religions will end up in Hell. My hope is that Hell is a place reserved for authoritarians of all stripes.

I say most because I know religious people that think it's wrong to impose their beliefs on others. All other control freaks, religious or not, deserve to burn.

|7.19.05 @ 7:47PM|#

TMS,

From my own experience, these people feel threatened by science. It makes them look like fools for their beliefs. They often denigrate scientists to make themselves feel better. Reminds one of the schoolyard, doesn't it? (Some people never seem to mature past high school.)

|7.19.05 @ 7:53PM|#

How did a lion eat veggies with those teeth? How the heck did the flood create plate tectonics? This makes absolutely no sense to me!!!!

Ron, you're a better man than I, I would probably have spent the last few hours screaming in pain.

|7.19.05 @ 7:53PM|#

The first man walked with dinosaurs and named them all!

Did he pull a George Foreman and give 8 of them the same name?

Was he ahead of the curve, with names like Apple, or Scooter?

Inquiring minds need to know.

|7.19.05 @ 7:54PM|#

Of course, all this is nonsense, and all these infidels are going to burn in hell, where they belong, and whence they came.

Though our struggle be hard, yet take comfort, all ye faithful, the day of the Triumph of the One True Church of the Holy Prophets Adam Smith and Charles Darwin draws nigh! The One Truth will prevail!

May the Prophets bless you,

JMoore
Pastor,
Chapel of Saint Ayn of the Rand

|7.19.05 @ 8:00PM|#

Apparently Judge John C. Roberts is Bush's pick to replace O'Connor. Expect more willingness to go along with whatever the Bush administration wants to do in the so-called War on Terror.

|7.19.05 @ 8:00PM|#

"Inquiring minds need to know."

I had a dog named Sally.

|7.19.05 @ 8:08PM|#

Speaking of no death existing before sin and all the animals being vegetarians, I suppose it would be a bit pointless to mention that vegetarians live on death as much as meat-eaters. At this moment, I am eating a dead strawberry smothered in sugar from a dead cane.

|7.19.05 @ 8:08PM|#

I had a dog named Sally

Doesn't sound like a divinely inspired choice.

You must be a heathen.

|7.19.05 @ 8:16PM|#

What I don't understand is why these kooks have any desire to disprove things like evolution and the age of the universe at all.

Not all of them can be preachers. They need to have other ways to make money. Nothing wrong with making money but lying to people isn't cool.

|7.19.05 @ 8:31PM|#

I would like to see that poll and how it was worded.

When I want to scare my children, I point them toward:

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

|7.19.05 @ 8:33PM|#

Vote Democrat? Short memories, people. In the '00 election, Al Gore came out for the teaching of Creationism along with evolution. So there was just as much choice between the candidates on this issue as there was with the War on Drugs.

|7.19.05 @ 8:45PM|#

Regarding the opinions of the average American, I don't know if this still holds true, but I came across this Gallup poll from 1999 (free trial registration required) about American attitudes toward the Bible, creationism and public education, and the results were terrifying.

*70% of Americans support daily, classroom prayer in public schools.

*68% of Americans believe that creationism should be taught along with evolution in public schools.

*40% of Americans believe we should teach creationism in public schools instead of evolution.

...and last but not least...

*71% of Americans favor using the Bible as part of literature, history and social studies classes in public schools!

|7.19.05 @ 9:07PM|#

Tom:

Amazingly, I have no objection to using the Bible in lit/history/social studies courses. Except they should use more than one version. Especially the direct translations from the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. There are so many...

|7.19.05 @ 9:13PM|#

Jonbuck,

I think we're filling in the blanks differently.

...I'm imagining a history class that starts with a giant pull down illustration of a statue with a head made of gold, its chest and arms of silver, ...

|7.19.05 @ 9:36PM|#

Billions of dead things
Buried in rock layers
Laid down by water
All over the earth. Well, there really was
A world wide flood
Just look at
The stoney curse
With billions of dead things
Buried in rock layers
Laid down by water
All over the earth.

Has Buddy Davis been nominated for a Grammy for writing the tune to this?
I haven't heard the tune yet, but I'm willing to bet it makes Aaron Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" sound like the theme song for the Beverly Hillbillies.

|7.19.05 @ 9:40PM|#

And despite them all the church of Jesus Christ put George W. Bush back in the White House. We're on the winning side; we are going to win because we have the truth.

He says that now. What will he say if a Democrat wins the White House some day?

Tom Crick said:
...and IF these people are unreasonable about science, I'd like to point out that it's entirely plausible that they're unreasonable about Christianity too.

Amen!!!!

One of my colleagues today said he has an article (I haven't read it yet) that Institution for Creation Research - linked people are getting PhD's in biology at secular, accredited institutions with the goal of holding these people up as biologists with doctorates from "normal" universities that support creationism.

I'd like to see that article. I vaguely remember hearing something similar, but I don't recall where. Wow, Creationist sleeper cells! Maybe they're waiting for a signal to destroy research labs if a real religious nut (one who makes W look tame) is elected President.

IMHO, they mostly focus their attacks on biology, and to a lesser extent cosmology, rather than geology or nuclear physics (necessary to understand radioactive dating) because those disciplines are at least perceived as on weaker ground. That doesn't necessarily mean they are on weaker ground, but they're perceived that way.

If they really want to get anywhere they'll need to establish sleeper cells in physics and geology. As a person who's just embarked on a career in biophysics, I say BRING IT ON!

|7.19.05 @ 9:42PM|#

"Whitcomb reproaches the leaders of the intelligent design movement for believing that evolutionism can be defeated without any reference to the Bible or the Creator of the World."

This strikes me as a fairly strange strategy. The creationists realized decades ago (Henry Morris, Duane Gish...) that they needed to at least put a veneer of science on their crap, so they started calling themselves "scientific creationists" and spouting comically ignorant statements about thermodynamics. I think they've been fairly successful at this (I think the polls people keep referring to which indicate such support for creationism, astrology, ESP, and whatever else reflect the pseudo-scientific respectability given them by pseudo-scientific authority figures), and it seems like a mistake to abandon that strategy. The ID folks are certainly using it to great effect...

"If we believe that we evolved from a blob of protoplasm, we have zero values then..."

I expect this kind of crap from Falwell, but I'm surprised how many people who endorse natural evolution think it has anything to do with values, morals, or the (non-)existence of God. (Like "qwerty" above, who said, "Young earth creationists aren't stupid; in fact, they have pretty good insight into the logical consequences of accepting evolution (with respect to morality, etc.), better than most people who "believe" evolution by default.") The fit referred to in "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean moral, good (in some sort of values sense), or _anything_ beyond "able to survive and reproduce in a given environment."

|7.19.05 @ 9:59PM|#

J-

I agree. It's bizarre for them to renounce the ID movement. They've become much more sophisticated, at least on the surface. They've mostly moved beyond mangling the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (Yes, Hakluyt, I know, their arguments are still bunk and thoroughly unoriginal etc., but my only point is that the errors have become less obvious to an observer who isn't as well-read as you.)

Somebody needs to give them another copy of the memo on how ID is the wedge that will open a crack in evolution and collapse the whole thing.

|7.19.05 @ 10:04PM|#

"One of my colleagues today said he has an article (I haven't read it yet) that Institution for Creation Research - linked people are getting PhD's in biology at secular, accredited institutions with the goal of holding these people up as biologists with doctorates from "normal" universities that support creationism."

That's pretty fucked up, but not hugely surprising given the intellectual dishonesty of ICR and a few other groups like them in attributing their views to people who've never endorsed them (among many other intellectually dishonest things). I remember seeing one web page with a list of scientists who had supposedly disputed Darwinian evolution, and that list included scientists who had died before Darwin even published.

I've run into a small but disturbing number of biologists who presumably aren't "working" for ICR who don't accept evolution (I'm an evolutionary biologist in academia myself). They tend to be hard-core reductionist biochemists and molecular biologists. I've always found it a bit surprising, but often people doing research in various fields of biology can get along just fine in their own little worlds without any use for evolutionary principles. It's just when you try to synthesize their work with other work in other fields that you see the big blinking arrow pointing toward evolution.

|7.19.05 @ 10:23PM|#

I know a physics professor who's also a young earth creationist. He teaches at a small religious college but he got his Ph.D. from the same place as me. I've told this story before but I'll tell it again:

He confronted me at one point with a really tortured use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now, I mostly worked on optics in grad school. I'm not an expert on the Second Law. I mean, I understand it to a reasonable extent, I've invoked it here and there, but it's not like I'm an expert on the subject. My friend, on the other hand, did his Ph.D. on phase transitions. Thermodynamics is his thing. He knows the Second Law backwards and forwards.

That doesn't mean he could magically twist it to undermine evolution, but if he wanted to he could present his argument in sophisticated attire that would be tougher for me to argue with. If he'd done that I wouldn't have conceded the point, but I would have admitted that I need to learn more before I argue with him.

But he didn't do that. He stripped down the argument to its most absurd level and made it easier for me to shoot him down.

Sad.

But he's still a cool guy and a good friend.

|7.19.05 @ 10:50PM|#

Sy wrote:

"Vote Democrat? Short memories, people. In the '00 election, Al Gore came out for the teaching of Creationism along with evolution. So there was just as much choice between the candidates on this issue as there was with the War on Drugs."

To tell you the truth, it wasn't the belief in creationism that bothered me. It was this that makes my blood run cold, from Jerry The-President-Calls-Me-About-Supreme-Court-Nominees Falwell: "We're on the winning side; we are going to win because we have the truth. We have the inerrant word of God."

As we've seen over the past few years, someone like that is capable of making the streets run with blood, and then sitting down to dinner with his family.

|7.19.05 @ 11:04PM|#

Its not an overlooked issue; we've talked about over and over again over the past week or two.

Hakluyt,

Maybe not overlooked by everyone, but there's evidence to the contrary right beneath your post, e.g. the 8:16PM comment.

Personally, I think evolution is one of a handful of truly deep scientific insights from human history; I would bet as heavily on its truth as almost anything I can think of. That said, I'm also convinced very, very few people really understand the big picture of evolution and its philosophical difficulties/implications.

|7.19.05 @ 11:07PM|#

joe: Jerry Falwell says something stupid and you freak. After all these years, you must be pretty tired.

|7.19.05 @ 11:11PM|#

thoreau:

You reminded me of a discussion I had with my friend over some of the gender-feminist stuff she swallowed.

She: Women still aren't equal in the workplace. They still make only 75% of what men do.

Me: I know about that figure. It's actually misleading, because it doesn't compare apples to apples. Because women are more likely to drop out of the work force. There's been studies -- if you compare men and women who've both been in the work force the same amount of time, from high school on without dropping out, men and women make within a few percentage points of the same pay. Some studies even show that women make slightly more. Also, men are more likely to work certain jobs that pay more because they're dangerous.

She: Okay, we're going to have to change the subject. It's so easy for you to say there's no sexism in the work place --

Me: I'm not saying there's no sexism. I'm just saying the statistics don't support that the reason men and women make different levels of pay is because of sexism. It's like curing a disease. If you want to fix a problem, you want to make sure you're diagnosing the cause right first.

She: Well, I don't believe in statistics anyway.

Rather than note that she cited statistics to make her point in the first place, I let the discussion move on to another topic. I'm far less argumentative in person than I am online.

|7.19.05 @ 11:21PM|#

qwerty -

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the philosophical (and/or ethical, and/or theological) implications of evolution are? I'm guessing from your posts that I'll disagree strongly with you, but I'd be interested to hear your take.

|7.19.05 @ 11:56PM|#

Mad Scientist,

How can they even imagine that it's possible to use logic and science to prove that you don't need logic and science? Their very argument defeats their purpose. What am I missing here?

I was raised on this crap (miraculously, I was somehow saved from it and God both). My family still wonders how I ever became a libertarian.

Sometimes, I wonder too.

What you're missing is the fact that faith is fragile. Dwell on it, or even lean on it, too long or too often, and you'll start to doubt your faithful little convictions.....

The solution to that problem is to shift the field of argument far enough away that you can't end up in that position.

I'm pretty sure about this because -- I can't believe it -- but my brother still believes this stuff Ron is talking about. Seriously, the only reason my brother isn't there is because he couldn't get the time off work.

Needless to say, my brother and I agreed not to discuss any of this stuff anymore a long, long time ago.

Stevo

So I'm not too worried about a broad-based, grass-roots fundie tide sweeping the US anytime soon.

That's good news. Because you wouldn't believe the stuff my family believes. They're into all this stuff about bringing back the original US Constitution in all it's glory.

According to them, only Christians have rights, can vote, hold office, etc etc etc. Because after all the Founding Fathers expected everyone to be some kind of Christian.

I became an atheist and it took years to get them to stop bugging me. "If you don't get it straight you're going to have a rough future, when we finally get this country straightened out".

I don't barf anymore only because I don't think about.

|7.20.05 @ 2:48AM|#

... these folks need to find a more legitimate foundation for their "meaning" or whatever it is they need to feel like living or being "good".

I think it's indicative of the moral and emotional character of these folks that they need a supernatural, all-knowing policeman / daddy-figure to give their life meaning and provide them the rules of morality. One gets the impression that without the fear of God's retribution they'd be the biggest heodonists of all -- the only thing preventing them from "if it feels good, do it" behavior is the stern admonishments of their Lord. No comprehension of why it is bad to murder, or steal, or to commit adultry, or to screw little boys and so on, outside of the idea that God and His Book told them it was bad.

|7.20.05 @ 3:36AM|#

moonbiter,

No comprehension of why it is bad to murder, or steal, or to commit adultry, or to screw little boys and so on, outside of the idea that God and His Book told them it was bad.

Sort of.

It's not that they have no comprehension of why such things are bad. The problem is more general. Without God, why do good and bad matter at all? The world seems so unjust, and if there isn't a Referee out there to impose ultimate poetic justice, then it must be all just senselessness. Ahhh!!!

Who cares, if not God? It surely isn't enough just for me to care about it myself. I'm so powerless over it all....

It's a metaphysical insecurity at a very, very fundamental level.

these folks ... they need a supernatural, all-knowing policeman / daddy-figure to give their life meaning

Yes. It's at just that level. If they contemplate the possiblity that there is no God, it sends them into an intellectual free-fall. Ahhhhhh!!!!!! The bottom just dropped out of the universe.

I can say this because I went through it.

What's the difference between a Christian fundamentalist and an Islamic fundamentalist? Well, Darwin said that your worst enemy is the thing which is most like you. The theory of evolution is full of interesting tidbits like this.

My fundamentalist Christian sister, who is also an engineer, felt much better when I told her that while Darwin explained why there are x thousand different kinds of sparrows, he didn't explain why there is such a thing as a sparrow in the first place.

I didn't tell her it doesn't matter anyway -- we're here, and that's that.

|7.20.05 @ 4:12AM|#

So I'm not too worried about a broad-based, grass-roots fundie tide sweeping the US anytime soon. I would think the threat of that is diminishing, not growing.

What makes you think that? Churches aren't packing them in like they used to, certainly, but more and more people are claiming that religion is important to them, and the churches that are out there are more willing than ever to use their bully pulpit to talk politics. Until not too terribly long ago it was considered a point of pride among American clergy that they were completely apolitical. Even my mother, who was a Lutheran Minister, had older coworkers who were of the WWII generation and were trained in the 40s and 50s and took the attitude that politics was much too dirty for any minister to dabble in. Of course there were exceptions, but they were much rarer than they are today, and were usually devoted to one issue, rather than seeking broad power. These leaders of churches who talk politics today are a product of the religious revival of the 80s, and what makes them particularly dangerous are the facts that 1) most people automatically give more weight to the words of a minister and 2) Ministers in this country were largely apolitical for so long that a lot of people's inherent bullshit detectors don't go up when dealing with them. I've seen Pastors make statements that would make the crowds that they were speaking to bay for the blood of anyone else, but the minister could skate by, and was even politely heard. The growing acceptance of school prayer and Creationism are products of that, I suspect. Of course, the way that the opposition presents itself doesn't hurt either. Who would the average person who has no time for considering the subject between work and kids sooner believe, the Minister who seems to actually care, even if he comes off as a jerk, or the shrill civil libertarian and condescending scientist? That's why if libertarians (or scientists, or civil libertarians) want to win people over, the way the argument is packaged is a thousand times more important than what is actually said.

|7.20.05 @ 5:47AM|#

Come on, already!

Creationism is not the only wacko social pathology endemic in this country.

By wasting time with these people, you only dignify them. And that they don't deserve.

|7.20.05 @ 7:46AM|#

Lassie,

Sounds like they are theonomists of some stripe or another. Theonomists are more common than most folks realize; I run into them all the time.

|7.20.05 @ 7:48AM|#

I've always figured that God created mankind through the process of evolution.

|7.20.05 @ 9:00AM|#

My poll comment earlier caused some ruckus. Ronald links to this at the bottom of his column, here it is in full:

Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.

|7.20.05 @ 9:06AM|#

You know, this article scres the hell out of me. Really, it does. We are back sliding. Voting Democrap is not going to help. At all. Soon we will replace normal religion with hyper-fundie religion, just like the Romans had their religion replaced with hypo-fundie religion. The people needed something better to believe in than the old religion, and they got it; a black mark on western humanity for 1000 years. I'm moving to some tiny Pacific Island.

|7.20.05 @ 9:07AM|#

I've always figured that God created mankind through the process of evolution.

That stills puts you in the heathen minority.

"Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not?"
Did 38% Did Not 54% Unsure 8%

But to me the most shocking set of answers is this:

"Regardless of what you may personally believe, which of these do you believe should be taught in public schools?
Evolution only. 12%
Creationism only. 23%
Intelligent design only. 4%
All three. 55%
None of these 3%
Unsure 3%

If you consider ID a form of Creationism, this means that 82% of those polled believe that some form of creationism should be taught in public schools, compared to 67% who believe that evolution should be taught.

I would like to believe that within the 82%, there are people who want Creationism to be taught as just one of many creation stories in a mythology class, but I don't think that is the case.

Do I really worry about this? No. But unless you believe God made the earth in six days, you can stop pretending you are in the majority on this issue.

|7.20.05 @ 9:16AM|#

"Philip Bell, former British cancer researcher and now fulltime creationist, in his talk "Ape Men, 'Missing Links' and the Bible," explains, "If Adam is your ancestor then you were created specially and have a purpose in life. If evolution is true, we are descended from ape-like animals with no morality, no aesthetic sensibility and no soul.""

So in order to have meaning in my life, I need to believe in fairy tales? I'll finally find true happiness? BRILLIANT!! I AM SAVED!!

All you ape people can go rot in hell! I am a child of Adam!! Yes, I do have a tailbone.. but there's a good reason!! God put it there!! I didn't come from no monkey! All MY ancestors were white, had nice teeth, wore robes and sandals, and played with dinosaurs!! HA! HA! HA! I'M SAVED!!

M1EK|7.20.05 @ 9:44AM|#

Those of you who glibly assert that you need not vote Democrat since there's no threat from the large fundie minority in the Republicans need to look at what those same people are doing to the public education system (and I know you can homeschool your kids, if you want them to be maladjusted dweebs, but that still doesn't address the other 99.9% of society).

20 years from now, when a much larger percentage of the population believes this shit because of what the Republicans are doing at the school-board level, it's going to be too late to fix the problem.

|7.20.05 @ 10:08AM|#

|7.20.05 @ 10:12AM|#

If God created the stars "for signs and seasons" (i.e. for our use in divination and planting crops), why did he create those stars that are too far to be seen with the naked eye?

There used to be a transcript on talkorigins.org between Hugh Ross and a "young earth" creationist (possibly Duane Gish). The conversation went something like this:
Gish: All the stars were made in one day.
Ross: But I'm an astronomer and we've seen new stars in the process of creation.
Gish: That can't be true because the Bible says otherwise.
Ross: But we've seen the process with our own eyes!
Gish: That can't be true because the Bible says otherwise.

The real danger to religion from biological evolution is that what Christians consider to be sin (behavior that is contrary to God's will) biology teaches to be adaptations that ensure the survival of a particular genome. Everything we see in nature suggests that the ultimate purpose of life is to reproduce as much and as often as possible in order to propagate genetic information. This is somewhat incompatible with the purpose that the religious believe God to have for us. It would mean that rape, murder and all those other things are part of "God's plan for us".

|7.20.05 @ 10:28AM|#

I wonder how successful these Creationist sleeper cells will be. First of all, getting through grad school isn't easy. If they're in it for the ideology rather than the urge to discover something new, I wonder how effective they'll be as grad students.

Granted, there are Ph.D. scientists out there who believe in creationism, but they went to grad school because they were passionate about science (some area of science other than evolution, obviously) and creationism is something that they compartmentalize. But if these ICR sleeper cells are motivated by creation first and science second, their ability to do good science and get a Ph.D. will be compromised. Oh, they might get Ph.D.'s, but they won't make it into elite circles of researchers, because their advisors won't issue recommendation letters saying "This guy came up with his own original idea and made it work."

That's the ticket to admission in the big leagues. And getting an original idea and making it work requires passion.

So if ICR sleeper cells want to get somewhere they'll have to compartmentalize for a long time. Maybe they can do it. Maybe they can't.

|7.20.05 @ 10:44AM|#

I know you can homeschool your kids, if you want them to be maladjusted dweebs

I am walking proof that the public schools are capable of producing maladjusted dweebs.

|7.20.05 @ 11:10AM|#

i was once in the car with a creationist friend of mine on a friday night driving home. i was very high and drunk at the time (don't worry, i was in the passenger seat), but he decided it was time to discuss his religious beliefs with me.

he actually said "if you're an atheist, you're saying my life is meaningless, so fuck you!" when i tried to explain to him that i never said that his life was meaningless, he repeatedly insisted that yes, i am saying that, if i'm saying that there is no reason to believe in life after death. i wanted to be a little sensitive (after all, i've known this kid my entire life), so eventually all i could do was laugh, which i suppose wasn't so sensitive after all.

anyway, my point is that the assertion "life is meaningless unless you believe what i do" says a hell of a lot more about the person making the point than the point itself.

dagny|7.20.05 @ 11:11AM|#

Those of you who glibly assert that you need not vote Democrat since there's no threat from the large fundie minority in the Republicans need to look at what those same people are doing to the public education system

Unfortunately, public education is one of the LAST reasons you should vote Democrat. They may be slightly less likely to support Creationism (though not much), but they fail on the big issues. The National Education Association gives them lots of money, votes, and impressionable children in return for the Democrats opposing any school reform, and in return they get no standards for teachers at all.

A well-meaning parent can teach their kid enough science & critical thinking to understand natural selection, it's actually not that difficult. It's a bit harder to change the fact that their teachers really aren't teaching them anything because once they get tenure they realize they don't have to work, or the fact that their administrators are pathetic little despots who'd just love to find some reason to put a nerdy kid in jail.

|7.20.05 @ 11:27AM|#

I believe that the wealthy power brokers in this country do not want the average person to receive a good education. The last thing they desire is a populace that actually thinks for themselves. They want public schools to legitimize ID and creationism to be equally valid as evolution. This way they can groom young scientists, engineers, and technicians who will contribute to the corporate bottom-line while remaining under the spell of Christian brainwashing. Their motivation is not religious. They want absolute control, power, and the lion's share of the country's wealth.

|7.20.05 @ 11:37AM|#

Boy, those elephants that are evolving without tusks due to poachers have a lot of 'splaining to do.

I do think the fact that elephants are evolving in response to poaching is fascinating. It think it's up to 5-10% now.

|7.20.05 @ 11:38AM|#

crushinator, that's all very intriguing, but i think they're just not that smart.

|7.20.05 @ 11:38AM|#

Cubeless education - is a deadly evil.
Cubeless educators are evil bastards.
Humans are dumb, educated stupid,
and evil. They don't want to know
Nature's Cubic Order of Creation.

Oh, wait, wrong nutjob.

|7.20.05 @ 11:43AM|#

I never got the argument that atheism=nihilism.

If there is no God, doesn't that pretty much make human beings the highest beings in the known universe? Doesn't that require a great deal of respect for human achievement, and make respect for other people and their creations a moral requirement, with a whole system of ethics flowing from that?

|7.20.05 @ 12:05PM|#

i think it's because of christianity. every version thereof not only contains a certain representation of events, such as creation, but a system of values and moral code which much necessarily result from that representation. in christianity, everyone more or less has the same version of events, but if you want to come to a different set of conclusions based on those same events, you basically have to start your own branch. in other words, different people with significantly different conclusions based on the same "facts", within a single branch of the religion, are basically nonexistent.

so anyway, to many christian minds, just as they their version of historical events has only one rational conclusion (their own), the atheist version of creation and evolution has only one conclusion, nihilism.

not to knock all christians, but the people who think this way, again, are just not that smart.

|7.20.05 @ 12:10PM|#

C'mon, joe. If your goal is to keep the masses under your thumb you don't do it by telling everyone how great they are. You do it by telling them how much they suck and how lucky they are to have you around to show them the light. Then you tell them that anyone who doesn't believe what you say is some sort of immoral, baby-murdering, nihilist and that civilization is so fragile that just one or two athiests could incur the wrath of the invisible man and bring death and destruction to your defenseless children. Then you beat that into them until they believe it, at which point they'll happily go out and either convert or murder anyone who isn't under your thumb. The atheism=nihilism argument only makes sense to religious kooks

|7.20.05 @ 12:22PM|#

If your goal is to keep the masses under your thumb you don't do it by telling everyone how great they are.

tony robbins would beg to differ.

|7.20.05 @ 12:31PM|#

Mo-

I hadn't heard of that. Do you have a reference?

|7.20.05 @ 12:32PM|#

What I want to know is if the Creationist sleeper cells will include Shoreh Aghdooshloo and Nestor Serrano in their ranks...

|7.20.05 @ 12:45PM|#

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

|7.20.05 @ 12:55PM|#

Ah, found the tuskless elephants:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15971842-13762,00.html?name=otherside

From one of the articles that I read, it seems that the sample was 2 tuskless males out of 20. Suggestive, but not necessarily statistically significant. Maybe there's more that I didn't see.

In any case, it is fascinating and worth exploring. But the fundies have already drawn a distinction between "microevolution" (basically, evolutionary processes observed today, which they can't even pretend to refute) and "macroevolution" (basically, evolutionary processes in the past, where they can throw up enough smoke and fog to sow some doubt among some people).

|7.20.05 @ 1:01PM|#

As we've seen over the past few years, someone like that is capable of making the streets run with blood, and then sitting down to dinner with his family.

And yet blather on about banning private ownership of "assault weapons."

:p

|7.20.05 @ 1:06PM|#

mccleary, I most definitly am considered a heathen. I don't believe in an absolute, literal interpretation of "The Bible". When I point out discrepancies to hard-core evangelists they try very hard to rationalize them and finally condlude they aren't discrepancies at all. They don't just wear blinders but the whole danged sleeping mask.

|7.20.05 @ 1:09PM|#

After reading the article I was shocked but not worried. Then I read some of the polls/statistics and I was again shocked, but felt that those numbers would be going down with time. I wasn't worried. Then I go to the site posted above about the Flat Earth Society (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm) and read a little and am shocked at how people can be this twisted, but im still not worried. Then i click the current events section of that website. They actually talk about how they have infiltrated the Wisconson school system and penal system. and I quote, "The students are now undergoing deprogramming measures and are expected to be released when they reach their mid-thirties." Now im a little worried. If they are real and not just some crazy people putting up a website. THey are brainwashing kids and convicts as we speak. This is a real problem. I was wondering if someone who knows people in DC or something, can start a group that works against these people. I will help in any way possible. This is a real problem. I dont just mean the Flat Earth Society, I want to work against all these ignorant fundalmentalists. I am not saying all fundalmentalists are bad, just misguided, but i want to work against the people that are activly "brainwashing" people into beliving these "truths". To at least educate the U.S. about them.

|7.20.05 @ 1:20PM|#

Seamus:

I meant that it is intellectually dishonest and unethical to earn a degree in the sciences while rejecting a basic premise of the scientific method: that of basing your conclusions on the evidence, rather than starting with the conclusion predetermined. They aren't going in with an open mind, so they aren't really learning, they are just memorizing and regurgitating the material to pass the courses.

Not that I think that we should have the biology thought police decide you can only get a degree if you believe in evolution, but it seems dishonest to present yourself as a student there to learn, when your goal is to undermine the premises of the discipline.

|7.20.05 @ 1:28PM|#

i would hope that it is a requirement of a degree in biology to believe in evolution, being the cornerstone of biology and all.

|7.20.05 @ 1:37PM|#

zach:

you have to have a general understanding of evolution, but many areas of biology, although explained in many aspects by evolutionary theory, don't directly test hypotheses regarding evolution, and don't require a thorough knowledge of evolutionary theory

similar to thoreau's saying he has a general understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but not in excessive detail, although thoreau has a PhD in physics

|7.20.05 @ 1:39PM|#

|7.20.05 @ 1:50PM|#

Full disclosure (again):
My brother-in-law is one of your sleeper cell types. He is either finishing his PHD or has finished it and is currently in San Diego working alongside his ICR cohorts and preparing for the day when creationism can be taught in public schools. Thoreau & biologist, if I hear that he is coming your way, I'll send along a pic.
I can't say much about the guy as I have made a point to avoid him and the rest of my fundie sister's brood. My basic impression was that he was using the whole "getting a doctorate" thing to avoid having to get a real job. The guy is 45 and the only regular job the guy has ever had was as a PE teacher in a christian school in Montana.

|7.20.05 @ 2:10PM|#

mk,

Out of curiosity, do you know what field your brother-in-law is in? As I mentioned above, I've met some creationist biologists in my wanderings through academia, and they tend to be in highly reductionistic fields like biochemistry and molecular biology/genetics. They can generally do that sort of work just fine without any use for evolutionary theory, but any attempt to synthesize across fields makes the reality of natural evolution glaringly obvious.

|7.20.05 @ 2:19PM|#

Not surprisingly, the scientists that the ICR lists as subscribing to their views (not counting the ones who never had a chance to accept/reject Darwinism - see 10:04 PM post) are in fields like biochemistry and molecular biology, or in non-biological sciences. They could easily have gotten their PhDs without ever having encountered evolutionary theory in any meaningful way, and in these cases presumably they have.

Of course one could argue that you wouldn't expect to see an anti-evolutionist in an evolution program anyway. But the point is there's no reason based on their degrees to think any of these folks have had any sort of rigorous exposure to evolutionary theory.

|7.20.05 @ 2:21PM|#

A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.

I was initially shocked by that poll finding, but not yet panicked. If this means a full 1/3 of Americans are really fundamentalist types with theocratic leanings, then what they hell were they all doing during, say, the Johnson administration?

I also think the poll finding indicates less than that. Of the people who said, "the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word," how many of those respondents have actually read the Bible?

If you only attend church irregularly or not at all, or if you're a Catholic, and you've never attended a religious school, then probably about 90% of your exposure to the Bible comes from readings from the New Testament, plus some passages about Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt. That only requires believing in a few extraordinary miracles.

You probably never get exposed to the fact that there are two contradictory versions of the Creation story, or that Deutoronomy says that wearing a garment with two kinds of thread in it is a sin, and other passages that really make you question whether word in the book is supposed to be taken literally. So, it's easier to say to a pollster, "Yes, every word should be taken literally," if you've really only be exposed to a few select palatable parts, and not the real head-scratching passages.

|7.20.05 @ 2:39PM|#

also, I object to trying to require people to think a certain way for nearly any reason. either the evidence is convincing, or not. how can you require a person to "believe" something? how would you know if they were being honest about their beliefs, if it were a requirement of the degree?

well when you throw the word "believe" into it it does make everything unnecessarily confusing. but i am of the opinion that a legitimate science curriculum, at the very least, should teach the student to think in a certain way, that is, scientifically. and i don't think someone deserves a degree in biology if they have no problem ignoring known phenomena (such as evolution) within biology. just like i don't think someone deserves a degree in physics if they choose to ignore gravity.

i'm not saying that a degree program should require anyone to think in any certain way. i'm saying it should if the person in question wants the degree. ;)

|7.20.05 @ 2:43PM|#

They aren't going in with an open mind, so they aren't really learning, they are just memorizing and regurgitating the material to pass the courses.

biologist-

They're doing more than that if they're getting PhD's. And if they don't have the passion, they're at best second tier. My hierarchy of Ph.D. students is this:

1) Those who came up with their own original ideas and made them work. The idea doesn't have to rock the world (mine certainly didn't) but it has to be your own creative contribution.

2) Those who did everything they were asked to do and did it well. They were clever in the implementation but never really came up with their own unique question.

3) Those who just scraped by. Usually there's a complicated story and a sympathetic advisor, or at least an advisor who wants to get rid of the person.

I was in the first category. I hardly rocked the world, and I'd say that my implementation skills are only slightly above average (by the standards of the field), but my advisor sang my praises for originality and I got a damn good postdoc. I know people who were better than me at implementation (cooler calculations, snazzier experimental techniques, etc.) but never had their own idea, and they're doing well but most of them haven't gotten really good postdoc positions.

The ICR sleeper cells will only get so far, because if their passion isn't for science then they won't generate original ideas and won't penetrate the upper ranks of academia. Then again, if all they want is the letters Ph.D. behind their names so they can lend credibility to their creationist "think" tanks, then I guess that's good enough for their purposes. But if they want to do something dramatic, like get tenure at a prestigious place and then drop a bombshell, well, that's harder.

And I want to make it clear that creationists can generate good ideas in other areas of science. There are Ph.D. scientists who do damn good work in their fields but believe in creationism. The thing is that these people compartmentalized: They went to grad school because they're passionate about something other than creationism. If the sleeper scientists' #1 passion is creationism and not science then they won't get very far.

mk-

Where did your relative get his Ph.D.?

|7.20.05 @ 2:43PM|#

of course there's no way to know for sure what a student really believes... he could get all the questions right on the test and still totally disagree with all of it... but my point is just that a science course ought to at least serve the purpose of teaching what is and isn't in fact scientific.

|7.20.05 @ 2:56PM|#

zach, you're right, of course, and science classes do teach critical thinking, logical reasoning, etc., but my point is that there's no way of knowing if the student takes those principles to heart

thoreau, I think the general public has very little idea about the tiered prestige of publishing in certain journals, etc., except in a very general way, such as the top name schools, harvard, yale, etc and top name journals (science and nature). I suspect most people see "PhD" and take as a fact the statistical correlates of knowledge that are associated with that credential.

|7.20.05 @ 3:02PM|#

thoreau,

I can imagine these ICR scientists doing quite well even if their first interest is theology if, as I'm speculating, their field is a very mechanistic, reductionistic one like molecular biology/biochem. My limited experience with my counterparts in these areas when I was getting my PhD was that they didn't have any rigorous exposure to evolution in their classwork or research (and this was at high-powered research university that was very strong in most biological fields). I can imagine some ambitious young creationist motivated by a desire to show God's hand in nature doing a very good job of elucidating some complicated cellular process (and then deciding it was too complicated to have arisen through evolution - d'oh!).

And I'm not sure about this but I think they could possibly be quite successful higher up the academic ladder as well. At the risk of offending any molecular biologists here, my impression is that it's possible to be quite successful in some of these fields without a lot of creativity or originality, as long as you have a good mind for details. They might not end up at Berkeley or Chicago, but I they could still get a good job at a fairly top-tier school. They just wouldn't know anything about evolution or how it might inform their work.

|7.20.05 @ 3:23PM|#

J and THoreau,
I don't really know what exact school he was attending and I don't know for sure what particular subject he was studying. I seem to remember that it was molecular biology but I am not certain.
I do remember hearing that there is a definite push on the part of ICR to create a class of professors that will be able to teach creation science when the time comes. The PHD may be in a innocuous field of science, but the goal is to get a PHD to put after your name in something scientific. This guy went to school on scholarships set up by Biblical-literalists. It's part of the deal.
As you pointed out, it may be a logical fallacy for people to assume that a molecular biologist would be an expert on evolution, but how many people are going to be thinking at that level. A PHD still carries a fair amount of weight.
I remember seeing a documentary on this subject a few years ago and they introduced one of the creationists as "An actual rocket scientist". They may have been flabbergasted that anyone with any kind of intelligence would buy this crap, but I noticed that they failed to follow the sentence with "not that that necessarily means anything"

|7.20.05 @ 3:24PM|#

BTW,
let's all take a minute to reflect on how cool Stephen Jay Gould was. We could really use him these days.

|7.20.05 @ 3:42PM|#

"BTW,
let's all take a minute to reflect on how cool Stephen Jay Gould was. We could really use him these days."

The first, and quite probably last, evolutionist to appear on the Simpsons! (Not counting a friend of mine from grad school who knew an animator for the show and got included as a miniscule member of the crowd at a football game.)

|7.20.05 @ 4:06PM|#

thoreau, you just like to use the term "ICR Sleeper Cell."

Which is understandable.

|7.20.05 @ 4:07PM|#

You know, one day there's a new appointment to the board of the National Science Foundation, and a bare majority of the members look around at each other at the start of the meeting, and BAM! Faith Healers get their own Institute of Medicine.

|7.20.05 @ 4:15PM|#

I've got my eye on the National Institutes of Snake-Handling and Lye-Drinking. I just know they're up to no good.

|7.20.05 @ 4:26PM|#

joe-

I do indeed enjoy the phrase "ICR sleeper cell."

I'm going to start a "de Broglie-Bohm sleeper cell" in a physics department some day. After hours we'll meet in a room shielded from RF radiation. (Many physics departments have such a room for sensitive experiments.) Using only paper and pen to take notes (no electronic devices allowed) we'll discuss whether the Founding Fathers of quantum mechanics were wrong.

Of course, we'll have a secondary mission: Conduct surveillance on the ICR sleeper cell in the biology department and prevent any of them from getting tenure.

|7.20.05 @ 4:30PM|#

BTW, they can persuade themselves that they've debunked biology, but they still have geology and nuclear physics to contend with when it comes to dating rocks and fossils.

Those nuclear scientists will make short work of the ICR sleeper cells!

|7.20.05 @ 5:12PM|#

Thoreau, one day back in college I was sitting under a tree next to the geology building studying for a test when this cute girl approached me. "Cool!" I thought, but it turned out she was a creationist whacko determined to show me why everything I knew about geology was so much baloney. Just a few minutes into our conversation I told her there was no way she was going to change my mind about the age of the earth, and that I didn't think there was any way I was going to change her mind either so even talking about it was pointless, but she persisted. Her ace in the hole was an argument about carbon dating because apparently someone had pulled an old fence post out of a swamp, had it carbon dated, and the results had been something like 40,000 years old. This one little incident proved that carbon dating was bullshit in her mind. Fortunately, I'd attended a lecture literally the day before about radioactive materials, half lifes, and which isotopes were most useful for dating things of different ages. So I was able to give her all the details about different dating techniques and explained that using carbon to date a recent fence post was like trying to measure your height with a ruler which has miles as its smallest increment. To my surprise she concluded that she had been misled by the people who had given her that little example. She still thought the world was only 6000 years old, but she was visibly upset that her ace in the hole was worthless and that she'd been lied to by people she trusted. I never saw her again so I have no idea how she worked that out. Maybe she just gave up on geologists and moved on to Biology students. The point is that some of these people (mostly fresh converts, I suspect) can actually be reasoned with when you show them, politely, that they don't have a leg to stand on. They may well conclude that god made the world intentionally inexplicable, but at least they're concluding something.

|7.20.05 @ 5:53PM|#

Mad Scientist,

Your story reminds me of one my PhD advisor used to tell (incidentally, he used to publicly debate the big "creation scientists" like Gish, but eventually decided it wasn't productive). His wife is a Biblical Hebrew scholar, and they both like to occasionally invite missionaries/proselytizers into their home for discussion. One day a man and woman came by, were invited in, and began quoting various pieces of scripture. My advisor's wife then proceeded to explain to her about the original texts, ambiguities, mistranslations, etc. This missionary woman, who was under the impression that there was one true, clear, unambiguous translation of the Bible (presumably the King James version) was very upset, and they comforted her for quite a while before she quit crying. Needless to say, she left their house in a very different frame of mind regarding her religion and her understanding of it. At least that's how my advisor told it...

|7.20.05 @ 7:12PM|#

These leaders of churches who talk politics today are a product of the religious revival of the 80s...

Correct. There were no politically active ministers in the 60s. No sir.

- Josh

|7.20.05 @ 9:47PM|#

Josh- I said myself that there were politically active ministers prior to the 80s; the Abolitionist ministers of the 1800s spring to mind quite readily. But like the Abolitionists, they usually had one political issue that interested them above the others, and alloted their time accordingly.