|
Feedback archive →
Feedback 2009
Stick cartoons promoted by Florida Citizens for Science and NCSE reinforce public
misconceptions on science
Evolutionists should stop using creationist straw men and promoting abusive ad hominem
arguments
Published: 11 July 2009(GMT+10)
by Tas Walker
the Florida Citizens for Science and the National Centre for Science Education have
a lot of work to do to dispel the misconceptions among their constituents
As feedback this week we critique some cartoons from a “Stick Science”
cartoon contest run by the Florida Citizens for Science. FCS describes itself as
“defending and promoting sound science in Florida” but occupies itself
with evolutionary propaganda and creationist bashing. I.e. there is nothing promoting
undoubted real science such as physics or chemistry. They announced the
contest on the auspicious date of 1 April 2009, with the aim, in their words, to
“educate the public about misconceptions the average person has about science.”
The National Centre for Science Education, another inappropriately named
atheist-founded and operated organization, whose raison d’être
is to promote evolution and fight creation and intelligent design, also
advertised the contest on their website. In fact NCSE’s Eugenie Scott
was one of the judges, along with astronomer skeptic Phil Plait, evolution writer
Carl Zimmer (also well known for his
duplicitous anticreationist agitprop) and Kate Miller who devises toys to
teach evolution to kids.
Apparently a fizzer, with only 37 entries globally, the winners and
top ten entries were announced on 19 June 2009. Unfortunately the cartoons
presented misconceptions about what creationists are actually saying, focused on
attacking straw men, and mocked creationists’ intelligence. This suggests
that the common God-hater charges against creationists are really psychological
projection, i.e. ascribing their own thoughts and attitudes onto others
(see also Did CMI “lie”
in making The Voyage).
Here are the judges’ top ten cartoons.
Entry A (Kenneth Brody from Verplanck, NY) :
The judges should be aware that this cartoon attacks a straw man. It is one of the
arguments discussed on CMI’s list of
don’t use arguments (See
Evolution is just a theory). Rather than awarding a prize, the judges
should dispel the misconceptions within their own camp. And it fails to differentiate
operational science such as gravity from origins science or historical belief
systems about the past, as evolution is. Also,
gravity as a scientific concept of an attractive force between two masses
was discovered by the creationist scientist
Sir Isaac Newton, just
like most major branches of science (see also
Newton was a creationist only because there was no alternative?).
Entry B (Ralph Arvesen from Round Mountain, TX) :
This cartoon misrepresents what creationists actually teach, falsely implying that
we deny any sort of change, such as mutations in viruses. In fact, not only are
new varieties part of the biblical creation
model, but observations of rapid speciation have surprised evolutionists
(see Speedy species surprise),
but not creationists, because they are easily explained within the creationist paradigm.
For this cartoon in particular, see
Swine flu—Is it evidence of evolution?
Natural selection, also
discussed by creationists before Darwin, will not turn bacteria into biologists,
no matter how much time is allowed. The changes are going in the wrong direction
(see The evolution train’s
a-comin ). Antibiotic resistance is an example of natural selection but
not molecules-to-man evolution (see
Anthrax and antibiotics: is evolution relevant). Conflating natural selection
and evolution is a misconception among evolutionists, one that the judges, rather
than encouraging, should have tried to dispel (see
Natural selection questions and answers.)
Entry C (Richard Korzekwa from Los Alamos, NM):
Don’t you love the drawings on the board labeled “Science”: DNA
strands turn themselves into fish, then fish into lizards and eventually people?
The cartoon tries to justify that sort of storytelling by using forensic science,
but the comparison is not there. We have all seen pets leave paw marks, cats scratch
furniture and dogs drool—so we can draw the appropriate conclusions from the
forensic evidence. But who has ever seen DNA assemble itself into a living cell,
fish turn into lizards
or lizards turn into people? Not only has this never been observed, but there is
no plausible explanation for how it could happen—just wishful speculation.
(see
Loopholes in evolutionary theory for the origin of life and
Clarifying the confusion about natural selection). Even forensic science
gets it wrong when eyewitness testimony is disregarded (see
Would you trust a dingo?). And note the mockery of creationists in the last
frame.
Entry D (Jeff Konecki from Chicago, IL):
This cartoon attempts to allay a widespread and justified concern that evolution
leads to a moral vacuum.
Evolutionist Richard Dawkins did not dispute this, but simply said, “That’s
just tough. We have to face up to the truth.”
By equating evolution with “science”, this cartoon tries to argue that
evolution is merely about “naturally occurring processes” and has nothing
to say about morals. However, this is deceitful. Julian Huxley, former Director-General
of UNESCO, said,
“In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or
room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it evolved. So did all the
animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as
well as brain and body. So did religion.”1
He said this in 1959 at the conference that celebrated the centennial of the publication
of Origin of the Species and apparently none of the other evolutionists
present disagreed—that is, evolution claims that everything evolved, including
religion (and morals).
Will Provine, biology professor at Cornell, said:
“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud
and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any
kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am
going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for
ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.”2
The evolutionary view is that we are just atoms in motion. The whole universe popped
into existence with no cause whatsoever and indeed we invented “god”
(religion evolved). Evolution is far more than science; it is a pattern of thought;
a worldview. Evolutionist philosopher of science
Michael Ruse admitted it was a “secular religion—a full-fledged
alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.”
And this anti-Christian worldview/religion has been smuggled into science classes.
As one of Darwin’s mentors wrote soon after reading Origin,
“From first to last it is a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked up …
. And why is this done? For no other reason, I am sure, except to make us independent
of a Creator.”
Gravity as a scientific concept of an attractive force between two masses was discovered
by the creationist scientist Sir Isaac Newton, just like most major branches of
science.
So it is quite deceitful to try to hoodwink people into thinking that evolution
is just another branch of science.
Since evolution says “religion evolved”, “there are no gods”
and it makes us “independent of a Creator”, morals are ultimately the
result of chance collisions of atoms. Since this materialistic, God-free religion
provides no sound basis for morality (as this cartoon tacitly admits), where does
morality come from? (See What basis
morality?) How can anyone say that any behaviour is right or wrong? What
is the foundation for law within a society? If morality is merely a subjective personal
choice, then ultimately “might” becomes “right”. Is it morally
good to misrepresent your opponents, as these cartoons do? Is it morally good to
kill babies in the womb, as well as those who
have survived attempted abortion? What about
euthanasia, pornography and same-sex marriage? The fact is that
the evolutionary story justifies any behavior, but evolutionists do not like this
being pointed out (see
Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution). Indeed,
the so called culture
war rages in the west at present over these and other hot issues because
the moral standards of the Christian worldview conflict with those that come from
secular evolutionary naturalism. (See
Morality and Ethics Questions and Answers.)
Entry E (Brooke Lundquist from Niceville, FL):
The “point”, such that it is, is basically the same as Entry A, so see
our comments on that above. Also, that the judges should honour
such a crass misrepresentation of creationist views reflects more on them than on
us. Finally, their panel 4 is more applicable to evolutionists, by their own admission.
For example, Lewontin
would prefer a bad materialistic explanation rather than “allow a divine foot
in the door” because of his “a priori … commitment to
materialism”. Evolutionists’ minds are closed to even the possibility
that God, or even some form of intelligent design, could be involved, no matter
what the evidence! See
Blinkered thinkers.
Entry F (Jan Stephan Lundquist from Niceville, FL):
This cartoon shows stick drawings of a hypothetical series of animals, but how about
a real life example? How about the sequence about
Gogonasus—a fish with human limbs? When we look at real evidence
we can see how it does not stack up. Animals are routinely arranged into cladograms
that wrongly give the impression of evolutionary lineages. But they are not lineages.
They merely show the relative similarities between certain traits of organisms.
You can arrange a collection of teaspoons in a cladogram. And the gaps are real
and ubiquitous, even 150 years after Darwin. See also
Does a transitional form replace one gap with two gaps pointing out that
two huge gaps is just as much a problem as one super-huge gap.
Entry G (Benjamin Tichy from Calistoga, CA):
This is a pathetic attempt to avoid the fact that
irreducible complexity points to design (see
An eye for creation). No one has a clue how the eye could have developed
by unguided, unplanned, naturalistic processes (see
Dawkin’s eye revisited). Simplistic line diagrams do not represent
the complexity of the components of the eye—we are talking of precise sequences
of many amino acids to form the proteins of a transparent lens, for example. And
then there is the phenomenal biochemistry of light-sensitive cells and nerve fibres
and vitreous humor and muscles and … . And it supposedly happened not just
once but 40 different times with many different designs. The almond, too, is incredibly
complex. It is not just a hunk of protein. Contained within the seed are all the
genetic instructions for making an almond tree, along with the machinery needed
to read the instructions, harvest the energy and raw materials from the environment
and assemble the components into a new almond tree.
Entry H (Andrew Sarafan from Gainesville, FL):
There are more personal attacks in this cartoon: creationists are aggressive (note
the hand gesture), can’t understand science and are in denial. It is important
to note that lines drawn on a board do not constitute evidence. They are just the
way evolutionists interpret the evidence. It is actually the evolutionists who are
in denial. They can’t explain the
origin of life, the
origin of multi-cellularity, the origin of
new genetic information, the
origin of sex, etc. And evolutionists themselves have questioned
many previously “established” links between humans and apes—see
for example
Homo habilis hacked from the family tree.
Entry I (Stacy Scott from Saint Augustine, FL):
Another straw man and more mocking. See the discussion
If we evolved from apes … in our
Don’t use article. The alleged common primate ancestor of man
and apes would certainly be called an ape or a monkey by most people who saw it
(as was acknowledged by the famous evolutionist G.G. Simpson), and the evidence
for such an ancestor is lacking (see
Are there ape men in your ancestry? and
Anthropology and ape men questions and answers).
Entry J (Christopher Thurtle from New Hampton, NY):
Yet another attack on the
If-we-evolved-from-apes straw man. There must have been slim pickings if
they had to reward identical straw man arguments.
Although these cartoons were created by young people who would not have an advanced
knowledge or experience in the issues involved, they were nevertheless judged by
prominent evolutionists who are engaged in the public debate over the creation-evolution
controversy. It’s a sad reflection that such gross misconceptions were rewarded
by the judges and put on public display. Clearly the Florida Citizens for Science
and the National Centre for Science Education have a lot of work to do
to dispel the misconceptions among their constituents if this debate is ever to
focus on the scientific arguments. But evidently they find it easier to knock down
straw men and resort to abusive ad hominem
attacks than to actually deal with the real arguments that so seriously question
the idea that everything made itself by natural processes without any intelligent
Creator. Perhaps that’s because they have no adequate answers.
Related articles
Further reading
Related resources
References
- in Essays of a Humanist [1964], Penguin Books, UK,
1969 reprint, pp.82–83. Return to text.
- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1),
p.9, 1994. Return to text.
|
