Bizarre Creationist Quote #1:Those Arrogant Scientists are at it Again…
This will be the first in a multi-part series calling attention to specific creationist quotes and sayings which are particularly stupefying, hypocritical and/or borderline frightening. Lest I be accused of taking any of these quotes out of context, I will always be sure to include the full video or article of said creationist here, so that readers may make this determination for themselves.
And boy, those creationists—you never know WHAT they’ll say next. Take a look a this YouTube video, for example, of Richard Dawkins interviewing Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women For America (CWA). And just WHAT are these women so concerned about?
Wright believes that if we view each of of our fellow human beings as uniquely designed by a loving creator, we are bound to treat each other more kindly. Like many folks who publicly proclaim that there is “no evidence” for evolution, Wright fears that censorship within the scientific community may be keeping the general public in the dark about the supposed weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
At around 2:50, Wright very politely accuses Dawkins of close-mindedness, and goes on to deliver this little gem: “Scientists are now claiming that they’re the only ones who can speak on this issue.”
Sure, I can hear the absurdity in this statement. But it frightens me to think that someone may actually listen and think, “Yes, those arrogant, close-minded scientists believe that just because they spent many years actually studying evolutionary theory, they are somehow more qualified than THIS woman, who obviously did at least a google search. Damn you, scientists!”
Seriously, why is the general public so quick to call out scientists for close-mindedness when experts in just about every field behave the same way? Since when do we take issue with people ACTUALLY TAKING A STAND on subjects which are their own areas of expertise?
Skepticism is a wonderful thing, of course, but blithely ignoring the words of the experts in many cases is not smart—it’s foolhardy.
Suppose a doctor diagnoses me with cancer. I may not like the diagnosis, or completely trust the particular doctor. I can, and should, do my own research—but because I’m no doctor, my research would likely entail reading, studying, and visiting as many experts as I can. I would seek a second opinion, maybe even a third opinion. I might go to multiple doctors, listen to what they have to say, compare their diagnoses, and THEN make a final decision on treatment.
But certainly, it would be absurd for me to attempt to diagnose and treat the cancer myself. At some point, all of my own research aside, I’m going to have to put a certain level of trust in the experts. It’s either that, or go to medical school myself…but chances are that the cancer will get me before I can graduate. Besides, I’d only be learning about cancer from these supposed experts, anyway…and what good will that do me, if I don’t put any trust in them in the first place?
And, during the course of my treatment, would I ever think to utter something like, “Boy, those doctors—they think they’re the only ones who can speak on the issue of my cancer.” No, no I would not. Who SHOULD be speaking on the issue of my cancer, if not the doctors? The mailman? That nice elderly couple down the street? Who?
Scientists are often accused of “closed-mindedness,” simply because they are not willing to treat arguments from ignorance and wishful thinking as equally valid to DNA and fossil evidence. If the creationists want to question facts which appear to be established—and they want their opposition seriously considered—they’d better HAVE DARN GOOD EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THEIR CLAIMS. And they’d BETTER BE WILLING TO GO THROUGH THE LONG, EXHAUSTIVE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS required before their ideas can be considered established scientific theory. Any new scientific hypothesis would be treated this way. Or should we just change the definition of science and throw out the standards altogether?
To insist that standards be met and the scientific process be followed is not close-minded…no, that’s what we call RESPONSIBLE. Evolution scientists behave no differently from experts in any field. Is a history teacher closed-minded because he doesn’t want to teach students that the Egyptian pyramids may have been built by aliens? Is a mechanic closed-minded because he won’t hire a voodoo doctor to fix a car by dancing around it?
If creationists have personal religious reasons for rejecting current scientific findings, they have the freedom to do so. They may not, however, misrepresent the facts or push for the rest of us to relax scientific standards. Come on, folks. We NEED our scientists. And we certainly need them to stick to their guns, lest we usher in a new era of pseudoscience and phony claims masquerading as fact.
And yet, so many folks keep shouting, ”Go back to your PhD programs, scientists! The Wendy Wrights of the world can take it from here!”
You should follow us on twitter.
I am not a creationist, however I have noticed that science is always used as an argument against creationism on this site. Science is not as infallible as is made out at times, years of research that takes the scientist to place where he feels he understands something fully DOES NOT mean his conclusions are 100 percent accurate. There have been examples of this in the past as I am sure you are no doubt aware. I also recommend a book titled ‘Blink’ by Malcolm Gladwell, even if you only read the introduction it will be an eye opener. I don’t believe religion has all the answers (i mean religion or spirituality on a personal and individual scale as it should be, forget the organisations of religions they are there for profit and power) nor do I believe science alone will provide all truths. However I have been suspecting for a while now that the truths will be found through a mixture of science (mainly physics), philosophy (Enlightenment style), psychology, and spirituality or religion whichever term you like best. I know I could have lumped religion with philosophy but I felt it important to separate them in this case. Instead of constant disagreement between factions I believe co-operation is needed between them, as well as acceptance that no one group is completely right. A final thought before I leave that shows that science has its limits is the double-slit experiment, its implications both on science and philosophy are quite remarkable, and show that classical reasoning and observation based conclusions cannot be applied in all instances.
we need to remember that religion is not supposed to rise out of people, but is the result of revelation from God. Allegedly of course… Because of this it does not make sense to make religion subservient to science or human philosophy, because God is above humans. The bible can confirm its own authenticity thru the prophecies found in daniel and revelation specifically. The fact the bible accurately outlined the world kingdoms from babylon to present with detail and dates means that the bible and the god of the bible are real and authentic.
The bible has no contention with science, but recognizes the existence of “false science” or, “false knowledge.” I think there is more for people to look at in regards to bible religion. The philosophies of man are not verified to be authentic as the philosophies of the prophets in the bible. It should be recognized that “evolution” is not science, but is a hybrid of science and human philosophy/human religion.
@dave Dave you’re correct: science is not infallible and that’s what’s great about it! Science does have some answers, though. And when it doesn’t know, science is pretty good about admitting it rather than borrowing from the make-something-up-that-sounds-nice department. A great example what caused the universe’s moment of inception. On a side note, I’ve read Blink as well as Tipping Point; good stuff!
@steve
I think the contention between Dawkins and Wendy Wright is that Dawkins sees evolution as an infallible scientific fact and Wright sees it as a theory that has its flaws and controversies. Even if you do not want to consider creation as an alternative explanation, good science entails critical questioning of the evidence and the way the evidence is explained. I don’t think Wright is asserting that the claims of scientists should not be considered but is calling for a more thorough and complete examination and presentation of the evidence and theories involved in evolution. To put it the context of your analogy of a doctor’s diagnosis, Wright is not saying that the general public should claim expertise but that they have a right to hear a second opinion, compare their diagnoses, and make a final decision. In the case of evolution, second opinions from scientists that undermine evolution are not given serious consideration and are being censored by the scientific community. Dawkins admits that there have been many mistakes in how scientists presented evolution but he does not admit that there is a possibility that there is any alternative explanation other than what the evolution scientists have presented. Evolutionists often claim that creationist scientist are using bad science, but it is the evolutionists who have been publishing the bad science in the form of fraudulent drawings and evidence that have been proven to be false in the science textbooks. If evolutionist are really so confident that there is “overwhelming evidence” then they should face the questions and second opinions without so much hostility and defensiveness. Dawkins only gave the commonalities between species as the evidence for macro-evolution. Instead of addressing Wright’s questions and desire to see more evidence, he started interrogating her motives and agenda. When has science been about hidden motives and agendas? Should people not also question the motives and agendas of evolutionists? Scientists from both sides are examining the same evidence but their presuppositions lead them to different conclusions. Creationists at least acknowledge this fact. Evidence only points to the possibility that a theory might be true. Many theories that have been “proven” to be true have been overturned in history. Yet evolutionists hold on to the flaws in their theory without considering the possibility that it might not be true.
It is very interesting that Dawkins brought up how teachers of Roman history should not have to contend with critics who contend that the Romans never existed. Yet, teachers of biblical history often have to face attacks from people who claim that Jesus never existed, when there is clear evidence from Jewish and Greco-Roman historians that Jesus lived, died, and resurrected.
Cindy, thank you for a well-formulated comment. It was a pleasure to read in comparison to other comments we’ve read on divisive topics like this.
If you’re familiar with the scientific method, you know that an idea must survive an extensive peer review and cannot be disproved until it becomes generally accepted. While scientific method is not perfect, inaccuracies must slip past a lot of people without getting caught to pass as credible.
Now I’m not sure how you define evolutionist, but I’d agree that scientists often times get it wrong. Any scientist who begrudgingly holds onto personal bias that impacts his or her work, well, isn’t very a good scientist.
I believe it’s here that creation falls flat. The Christian Bible (or any bible) is the finishing point for a creation theory, right? So under the scientific method, that’s what scientists should attempt to disprove. And if no one can, than it passes as credible.
I am not aware of any creation theory that has not been disproved. And I wouldn’t say that opinions undermining evolution are censored, they just don’t hold up to scrutiny that’s part of becoming credible science. From what I’ve seen, creationists tend not to like that.
If anyone is clinging to their theory without considering that it might not be true, it’s gotta be the creationists. Besides, do creationists think that their theory might be true? Or is definitely true beyond doubt because that’s what’s clearly printed in their bible?
It’s funny because I’m not aware of any bible story or claim that has been proven to be untrue… I can however think of claims lots of claims from evolutionists that are untrue.
So since it is wrong to start with the bible in science then is it also wrong to automatically dismissing it without adequately considering the claims and comparing it to the “evidence that we are all looking at”? It can at least be given some initial value in that the writings are very ancient and have historical value. To make it the policy to keep the bible out of science doesn’t make much sense, there is at least a possibility that the bible is true. We can’t just automatically dismiss it because science declares God cannot exist. Or at least that he doesn’t have any role in history or reality.
It’s wrong to automatically accept the claims of the bible as plausible without looking into it, but it is just as wrong to automatically dismiss it without looking into it.
I think you are presuposing the belief that creationists are holding on to personal bias that impacts their work. How can you prove that they are doing that? I can credibly say the same thing about many evolutionists like heckle who faked drawings of the fetus to make evolution more believable. I understand a well meaning person being duped by some kind of misinformation and then proselytizing it, but it is much different when someone manufactures misinformation and then proselytizes.
Here’s a good website for you:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
On the right hand side of the page you can click in the following categories:
absurdities.
contradictions
injustice
false prophecies
…and others.
For each you will see a considerable list. The contradictions list alone contains over a thousand items.
More than enough to occupy you for quite a while, if you bothered to.
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Christian god -science, on the other hand, is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence and testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts. Some creationist beliefs involve purported forces that lie outside of nature, such as supernatural intervention, and often do not allow predictions at all. Therefore, these can neither be confirmed nor disproved by scientists.