More nonsense from Professor Plimer
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
6 April 2001
Introduction
Ian Plimer is a mining geologist and a former Australian Humanist of the Year, best
known for his vicious and far-fetched attacks against creationists. After apparently
lying low for a while after his drubbing in the ‘Ark Search’ court-case
in the lower court, Appeals Court and High Court, Plimer is now up to his old tricks
again. He wrote an anti-creationist diatribe in the popular-level journal Australasian
Science 22(1):36–37, January/February 2001.
Dr Don Batten of CMI–Australia, a plant scientist
with substantial publications to his credit, wrote to the editor, requesting a chance
to reply:
Dear Mr Nolch,
Ian Plimer was given two pages to criticize scientists who are creationists. He
made defamatory statements about two persons by name and questioned the personal
integrity of all creationists at a number of points. He also made many other errant
claims.
In the interests of natural justice we request your undertaking to accept a reply
to Plimer, from the accused. We undertake to reply within the word limit you specify
(assuming this is a reasonable limit), and unlike Plimer, to make the reply non-defamatory.
The editor, a Mr Guy Nolch, refused this reasonable request:
Thank you for your communication regarding the article “CREATION SCIENCE—Neither
Science nor Religion”. I fail to see how Professor Plimer’s remarks
were defamatory as they stated fact about the publication history of the people
concerned. Nor did Prof. Plimer mention Answers in Genesis[the name of CMI
in Australia in 2001].
Australasian Science supports the views of Prof. Plimer and will not jeopardise
its credibility by publishing a response to his article by your organisation.
Dr Batten responded by pointing out that Mr Nolch’s journal’s credibility
was already jeopardized by publishing demonstrably false material, since the truthfulness
of the accusations was not checked with the accused—something that a responsible
journalist would do.
Our Plimer Files have amply demonstrated Professor Plimer’s
scientific and ethical unreliability. In these articles, Mr Nolch could have checked
that one of Australia’s most famous public corruption fighters led a detailed
enquiry into Plimer’s allegations, which included alleged documentation of
immoral and unethical behaviour, and found them to be completely without substance.
He would have found that even some fellow atheistic Skeptics (at least American
ones, as opposed to the Australian ones) think that Plimer gives the Skeptics a
bad name.
No qualifications were listed for Mr Nolch, and his publication of Plimer’s
arrant unscientific nonsense and refusal to publish any challenge didn’t lead
us to think that he had any scientific qualifications. But he indignantly pointed
out that he had some, albeit inferior to those of the CMI staff scientists, but
even these came as a surprise to us. Admittedly they shouldn’t have done,
since we’ve often pointed out that evolution is a deduction from materialistic
ideology, not science, and believing in such a false ideology does cloud the thinking
of others with scientific credientials.
Nolch, evidently threatened by the fact that CMI can bypass his censorship, also
attempted to bully CMI into removing this article, based on a misunderstanding of
copyright law provisions for fair use for the purpose of criticism.
But this is one good thing to come out of this—further evidence of the censorship
of creationist submissions to establishment science journals, even to the point
of denying the natural justice of a right of reply. Dr Robert Gentry has documented
this in his book Creation’s Tiny Mystery. Recently, Scientific American
refused to allow Phillip Johnson to defend himself against a vindictive and petty
review by the atheistic Marxist, Stephen Jay Gould.
So Johnson published
Response to Gould on the web site of Access Research Network, which
promotes Intelligent Design. It just shows that materialism is an entrenched ideology
in the scientific establishment that must silence all critics. Scientific American
has also shown that it is willing to practise religious discrimination in its hiring
policies to achieve this aim—see Revolutionary Atmospheric
Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination.
This can be utilized in response to vexatious critics of creation who have demanded
that every single creationist paper should be submitted to a secular journal to
be worthy of credibility. The above strongly suggests that it would be a waste of
time, no matter how good the paper was.
Another good thing to come out of it is the chance to write a far more thorough
refutation than would have been possible in a Letter to the Editor of Australasian
Science, and on a web site whose daily visitor number is many times the
circulation of that journal. The words in
coloured indented text
are Plimer’s words from Australasian Science or, where stated, from Plimer’s
other writings:
CREATION SCIENCE
Neither Science nor Religion
Ian Plimer continues his crusade against creationist pseudoscience.
Creation science has nothing to do with science or religion. It is the political
arm of a branch of Protestant Christian fundamentalism exported from the USA.
The first of many outlandish accusations, refuted by several indisputable facts:
Creationism attempts to redefine science as a matter of belief or faith.
However, science is underpinned by repeatable evidence obtained by measurement,
observation, experiment, calculation and deduction. This evidence is international,
transparent and available for all to evaluate.
The explanation of a natural phenomenon uses processes of logic, deduction, induction
and coherence with existing knowledge.
But what answers can be found in the natural world, really, because nature doesn’t
comprise propositions? To provide propositional truth, the data must always be interpreted
in some framework, and the framework depends largely on the axioms,
i.e. propositions accepted as true without proof. CMI unashamedly starts with the
axioms of Scripture, while evolutionists start with
the axiom of materialism (many without even realising it!). But the data are the
same for both—we don’t deny any observations by evolutionists,
but interpret them in a different framework.
Furthermore, Plimer confuses operational science
(chemistry, physics, biology, etc.) with beliefs about the past. Operational science
(discovering how the world today operates) is open to experimental testing in the
present, but beliefs about the past (such as molecules-to-mankind evolution), are
not open to the processes of experimental science. There is no way anyone can do
experiments on events that happened once in the past. Because the past is not accessible
to the processes of experimental science, it is very much driven by the philosophical
(religious) worldview of the practitioners. Today this worldview is overwhelmingly
atheistic/materialistic, so that ‘coherence with existing knowledge’
means agreement with materialism, which begs the question of whether materialism
is valid or not.
Also, experimental science depends on presuppositions that cannot be derived from
materialism, but historically and logically were derived from biblical axioms—see
Correcting a severe misconception about the creation
model.
Such explanations change with new evidence, recalculation or new thought.
This just goes to show the folly of those ‘churchians’ who try to reinterpret
the Bible to fit in with current science.
If new evidence disproves a scientific theory, then the existing theory is rejected
or undergoes revision in the light of the new evidence.
This naïve view is often promulgated to the public, but in reality, scientists
are often in the grip of paradigms (belief systems, mentioned above). The
philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn argued this in his influential book The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions, characterizing scientific revolutions as paradigm
shifts. On the other hand, Kuhn argued that ‘normal science’
between the revolutions works within the paradigm, and even tolerates anomalies
and some contrary evidence for some time in the hope of solving them within the
paradigm. Prof. Evelleen Richards, a non-creationist historian of science at the
University of New South Wales, Australia, pointed out that during periods of ‘normal
science’, scientists challenging the ruling paradigm find it hard to get published
or receive research grants (see quote).
Scientific methodology has no foundation in race, religion, gender or culture. For
example, the speed of light does not change with culture, race, religion or gender.
Science therefore cannot be qualified as ‘creation’ science, ‘Maori’
science or ‘Feminist’ science.
Science, like other disciplines, is temporarily fettered by bias, dogma, authorities,
fraud and fads, but scientific methodology avows a short time for such behaviour.
Evolutionists have biases too. See Darwin’s real message:
Have you missed it? and Lewontin’s amazing admission
of his a priori faith in atheism, regardless of how absurd it seems.
To be a scientist is to be a skeptic.
Pity that most self-described ‘Skeptics’ are ultra-gullible when it
comes to evolution—here their scepticism is very limited!
By contrast, creation “science” requires an untestable supernatural
being, and hence is not science. Creationism first starts with an untestable conclusion
and then trawls for evidence.
The “science” of creationists has been tested numerous times. Creationists
claim that there is evidence for a planet some 6000–10,000 years old, that
evolution does not occur and that there was a global flood some 4000 years ago.
Like many evolutionists, Plimer contradicts himself here. First he derides creation
science as ‘untestable’, then claims that it has after all been ‘tested’!
And Plimer does not even seem to realize that he starts with the untestable axiom
of materialism.
To promote such ideas in schools in a pluralist society is an abuse of the tolerance
of society.
The contradiction of suppressing creationist science in the name of tolerance is
breathtaking.
If there was reproducible science to support such religious ideas, then the laws
of physics would not work, biology would cease to exist and there would be no geology
and chemistry.
What would a mining geologist like Plimer know about physics or chemistry (my specialist
fields) or biology (Dr Batten’s speciality)? Note that later on, he castigates
creationists for allegedly speaking outside their fields!
Creationism is a religious form of post-modernism where all knowledge is denigrated.
If creationists did not believe modern science then they would not check the weather
report, fly in aeroplanes or drive a car.
These two sentences are contradictory. First, Plimer claims that creationism denigrated
‘all knowledge’, then tacitly admits that creationists do believe in
modern science. Of course, creationists have never had a problem with real operational,
experimental science, dealing with repeatable events in the present, which was responsible
for putting men on the moon, and helps in curing diseases, etc. What we object to
are just-so stories about the past, taught as fact, purporting to explain the present
world in a framework deliberately designed to exclude God.
Creation “science” attacks new phenomena in science in an attempt to
support religious ideas. For example Argon-Argon dating of young Hawaiian volcanic
rocks gives an age that is older than the age measured and calculated for the Earth.
Rather than show that all radioactive age measurements are incorrect, these data
throw light onto a new process—the adsorption of excess argon by mica minerals.
More likely, it shows that evolutionists, far from accepting radiometric dates as
absolute, are only too happy to make excuses when they give ‘dates’
contrary to their desired beliefs or contrary to firmly established historical dates.
But if rationalisations are acceptable when the methods fail on rocks of known age,
how can evolutionists criticise creationists for pointing out flaws in the methods
when applied to rocks of unknown age? See Q&A Radiometric
Dating.
Straw man arguments are a favourite creationist ploy. For example, they claim that
the Piltdown Man fraud was an example of scientific fraud. However, what is not
mentioned is that the fraud was perpetrated by a lawyer and was shown to be a fraud
by the standard methodology of science.
What Plimer doesn’t mention in his spin-doctoring is that it took them 40
years to expose the hoax! If it weren’t for the evolutionary blinkers, the
file marks and chemical stains would have been detected far sooner.
Another tactic is to befuddle lay audiences with statistics.
For example, it is argued that it is statistically impossible for a modern aeroplane
to form by chance and. ergo it is impossible for life to form by chance. What is
not stated is that more than 100 years of experimentation, modification and calculation
increased the knowledge base before the modern aeroplane could be built. The aeroplane
was not formed by chance; it evolved.
Is Plimer serious?! Goo-to-you evolution is supposed to explain the origin of complexity
without any intelligent designer. The simplest living thing is more
complex than an aircraft and, according to evolutionists, is supposed to have just
come into existence ‘by itself’, without any intelligent
designer to create it. Note also, the inventors of powered heavier-than-air flight,
Wilbur and Orville Wright, were staunch creationists, and were greatly helped by
examining the (designed) control systems of birds. See also 100
years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!.
Similarly, creationists argue that there must be an intelligent designer, and use
the mousetrap as an example. They argue that the mousetrap was the result of intelligent
design but fail to mention that its inventor, John Mast of Pennsylvania, borrowed
from six existing patents. The mousetrap is a hybrid and is a result of evolution
and not intelligent design.
So a human inventor borrowing ideas is not intelligent? Did the mousetrap really
arise by time and chance and natural selection? One must question the credibility
of a journal that publishes such arrant nonsense.
Intelligent design arguments are nonsense. No intelligent designer would own up
to the human eye, …
No human designer would dare to be so presumptuous, because anyone who knows anything
about the eye knows that it’s beyond the limits of human technology. If Plimer
disagrees, all he has to do is design an instrument as complex as the eye, with
its resolution, ability to detect a single photon (impossible to improve on this
sensitivity!) dynamic range, colour perception, and ability to maintain and repair
itself! No camera comes near the eye in performance, and it certainly cannot maintain
itself. I refute the alleged bad design of the eye in more detail in
this section of Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?
… the knee, …
Again, this is far from bad design; rather, the intricate pattern of ligaments is
an example of irreducible complexity (that is, a less complex structure would have
no value, so evolutionary processes could not ‘create’ it in small steps
from no structure)—see Critical characteristics and the
irreducible knee joint.
… rogue genes, cystic fibrosis or cancer.
Creationists explain these as the result of God’s curse on creation because
of Adam’s sin. As a self-proclaimed expert in creationist thinking, Plimer
surely knows this. But to reveal that would be counter-productive to his purpose,
of course.
Did the intelligent designer drop the ball when yeast cells were ‘designed’
with 30% of their genes redundant?
How does Plimer know that they are redundant (he has no qualifications in genetics
for one thing, so by his own standards Plimer should not be pontificating about
genetics)? Much so-called ‘junk DNA’ has been shown to have important
functions—see Q&A: Vestigial Organs.
Many scientists, including myself, have documented the creation of facts ex nihilo
by creationists and have claimed that fraud underpins all creationist arguments.
On the contrary, Plimer’s ‘documentation’ of such allegations
has been exposed as fraudulent by a committee headed by the former chief magistrate
of New South Wales, Mr Clarrie Briese, famous in his day as Australia’s leading
corruption fighter, and at the time of his inquiry into Plimer an active member
of the NSW Crime Commission. Plimer tries to evade the force of this conclusion,
when challenged, by pointing out that the committee members were all Christians,
asked by us to take part. However, they were deliberately chosen as people with
impeccable public reputations independent of this ministry, who would have no motive
to put those reputations on the line by lying for this ministry. See
Prominent inquiry committee concludes: Plimer allegations baseless and unsupported
by the facts and CMI’s point-by-point rebuttal of Plimer’s
Book.
When exposed, these ‘facts’ have not been removed from creationist writings
and creationist ideas have not been amended.
What ‘facts’? Plimer has demonstrated his disinterest in facts,
as our Web site amply documents. His own distortions, even those exposed by his
own kind, the Skeptics, are again repeated shamelessly, without correction, in this
article of his.
Creationist audiences do not seem to know that one of their Australian leaders,
Dr Andrew Snelling, has published in the scientific literature
about rocks thousands of million of years old and about processes that take hundreds
of million of years; concurrently he publishes in the creationist literature about
the exact same rocks yet claims that they show that the planet is only a few thousand
years old.
This is an old chestnut, first promulgated by Plimer’s fellow atheist, Alex
Ritchie (The Skeptic [Australia] 11(4):12–15, Summer 1991).
Ritchie is another fanatical anti-creationist who’s more interested in creationist-bashing
than promoting real science, as shown by his admission to Warwick Armstrong (CMI
Sydney) that Dr Snelling’s paper was ‘a very good piece of work’.
Dr Don Batten refuted this silly charge of ‘duplicity’against
Dr Snelling long ago:
‘In the context of reviewing the work of others in a secular publication on
the Koongarra uranium deposits, Dr Andrew Snelling used the geological term mya
(millions of years ago) in describing the ages of various formations.
‘For his paper, Dr Snelling was asked by the mining corporation for which
he consults part-time to review all the published information on Koongarra, summarising
the work of other people. These people assumed the conventional belief in millions
of years in their writings, so reviewing them necessitated stating their beliefs.
It is understandable that someone unaware of Dr Snelling’s own beliefs could
think that it was his opinion that certain rocks were millions of years old. However,
any caveats inserted by Dr Snelling to distance himself from these beliefs would
certainly have been deleted by the editors, who, along with his part-time employers,
are fully aware of his creationist position.
‘Ritchie, as well as his parrot, the atheist Ian Plimer, imply that Dr Snelling
tried to conceal his creationist views from secular geologists. However, Dr Snelling
has been upfront with his views and has more than once vigorously defended his creationist
position in the most open secular geology forum possible, in the newsletter of Australian
geological community, The Australian Geologist (The Australian Geologist
68:16–21, 20/9/1988, pp. and 71:18, 30/6/1989).
‘In the context of his own research, Dr Snelling has published the geological
system of the rocks studied, but this is not the same as publishing the
age of the rocks. The basic geologic column was derived before the millions and
billions of years became attached to the systems identified. The generally accepted
age of the systems has changed considerably since they were first interpreted as
representing long periods of time (by Lyell et al., including his
fallacious arguments about Niagara Falls), but the basic system naming has
not changed much (except for the addition of further subdivisions in the systems).
‘Creationists use the same naming system, although do not accept the uniformitarian
belief that the geologic column represents eons of time. Before the development
of evolutionary geological beliefs, the periods were called “groups”
or “systems”; the eras were called “classes” and were named
Primary, Secondary and Tertiary. The naming of the eras, in particular, now reflects
evolutionary beliefs (Palaeozoic / Mesozoic / Cainozoic), but the period names (Ordovician,
Silurian, Cambrian, Cretaceous, etc.) still generally do not. Thus, the naming of
the geologic systems is not tied to the assigned ages and assignment of an ore body
to a particular geologic system does not necessarily define its absolute age.
‘Dr Snelling published work on the Pb/Pb isochron dating system, showing that
this technique could not be used to derive an evolutionary age for the ore body.
This hardly implies belief in the dating systems.
‘On the other hand, in a creationist context, Dr Snelling’s papers in
the Journal of Creation, frequently
cite the assumed evolutionary ages of rocks he writes about (eg. the Journal of Creation
8(1):12, 1994).
‘Another consideration: co-authoring publications with other researchers means
that one’s own beliefs have to be tempered to satisfy co-authors. I have experienced
this. I wanted to acknowledge a dream I had which inspired some revolutionary research,
thanking God for the dream in the acknowledgments. My co-author (not a Christian)
was accommodating, but the paper had to be approved by someone senior to him and
he scrubbed out the ‘offending’ sentence! If he had not done so, I’m
sure one of the journal referees, or the editor, would have. If Dr Snelling had
written a creationist paper, no matter how well it was argued, it just would not
have got published! Then the Skeptics would have accused Dr Snelling of having no
scientific credibility because he had not published in secular journals! Whatever
you do as a creationist is wrong as far as these Skeptics are concerned. “You’ll
be hanged if you do and hanged if you don’t!”’
Note that the behaviour of the Australasian Science editor amply confirms
the fact of anti-creationist bigotry and censorship, as does the article
Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?
Another leader, Dr Tasman Walker, has written a thesis
at The University of Queensland about rocks 230 million years old and yet writes
in the creationist literature that the planet is only a few thousand years old.
Dr Batten explained this to an enquirer as follows:
‘Tas’s thesis was an internal document and his supervisors knew his
position. Tas was deceiving no one. Furthermore, Tas included in the thesis some
interesting data which showed excellent ‘isochrons’ of non-radiogenic
elements. Of course such nice lines cannot be the result of age. He made the point
(gently) that, if such nice lines exist for non-radiogenic minerals, then how can
we be sure that whatever physical/chemical processes were responsible for the non-radiogenic
relationships were not also responsible for the lines relating radiogenic ratios
which are interpreted as ages? His supervisor was not that happy about this material
being included in the thesis, but nevertheless, Tas prevailed and it is there. So
what chance would Tas have had if he had inserted an overt disclaimer about the
inaccuracy of radiometric dates? Plimer of course ignores this high-quality (1st
Class Honours) primary research invalidating one of the pet old earth ‘evidence’,
and instead resorts to ad hominem, as usual.
Of course Plimer wants creationists at universities to reveal their full hand when
they write theses and exam papers, then people like him can fail them. The Skeptics’
claim that ‘no real scientists are creationists’(which is arrant nonsense,
of course) might then become a self-fulfilling “prophecy”!’
I should point out that we unashamedly advise people to answer exam questions with
the answers the lecturers want to hear, rather than risk failing. We advise that
if they have the opportunity they preface the answer with ‘most geochronologists
believe …’ or ‘the consensus among zoologists is …’
so they can give the required answer in good conscience. If Plimer et al.
have a problem with this, all they have to do is stop the anti-creationist discrimination!
In my case, the reverse situation has applied: I was a university teaching assistant
for many years, and used to mark exam questions on radiometric dating. I marked
answers as correct if students could calculate the ‘ages’ according
to the formula N/N0 = e-kt, and derive from this formula (or
at least memorize) that k = ln2/half life—because this
is what the course expected of them. It wasn’t the place to point out the
assumptions about initial conditions, decay
rate constancy and system closure before this formula will give a valid ‘age’
from the observed isotope ratios. Of course, if Plimer were consistent, he would
have to accuse me of dishonest marking, but wouldn’t there have been a fearful
hullaballoo from the various NZ sceptical/atheist groups if I had marked any students
according to my own beliefs!
Evolution is constantly exposed to testing. New bacteria evolve at a frightening
rate.
As is common with evolutionary propagandists, Plimer is incredibly sloppy in his
definitions, creating the illusion that evolution happens by changing definitions
from one sentence to the next. Earlier, ‘evolution’ was so flexible
that he could claim that aeroplanes had evolved (by intelligent design!). Now it’s
flexible enough to include any and all changes in living things. But as we have
pointed out many times (and Plimer must know this, because he’s an expert
on creationist teachings by his own admission), the issue is whether
mutations and natural selection actually increase
the information content of the biosphere so as
to allow the development of new kinds of animals and plants with new features.
For example, a bacterium named Dinococcus radiodurans thrives in the cooling
systems of nuclear power systems. This critter did not hitch a ride on Noah’s
Ark; …
It’s actually Deinococcus—I wouldn’t normally point out
spelling errors, but Plimer has often gloated at spelling errors he claims to have
found in creationist correspondence, while many times he’s shown that he’s
hardly likely to win spelling bees himself. As we’ve pointed out in articles
such as How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?,
bacteria (and plants and marine creatures) were not required on board as obligate
passengers, because they could have survived off the Ark.
… it must have evolved in the post-World War II nuclear age.
Here again, Plimer is using ‘evolve’ to mean ‘change’, but
goo-to-you evolution requires a natural process for the addition of vast amounts
of genetic information (e.g., specifications for making brains, limbs, kidneys,
etc). There is no evidence that the changes we observe, such as mutations, add new
functional information to the biosphere. Dr Lee Spetner, who has studied mutations
and information, said ‘All point mutations that have been studied on a molecular
level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.’ (Not by Chance, The Judaica Press, NY, p.138,
1997).
If Deinococcus radiodurans does actually represent a new adaptation,
it does not prove goo-to-you Evolution —see Q&A: Mutations.
The changes required could have been horizontal or even downhill in an informational
sense—this would be expected from everything we know about genetics and information.
In fact, it seems that D. radiodurans may not have had to develop any new
abilities, but features already designed to cope with dessication and maybe
heat also happen to cope well with radiation damage. It has two ingenious DNA repair
systems, called single strand annealing and homologous recombination,
and other useful features such as multiple copies of its genome and it may also
align the loops of DNA so that identical sequences are adjacent. Because of the
shape, this is called the ‘Life Saver Hypothesis’. Of course, this is
compatible with their having been designed for a very dry environment; conversely,
‘The evolutionary origin of D. radiodurans’ repair system remains
unresolved.’ (John Travis, Meet the Superbug, Science News 154(24):376–378,
12 December 1998)
In general, the enzymes of thermophiles are not that different from their counterparts
in non-thermophiles, but just have more strong bonds (e.g. ionic and covalent bonds).
Thermophile DNA often has a higher ratio of G-C to A-T linkages, because the former
have three hydrogen bonds (which enhance stability at high temperatures) while the
latter have only two.
The ultimate test of evolution is to wipe out life on Earth and start again. There
have been five major mass extinctions and more than 20 minor mass extinctions. Each
extinction shows that whole ecologies have been wiped out, only to be replaced by
a new ecology.
This presupposes that the fossil record is due to successions of eons of time rather
than to successive burials of ecosystems by a global Flood.
Although creationists have the smile of the truly saved and abandon rationality
for the life raft of security, they cannot be dismissed as unbalanced religious
Zealots.
As shown, Plimer has not been very rational in his campaign against creationists,
so should he be trusted to judge the rationality of others? It is also strange that
he makes a virtue out of insecurity.
Many have been “born again” or embraced non-mainstream religious views
as a result of a personal catastrophe.
More imagination. In Telling Lies … Plimer made similar claims, and
evidently expects his doting God-hating admirers to recall those words of his:
‘I was interested to learn whether his [Dr Carl Wieland’s]
childhood in South Africa had been traumatic and whether there was any relationship
between a serious car accident and his embrace of creationism’.
-
Dr Wieland not only didn’t have a childhood in South Africa, he’s never
been there in his entire life! [Editorial Note: Carl has finally made his first
visit to South Africa on a speaking tour in early September 2003.]
-
At the time of that very severe accident, Dr Wieland had been a leading creationist
for many years—he had founded Creation magazine
(then called Ex Nihilo) a decade before.
But Professor Plimer has never let the facts spoil his storytelling. [For more information,
see Dr Wieland’s article Regenerating ribs: Adam and that ‘missing’
rib.]
Many have embraced Biblical creation because of the evidence, e.g.
Dr Gary Parker—see his personal testimony,
From Evolution to Creation.
As a chessmaster, I’m accustomed to playing people at their own games, so
I suppose I could match Plimer at his little games of cheap psychologization of
his opponents, but I prefer to stick to the issues rather than commit the genetic
fallacy as Plimer is doing (the issue is not who believes something, or
even why, but is it true?).
Creationist leaders cynically exploit the ill-educated, frail, the weak and the
lost by giving dogmatic “scientific” answers underpinned by scriptural
authority.
That’s a most interesting assertion, coming from a man who, to the best of
our knowledge, has never been to a CMI meeting!
A real science journal, even by Plimer’s simplistic definitions, would demand
evidence, but Australasian Science is not such a journal, so evidence is
apparently not required to back up even ludicrous assertions.
They are excellent communicators who call on a mass of unrelated
and extraordinary “facts” to denigrate science. Most talk in areas outside
their expertise, …
This statement comes from a mining geologist who in this article
pontificates about radiometric dating, biology, philosophy and theology (although
he is a fanatical atheist)! Plimer does the same thing in his book, e.g.:
‘As a scientist, I would be prepared to
predict that within the next 50 years a self-reproducing RNA molecule will be manufactured.
This will be the test for various ideas on the origin of life.’
Of course, Ian ‘I’m a professor’ Plimer’s
proclamation ‘as a scientist’ is way outside his field, and he wouldn’t
have a clue about answering the very real problems with this idea (see
Q&A: Origin of Life). He also seems not to have noticed that if it takes
heaps of intelligent input to produce such a molecule, it would hardly support the
idea that life arose without any intelligence!
… ignore the epistemological basis of knowledge, are hostile to the normal
scientific methodology (e.g. cross-checking, coherence) …
Here is ‘coherence’ Plimer style: ‘In my view, the Bible is not
true. However, it is the Truth.’ (Telling Lies p. 289).
… and are somewhat failed Faustian figures who exert power over audiences
searching for a meaning to life.
Public meetings of creationists normally allow no time for questions because they
are bad for business.
Absolute nonsense, and it is impossible to think that Plimer would not know this.
Several of his Skeptic colleagues from Canberra, for instance, spent almost a whole
day asking questions at a seminar of ours there. Questions are the norm at
CMI seminar-type meetings in public or in a church, and even at many church meetings
we often offer Q&A sessions.
Any questions are screened …
For larger seminars, where there are one or more sessions devoted to panel discussions,
we ask people to write down questions, and once those questions are answered, we
invite questions from the floor. The only ‘screening’ is to get rid
of questions that have nothing whatever to do with the topic of creation/evolution,
and to group related questions together to give some structure to the question time!
If there are just too many questions to answer, we select questions to avoid overlap
and to answer a wide range of topics rather than spend the session just answering
questions on one or two issues. All this is done to be as fair as possible to all
who have asked questions, not to censor anyone.
Actually, we like it when a Skeptic tries out one of Plimer’s arguments, because
they are so easy to knock down! See Plimer’s bloopers
(a selection).
… and there is no attempt to answer scientific questions.
Demonstrably false. Most of the questions that are answered pertain to scientific
issues. If one were to be generous, one could say that Plimer gets it wrong because
he’s never had the courage to front up to a CMI meeting! In which case, of
course, he has no right to say such things.
However, Plimer fronted up to a meeting in Brisbane arranged by the Qld Skeptics
last year. At this meeting, short (20 minutes each) presentations were made by CMI’s
Carl Wieland and an atheist, Professor Almond, head of the Religion Department at
the University of Queensland (a bit like putting Dracula in charge of the bloodbank!).
Then the rest of the evening was given over to questions from the floor, for the
Skeptics to ‘do their best’. Indeed Plimer himself asked a question
(actually more of a long-winded rant than a question). In other words, Plimer knows
that what he writes is downright wrong. And readers of Australasian Science
have been seriously misled on many other counts in Plimer’s article.
Also, in his book Telling Lies …, Plimer devotes a lot of space to
a woman who was permitted to ask a question from the floor at a major creation seminar
at the University of Melbourne in 1992 (where there were highly qualified scientists
including a paleontologist, geologist, biologist, etc.). So his own words
refute him (with a lot of his customary distortion of events). While it’s
inexcusable for Australasian Science to publish allegations without checking
the other side (and censoring the other side when they attempt to correct the misinformation),
it’s just daft to publish allegations refuted by the alleger himself!
It also must be noted that Plimer tried to portray the woman in question as a puzzled
supporter, whereas the hostility and sarcasm in her voice and demeanour should be
apparent to anyone watching the video recording of the event. It’s even more
curious that Plimer didn’t reveal that it was his own wife!
Scientists involved in creationism “debates” are often asked to sign
a contract specifying that certain arguments are not to be presented.
More fairy tales from the Plimer woods. If such a ‘contract’ existed
it would not affect Plimer, because he never presents any real scientific arguments
but resorts to abusive ad hominem.
Debates use diversionary tactics and are never in the format of a true debate.
This is an excellent description of Plimer’s own debating tactics! CMI has
engaged in many formal debates (see Carl Wieland against one
of Plimer’s buddies, Paul Willis, which is available on
DVD, and CMI v Australian Skeptics on the Sydney Morning
Herald website.
Few scientists have the stomach for such forums where most scientists become trapped
in trivial aspects of science rather than dealing with the misleading, deceptive
and unChristian conduct of creationists.
It’s curious what a fanatical atheist like Plimer could mean by ‘unchristian’
… And Plimer is just side-tracking from the issue that he has shown himself
to be incapable of answering the real scientific arguments of creationists. Instead,
he tacitly admits to preferring ad hominem arguments.
Debaters are unable to cope with Christians who are scientists, Christians who see
no conflict between religion and science and Christians who abhor the methods and
tactics of the creationists.
Unable to cope? Our web site has much material that challenges the unbelief of such
compromising Christians. See, for example, Some Questions for
Theistic Evolutionists.
Many debaters have shown that creationism is underpinned by scientific fraud and
that the financial structure of creationist organisations are questionable.
I wonder if Plimer understands the subtle difference between “shown”
and claimed? Plimer lacks both the scientific competence outside his own
narrow field and the ethical framework (he is a materialist and
morality does not derive from mere matter) to be a reliable judge of whether
‘scientific fraud’ has been committed. His claims here repeated about
financial impropriety are baseless and Plimer knows that he is misleading the readers
of Australasian Science with this innuendo.
Unlike mainstream religions, creationist organisations engage in no charitable activities.
A proper comparison would be creationist organisations and Skeptics organisations!
Both organisations aim to present and defend a particular viewpoint, not ‘engage
in charitable activities’. However, it must be stressed that many individual
creationists and creation-supporting churches are at the forefront of charitable
activities. A World Vision worker indicated to us some time ago that conservative
churches (i.e., those that are creationist) are the most generous. Conversely, liberal
‘Christian’ churches (basically the ones Plimer likes to call ‘mainstream’)
are typically more interested in lobbying for more socialistic government intervention
than in personal charity, and usually ignore biblical principles, except when they
can be twisted to support their agenda. One theologically liberal minister in New
Zealand even proclaimed that it was OK for poor people to steal from supermarkets!
After all, if Darwinian survival of the fittest is true, then there is no logical
foundation for charity or moral laws. And atheists have a far lower rate of charitable
activities than Christians, so if Plimer were really so interested in charity, he
would stop pushing evolution, which according to Dawkins makes it possible to be
an ‘intellectually fulfilled atheist’. See also
‘You should be feeding the hungry’.
It is not surprising that theologians and mainstream Christians claim that creationism
damages Christianity.
If that is really true, because Plimer is an ardent secular humanist he should be
cheering on the creationists! However, atheist/Skeptic/humanist organisations lead
the charge against creationism, knowing full well that our teachings seriously challenge
their atheistic faith. Conversely, they hardly bother with modern ‘mainstream’
churchians, precisely because they pose not the slightest threat to the humanist
religion.
Plimer’s comment is designed to woo compromising Churchians who might be repulsed
by too overt a display of atheism. To use Lenin’s phrase, atheistic evolutionists
try to cultivate them as ‘useful idiots’. Such are too gullible to realise
that they are helping to undermine their own structure. See
The Skeptics and their ‘Churchian’ Allies. To reinforce the
attraction, Australasian Science even published a picture of Plimer with
a backdrop of a church’s stained glass window.
Science is advancing at a breakneck speed. More than 90% of scientists who have
ever lived are alive today.
Maybe, but how does this prove that evolution is superior to creation?
Each year major aspects of science are recast in the light of new scientific advances,
and each year science challenges theology.
This reveals precisely the folly of professing Christians re-interpreting the Bible
to fit in with current ‘science’. If ‘major aspects of science
are recast in the light of new scientific of advances’ so often, then why
should Christians be challenged by something that’s likely to be outdated
in a year or two?
These exciting times allow people to use science to understand the natural world
and to use theology to understand what it is to be human.
An atheist using theology?? As usual, the materialistic propagandist invokes the
dubious fact / value distinction to pretend that science explains everything to
do with the real world, while leaving a vague place for ‘theology’ in
the area of ‘values’. But it’s important to note that the materialist
such as Plimer has the axiom that the natural world is all there is! So despite
their language designed to suck in the gullible churchians to their cause, they
won’t give up a single thing to ‘theology’, at least in its normal
sense of ‘the study of God’.
Debating Skeptics in general
We advise people not to waste lots of time in newsgroups etc.—the same discredited
anti-creationist arguments and point-scoring rhetoric becomes boring after a while
(I’ve been there and done that). But even those not involved with newsgroups
may have to deal with anti-creationists who parrot stuff by Plimer and his uncritical
admirers from the Australian Skeptics. The most important principle is not to stay
on the defensive, but follow the practice of Jesus Christ and ask opponents to justify
their credibility under their own belief system.
Instead of wasting lots of time refuting all the wild allegations these people make,
point to a few demonstrably false charges and examples of scientific incompetence
by Plimer. Then ask why we should waste any more time dealing with a demonstrably
unreliable and vexatious critic, or trust people like the Australian Skeptics who
condone such scientific incompetence and unethical behaviour.
Ask why we should even trust an atheist to tell the truth in principle? If atheists
believe they are just rearranged pond scum, and that there is no absolute moral
lawgiver, then on what grounds can they justify truth-telling? They can’t
say that there is some absolute moral law that says it is objectively wrong in the
cosmic theme of things. The usual rationalization is that it is a behavioural pattern
that conferred a survival advantage in our alleged ape-like ancestors or in primitive
societies, or they argue from expedience by saying that truth is merely useful for
harmonious function of society. The evolutionists Lanier and Dawkins agree that
evolution entails that our ‘best impulses have no basis in nature’—see
Evolution—No Morality.
And since under their world view, truth-telling may only be a matter of expedience,
then if it’s expedient to deceive for the sake of the cause, then what in
their own worldview is stopping them? Plimer is on record as justifying outright
lies and other sorts of deception if it helps the anti-creationist cause. So we
advise asking any Plimerite: ‘how can we know that anything else you or he
says isn’t just more deception to support the cause?’
Conversely, Christians by definition are followers of the One who is ‘the
way, the truth and the life’ (John
14:6), and who commanded us not to lie. While there are examples of professing
Christians who lie, they are being inconsistent with their professed belief system.
But humanists who lie are being perfectly consistent with an evolution-based worldview.
Futher reading
| “One little bit doesn’t make a difference.” It’s a good job CMI didn’t think like that. We had to start somewhere producing information, one word and one article at a time. Similarly, please don’t think your small donation doesn’t help. They can add together to bring a shower of blessings.  | | |
|
