To the above I will add that there are times when it’s less clear. The horrifying disaster by Robert Shedinger, titled The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms, is probably the product of his own incompetence coupled to the dishonesty of the DI. So, for example, we get this odd statement from him:
“Those who argue that a Darwinian microevolutionary process can account for the origin of higher taxa base their view on imagined scenarios, not documented evidence, such as when we are told that the bones of the reptilian jaw evolved into the bones of the mammalian inner ear.”
The strong sense given by Shedinger’s book is that he is utterly clueless about biology, so such a statement from him, though horribly wrong, is probably something one can chalk up to his ignorance rather than to dishonesty. But where did he GET that notion?
Well, he got it from DI fellow Jonathan Wells, and you can tell. Note that the ossicles are said to be in the “inner ear.” Are they? They are not. But he has copied the misstatement made repeatedly by Wells on the same point.
What Wells did to Shedinger is what the DI is trying to do, likewise, to people who regard themselves as relatively sophisticated but who have no grasp of the material in question here. They’re trying to create the idea that there is something intellectually respectable about modern creationism and that their hideous and dishonest positions deserve to be regarded seriously by serious-minded people. When we dismiss them as delusional, we actually help their project along the way: pointing out their rank dishonesty is important, even if some people find it unpleasant.
The important bit being “in their minds,” and not the Bible itself, but the tribe’s interpretation of parts and total contempt for other, far more important parts.
But far too many of them, as evidenced here, will claim that the evidence itself supports their position without looking at a speck of it, deliberately intending to deceive, bearing false witness, and directly violating the Ninth Commandment.
Therefore supporting the tribe is far more important than the most important parts of the Bible.
Speaking as you are here of the audience and not the ID fraudsters themselves, “boy, howdy.” It’s a source of mixed amusement and horror to me in my particular milieu of Amazon book reviews, and it is illustrated CONSTANTLY by the clownish ignorance of the positive reviewers.
Take the latest book, “Return of the God Hypothesis.” This is written at perhaps a sixth-grade level. All discussion of scientific matters in it is simplified for ease of reading. It bears no similarity in any way to a technical work – not a paper in Science, not a college textbook, not a high-school textbook.
While sometimes a reviewer will remark how good a job Meyer does of making complicated subjects easy to understand (actually, of course, to MIS-understand), there are a lot of comments about the difficulty of the book that show that these reviewers would struggle to get through a Harlequin romance novel:
“Sometimes, it is just too much for the average layperson to grasp. I did okay with this book because I am familiar with most of the material, but if a person is just learning about these topics for the first time, it can seem a little overwhelming. In his previous works, I had to, at times, skip through some of the more technical explanations and move to the parts in the chapters that were summaries.”
“It is far - far - too technical and obscure for a lay reader…”
“It is really heavy stuff. So heavy that I found my eyes glazing over while reading this immensely dense text.”
“This is an excellent book. It is, though, quite a hard read, requiring considerable concentration. But it is well worth the effort.”
Anyone who is reasonably literate and who actually reads the book is liable to laugh out loud on reading those takes on it – unless it motivates him to weep in despair for wretched humanity instead.
Ha! No. Looks good! Lately my reading habits are limited to political history, creationism and actual science.
But, you know, on that Cat in the Hat bird book: it’s marvelous when people write for kids who are curious about the natural world. And curiosity about the natural world is, I suspect, what is missing from so many of the people who read creationist books. They really don’t give a crap about any of this for its own sake. They’re not in awe of the complexity of nature or the characteristics of living things or the ways in which living things work. So they wind up being “interested” in biology for one narrow purpose alone: to prove that science is wrong and the Bible is right.
It’s hard to even come up with an analogy that isn’t hilariously weird that captures what that is. Imagine a fellow who hasn’t got the slightest interest in metallurgy but who, for some weird reason, has decided that bridges should never be built of steel because steel is evil. He doesn’t want to know one damned thing about steel, or about other metal and metal alloys, or about why one material is chosen over another. He can’t be arsed to understand terms describing things like tensile strength or ductility. But he CAN sit down and read a few hundred pages by another anti-steel ideologue who uses big words and sounds like he has expertise in metallurgy, and then tell you how this is all really complex and over-his-head but it’s clear that steel for bridges is a no-go, whatever the materialist material science specialists may say to the contrary.
You know how they say that Donald Trump is a poor man’s idea of what a rich man is? The ID proponents are pretty much a stupid man’s idea of what a smart man is.
I have friends who are YEC and are curious about the world. They like botany, animal husbandry, veterinary science, and other scientific pursuits that they are able to compartmentalize according to the “Biblical worldview” taught amongst and accepted by their cherished friends.
They typically know nothing of DNA sequence nested hierarchies, population genetics, allele frequencies, genetic drift, de novo genes, etc.
I have mixed feelings about the biology discussions I’ve had with these friends. A part of me feels like they ought to stop and listen when someone who is aware of the more advanced stuff speaks on the topic. But a part of me recognizes that it’s asking a lot of anyone who has built their identity and their community around said “Biblical worldview” to humbly stand by while it gets gently poked.
No doubt the “Biblical worldview” cast of characters includes some grifters and schemers, as pretty much any sufficiently large social group would have. However, I see no benefit to casting aspersions on motives. Such attacks inevitably provoke unhelpful defensive reactions, in my experience.
I think it depends upon whether one is trying to tell the truth or whether one is trying to be diplomatic. Saying that Josef Stalin was a bad guy is undoubtedly something that will provoke unhelpful defensive reactions in someone, if you’re trying to be diplomatic. But not saying it has a cost in truthfulness.
The difference I can see is that, unlike many (most?) sufficiently large social groups, most of the leadership of the creationist movement appear to be the “grifters and schemers” you allude to. Other than a few notable exceptions (Kurt Wise and Todd Wood come immediately to mind), I cannot think of a prominent creationist who does not come across as more than a little disingenuous.
It is always interesting to ask ID/creationists some simple questions about their experience in the field of biology. For example, outside of high school science class, have you ever looked through a microscope? Have you ever searched for and downloaded a DNA sequence? Have you ever used a pipette like this one:
It is pretty amazing just how few ID/creationists can answer yes to all of those questions. Of those who are “on the evolution side”, there are many here who can answer yes to all of those questions. All too often, it seems like we are dealing with the left side of the Dunning-Kruger curve.
Speaking for myself…
Q1) Rarely. Don’t do much cell biology plus what I do doesn’t require looking at cells under a microscope. For bacteria, I found using the sense of smell was more informative about the cultures.
Q2) More rarely. Maybe a half dozen times required for the research.
Q3) Similar, yes. That one in particular? Yech. I’ve done more micro- and nanoliter dispensing with Velocity 11 Bravos, Tecans and Wellmates than I’ve ever done with a handheld, single channel pipettor. That’s how you get carpal tunnel… We did have to rack our own Eppendorf tips from bags in grad school to save money. Really hated that…
I am hoping to get some of that same technology in the near future. I was also witness to a coworker paying his 8 year old 25 cents a box for racking tips. That was brilliant.
