P.Z. Myers’ evolutionary equivocation
My brush with P.Z. Myers at his anti-creationist talk in Minot, ND, USA
by Greg Demme
Photo from <http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com>
P.Z. Myers
Published: 29 October 2009(GMT+10)
When I had initially heard that the local skeptical society in my hometown had invited
well-known atheist and anti-creationist P.Z. Myers to deliver a talk on October 5,
2009, entitled “Evolutionary Denialism” at Minot State University (less
than a mile from my home), North Dakota, USA, I was ambivalent about attending.
I expected Myers, a biologist, to stick with his expertise. Since I’m not
a biologist, I anticipated gaining little from the presentation and
believed I wouldn’t have much, if anything, to ask. I even had an appointment
that might have hindered me from attending at all.
When that appointment ended early, I decided to head over to the talk. The 200-seat
campus theatre was mostly full by the time I arrived, containing a fairly even mix
of university students and others from the greater Minot community. Myers was in
the middle of discussing arguments to use against Intelligent Design (ID) proponents.
Overstepping his bounds
Myers divided his talk into three sections: how to confront Old Earth Creationists
(OECs), Intelligent Design (ID) proponents, and Young Earth Creationists (YECs).
This was probably a tactical error on Myers’ part. In my opinion, Myers would
have served his cause far better if had limited himself to discussing arguments
to use against ID proponents, i.e. he should have stuck with his expertise in biology
and addressed only ID arguments. His arguments in biology didn’t prove what
he claimed they did, but given what transpired, it’s probable that no-one
present could have effectively challenged him right then and there.
Unfortunately for Myers and his cause, he launched a vitriolic diatribe against
YECs.
His attack on YEC was filled with vehement denigration of anyone who espouses YEC,
and his arguments were little besides straw men. I was actually embarrassed for
him at the lack of substance in his attack on YEC. I began to think it might be
worthwhile for me to challenge him during the Q&A period.
Forming a plan
At that point, I kept reminding myself of some goals I had developed over the last
several years to rely on for just such an event in “hostile territory”:
I focused, rather, on the handful of observers in the crowd who might never have
heard biblical answers to the issues at hand or might be tempted to give up their
fledgling faith after such a talk.
- I tried to develop a specific focus. What did I hope to achieve
by questioning Myers? Although the grace of God can move with power at any time,
I was not attempting to convert Dr. Myers, nor was I expecting a massive eye-opening
to occur in the audience. I focused, rather, on the handful of observers in the
crowd who might never have heard biblical answers to the issues at hand or might
be tempted to give up their fledgling faith after such a talk.
- I remembered God’s sovereignty in opening blind eyes. The
only reason I am not delivering such talks shaking my fist at God or sitting in
the crowd mocking Him myself is by the gift of His grace (see Rom 5:8 and Eph 2:8-9). So while I was preparing to argue intellectually,
I was praying that blind eyes be opened somewhere in the theatre (see 1 Cor 2:14).
- I remembered that God can defend and avenge Himself. While I understand
the crucial role God has granted believers in spreading His Word, God is jealous
for His own name and glory (Is 48:11). I specifically prayed that I would not overzealously
lose my composure (therefore losing my credibility as a witness), since God Himself
will guard His name and His glory. When Dr. Myers called the Lord a vulgar expletive,
I was thereby able to remain unprovoked.
- I wanted to respect the speaker’s position and the audience’s
time. Dr. Myers was the invited speaker. He had the podium and the microphone.
Contemplating this helped me resist any temptation to get in the last word. In fact,
Dr. Myers having the last word repeatedly led to his own loss of credibility because
he couldn’t resist using those opportunities for more vitriolic attacks on
YEC and certain YEC scientists. I also assumed others would have questions, so I
didn’t want to monopolize the Q&A period for that reason either.
- I didn’t want to stoop to his level. It’s easy to respond
in kind when a person verbally attacks you with names like “moron” and
“ignoramus”. But the Bible calls us to a higher response: “When
reviled, we bless.” I have read testimonies where that difference
alone played a key role in an observer’s eventual conversion.
Choosing my battles
When Q&A came around, I chose three questions I wanted him to answer. I chose
topics I understood well enough to spot the deficiencies in his answers “on
the fly”. I also chose questions that were directly related to the material
he had presented.
First, I challenged him on his straw-man argument that YECs discard human reason
when accepting God’s Word. When I explained that as a creationist I cherish
human reason in the process of doing science, I just don’t hold human reason
as my a priori presupposition, and then explained that his presuppositions
towards materialism (like
Richard Lewontin’s) were not based in science either, he confused
presuppositions with hypotheses. Of course, creationists also use hypotheses in
their scientific research, as do evolutionists, but those hypotheses are not the
same thing as underlying presuppositions. So here, he was either confused or equivocating
on the word hypothesis. Surely he has heard that argument before, so it’s
hard to believe he was merely confused.
Next, I challenged his assertion that YECs are “adopting more evolution all
the time” when he was explaining how YECs believe in rapid speciation after
a global flood (“just not when it comes to humans”). But there’s
another example of equivocation — equating the word evolution on
the one hand with the observable results of natural selection and then on the other
hand asserting that as proof of molecules-to-man evolution. Of course creationists
believe in speciation – it can actually be, and has been, observed (see for
example
Speciation conference brings good news for creationists and
Natural selection leads to speciation), unlike molecules-to-man evolution,
which has only been conjectured with so much handwaving and storytelling. When I
pointed this out and explained that indeed a creationist, Edward Blyth, was directly
involved in actually developing the theory of natural selection prior to Darwin
(see Darwin’s
illegitimate brainchild), Myers simply responded, to his discredit, “Not
true.”
How, if evolution is such an undeniable fact supported by overwhelming evidence,
could evolutionists be ‘losing the pop culture war’ so easily, even
by their own admission?
Finally, my last question really allowed Myers to display his arrogance and ignorance.
At the end of his talk he had shown a short video spoofing and mocking creationists,
which ended by accusing creationists of “set[ting] cancer research back by
20 years.” When I asked him how he would respond to the fact that creationists
have been instrumental in the progress of medical research to the great benefit
of many people, citing as examples
Dr. Raymond Damadian’s contributions to the MRI scanning technology
and Dr. John Sanford’s
“gene gun” approach to genetic engineering of plants, he began
by calling Dr. Damadian a “horrendous scientist” and “merely an
engineer who developed a technology.” When I pressed him about Sanford, again
he said it was “merely another technology” and that Sanford was “doing
bad science.”
Myers seemed flustered at this point, so he mentioned that Damadian and Sanford
were “people who were doing a lot of good,” but when I interjected,
“with their science,” he exclaimed, “No!” One wonders what
sort of solution in cancer research he is looking for that doesn’t take an
understanding of biology and human anatomy then subsequently develop a technology,
whether a clinical process or pharmaceutical and/or nutritional solution, to effect
a change for the good.
I had already sat down at this point, believing I had said enough. There were a
few questions from what appeared to be biology students wondering how to counter
creationists who claim evolution is “just a theory,” and Myers spent
significant time castigating another creationist in the audience who somewhat unfortunately
belabored a certain young sun argument. (For more information on how to avoid discarded
or dubious arguments, see Arguments we think creationists
should NOT use). But when Myers accused that creationist of using a “bogus
tactic” of confronting him with material outside the scope of his expertise
or his presentation, I challenged him with, “You’re peddling a lot of
philosophy here. Are you a philosopher?” His response – “I am.”
But of course Myers is a biologist and has no credentials in philosophy, so it’s
hardly fair to accuse someone of challenging him outside his expertise when he himself
spent at least half his talk spouting philosophical material outside his expertise.
Some interesting fallout
Near the end, another gentleman who introduced himself as a physicist asked Dr.
Myers, “Can you give some examples of how creationist thinking has harmed
anyone?” After all Myers’ pontificating, I expected he would try to
give several examples, but he only offered that creationism has brought students
to the university level with “a poor understanding of how science works.”
When the physicist pointed out that that response was merely a condemnation of a
poor education system and again asked for a specific example of harm done by creationist
thinking, Myers couldn’t give one. Unfortunately, there was not enough time
for me to confront Myers with the numerous examples of how, conversely, evolutionary
thinking has actually done considerable harm to the advancement of science and to
actual people. Just off the top of my head I could have given him the examples of
vestigial
organs, junk DNA,
and ill-advised treatments
for back troubles.
The final question of the night, however, spoke volumes to me. One gentleman (apparently
sympathetic to Myers’ position) asked Myers why he thought evolutionists were
“losing the pop culture war” to creationists. Given the stranglehold
evolutionists have on nearly every government-funded educational institution and
museum in the western world, not to mention the deluge of evolution-based movies
and television programs emanating from the media, that question alone led me to
wonder, How, if evolution is such an undeniable fact supported by overwhelming evidence,
could evolutionists be “losing the pop culture war” so easily, even
by their own admission?
Wrapping up
After the talk, I was amazed again at how weak Myers’ arguments against YEC
had been and how readily he had resorted to ridicule and mocking. On a gratifying
note, a young university student introduced himself to me afterwards, said he was
interested in studying marine biology, and thanked me for presenting the creation
viewpoint. I was grateful the Lord had allowed me to meet one person previously
unknown to me who was edified by hearing the truth and to exchange contact information
with him in case he has further questions.
On the way out, I stopped to thank Dr. Myers for his time and to thank the person who
had facilitated the event. Although my initial intention was to offer courtesy,
I also was indeed thankful for the opportunity to hear the presentation, confront
Myers with what I hoped was a humble attitude, and let the results rest in God’s
capable hands. After all, I have to remember again that were it not for the glorious
Gospel of God’s grace, I would have no more hope than Myers does.
Readers’ commentsWilliam G., United States, 13 November 2009
I thank God for allowing you to make it to the conference. Without your questions many may have not been embolden to challenge Mr. Myers statements. It was someone publically and boldly questioning evolutionary conclusions that started me on a search to find out about YEC creationism and deepened my faith in Jesus Christ.
Shawn M., Canada, 29 November 2009
I really, really enjoyed this article. I was refreshed after reading of Greg’s witnessing experiences and seeing how his thoughts are so parallel to my own at times when I discuss this issue with others. I think I’ll keep his 5 points for future reference. |
Related article
Further reading
Recommended Resources
| They say time is money. Well, this site provides over 30 years of information. That’s a lot of money and time. Would you support our efforts to keep this information coming for 30 more years?  | | |
|
